You are taking the liberty of projecting things on me that are untrue, and that doesn't edify either of us. Michael Moore will register as a republican the day I become a knee jerk apologist for the Church. Church leadership would classify me as fringe left in my views on Church teachings. Moroever, you know nothing of my involvement with Maryknoll, the missionary organization in my hometown of Ossining, NY. Maryknoll missionaries, both lay and clerical, have been criticized by conservative catholics in large part for their pragmatism on these subjects, and many have even lost their lives in Latin America and Africa for advocating for their flock against corrupt governments, juntas, and other political involvment that didn't quite pass muster with reagan republicans.

I hate to sound redundant, but as much as I may dissent with the Church on many issues, I find it impossible to see the Church's culpability in a scenario where a husband ignores the teachings on premarital chastity &marital fidelity, who contracts HIV from conduct contrary to how a Catholic should behave, then knowingly endangering his wife's very life by arbitrarily invoking the no condom teaching. That would be like a guy who gets drunk, gets high, gets in a fight, and then crashes his 1970 Dodge Dart suing Chrysler for not having installed an airbag.

To answer your first questions, I need only point to Sunday's homily, given at my church by Monsignor Harry Byrne (himself a man unafraid to question the Church on many issues, as this article questioning celibacy will attest: http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php?id_article=883 ): Jesus' message was one of mercy, not sacrifice. The rules are there for that expression, not for burnt offerings. So the short answer is that the teaching of moral proportion going back to Aquinas and Augustine clearly release a Catholic from any rule that would intrinsically break a larger rule, especially in the context of a sacrament like marriage. For instance, it is bad to lie, but if the lie is to an SS agent about the jews hiding under your floor, the lie is more than OK, for obvious reasons. The same goes for the hysterectomy example I already gave you, and, from the Monsignor's mouth, obviously if a spouse has HIV, condoms are the rule of the day. Now, there may be some examples where if the husband is really a shit the Church would grant an annullment, but if that would leave the woman in worse shape, then obviously a dissolution is not the way to go, and no Church leader would mandate one in that case. Either way, the Church is not going to change their doctrine just because of archaic cultural practices in some cultures that treat women like dirt. By the way, this idea of moral proportion is not some arcane piece of docotrinal esoterica. It is taught to children in first grade CCD on through college level theology. It is among the most common questions asked in Sunday school or religion class, and in 37 years I have never heard anything to the contrary.

I read the Guardian article, and while I'll agree that some bishops say some ass backwards things, that paper is so vociferously anti Catholic it is like getting information on judaism from the PLO. You've got to do better than that to show that the Church is more interested in rigid allegiance to rules for their own sake than in mercy and lives (utterly preposterous, by the way). At any rate, I googled Cardinal Trujillo because I was disturbed by the quotes attributed to him by the Guardian, and I found this transcript to an interview he did for Dutch TV: http://www.wf-f.org/Lopez-Trujillooncondoms.html. The cardinal's point is that condoms do fail, and that even though they have been pushed massively on the african population, the pandemic has continued unabated. The Church has always viewed shortcuts intended to bypass chaste behavior as invitations to disaster, and moreover, they would never endorse a practice that could be interpreted as carte blanche to sin. The point is that it is better to abstain (in accordance with Church teaching) than not to abstain and think that condoms will work 100% of the time (in schism with Catholic sexual morality). My only other observation about Trujillo's controversy with condoms is that some cardinal talking out of his ass is not considered "church teaching" by any stretch. I get your point about the damage that can be done if people take those assertions to heart, but I still fail to see how anyone who put that much value on what the Church thinks would break any of the rules on sexual morality anyway, or put the condom rule ahead of all others (as well as basic logic).

What disturbs me about this whole issue is how people purport to be so hip to catholic sexual morality when their source of information is not exactly reliable. If you cite the Guardian or an organization with an axe to grind, consider the source. There are plenty of sources with dissenting opinions from Rome who have the knowledge to navigate the doctrine. Commonweal, linked above, is one such source. Also, if you feel so strongly about this, have you never sought out a knowledgeable Catholic or a priest to clarify the questions you asked me before you start making condemnations? Wouldn't that be a fair thing to do before doing things like intimating that a guy like me, with a laundry list of things I differ with Rome about, is a knee jerk apologist?

Phil

Your first sentence is the reason why I am so reticent to bother engaging anyone in a discussion about this. I am not lying about anything. Catholic morality on sex starts with chastity and goes on to monogomy within the marital relationship. Only then does the teaching on condoms & artificial contraception even come into play. If Catholics would follow Catholic teaching from the START and not some arbitrary point, AIDS could not spread. If people aren't Catholic, I see no issue; why do they care what the Church says? If they are Catholic, and one partner gets AIDS from adultery and the spouse has unprotected sex with them anyway, that is simply idiotic and certainly not the Church's fault. You don't invite peril. The theology is not as myopic as some would assert. For instance, while the Church codemns any medical procedure for sterilization under the contraception teachings, they aren't going to tell someone that they can't have a life-saving hysterectomy in the case of cancer. I say again, the doctrine is taught as a whole, not a la carte.

I have read of criticism here and elsewhere of Catholic leadership for discouraging condom use, but I think it is only fair to mention that the teaching is of abstinence and marital monogomy. If those teachings were followed, condoms would not be an issue. It makes no sense to me for someone to ignore church teachings on fornication and adultery but suddenly make the Roman Canon a priority when it comes to condoms. Moreover, the Church will never get 'pragmatic' in the planned parenthood sense and do a 180 on Aquinas and 1000+ years of other teachings because they are resigned to people doing it anyway. If I am missing something (entirely possible)I am all ears; no human is above criticism, even (especially) Catholic leadership.