Word is that there’s a new bioethics document cookin’ at the CDF.
Good!
I tol’ y’all that we’d see doctrinal development on bioethical questions during the coming years.
The latest document is supposed to be a sequel to Donum Vitae, which was prepared under the auspices of Cardinal JoePre-16 back in 1987 and that presciently looked forward to things like embryonic stem cell research. (In fact, just recently I was quoting Donum Vitae in a guide on stem cell research I was writing).
The new doc is expected to pick up where DV left off, covering new bioethical challenges that were unthinkable 20 years ago but that are now not only thinkable but in hot development.
I’m lookin’ forward to it!
Let’s hope it’s as prescient as its predecessor was!
P.S. It ain’t gonna deal with the use of condoms to stop the AIDS virus. No big surprise there.
P.P.S. There’s a new document on natural law in the works, too! That’s another one I’m really looking forward to! (See above link.)
What the new Prefect at the CDF might do makes me nervous.
“I tol’ y’all that we’d see doctrinal development on bioethical questions during the coming years.”
“I tol’ y’all”????
The proper words are, “I told you”.
We who make up the vast majority of speakers of English (and readers of this “web log”) do not use, do not want to use, and do not want writers to use, the sloppy, careless slang of rednecked hillbillies. For us, this dialect of lazy and undisciplined people is neither necessary nor entertaining nor edifying, but rather is disgusting. It is purposeless and of value to no one.
Everyone needs to grow up and act maturely, writing and speaking English properly.
Lighten up, Francis.
I sure enough hope the above post from John (idiom) was made tongue-in-cheek, y’all.
Is there a universal law that all men named ‘John’ also act like grade-A jerks?
John really!!!
If this were a document written and published by Jimmy I could see the problem with “y’all”. But let’s be kind. One thing that attracts (I spelled it right this time guys!) me to Jimmy is his “y’alls” and “howdy”..his dialect. That is just the opinion of one Southerner. Light N up!
“P.S. It ain’t gonna deal with the use of condoms to stop the AIDS virus. No big surprise there”
Why not address the condom/AIDS virus issue?
Am I wrong that even the CDC has stated that the condom was never made or designed to prevent this ? Why not state emphatically NO! or has that already been said but just “misunderstood” by the media?
John (IDM):
What is it with you????
Is this some sort of obsession having to do with the fine elements of proper English or a mere diversion for you to purposely cause annoyance among the crowds here?
You made a similar post back then on Dec 26, 2006 concerning the topic Aquatic Tribbles Found In South Carolina!:
“just down the hill from my Paw-Paw’s house”
How in the world am I supposed to know what a “Paw-Paw” is?
I cannot STAND it when people write strange words or phrases, expecting their readers magically to know what they mean.
It is the mark of a good writer to EXPLAIN himself clearly. He DEFINES unfamiliar words, expressions, abbreviations — or, better yet, avoids them.
Everyone needs to grow up and act maturely, writing and speaking English properly.
Pedants also need to grow up and act maturely.
I’m glad to see the new bioethics document is coming out. I know the wheels of the church turn slowly, but the whole stem cell / cloning / bio-engineering thing is moving like greased lightning. I guess a lot of scientists and researchers are not encumbered by the constraints of ethics, natural law, or even plain good sense.
John – I’m sure there are plenty of dull, prosaic, grammatically correct blogs out there that you would appreciate. Why note grace THEM with your wisdom?
This is Jimmy’s house. All we-uns are guests. It ain’t neighborly to come fer supper and then belly-ache about the grub.
Why not address the condom/AIDS virus issue?
Am I wrong that even the CDC has stated that the condom was never made or designed to prevent this ? Why not state emphatically NO! or has that already been said but just “misunderstood” by the media?
AnonnyMouse:
What the Pope did do was ask a particular decastry in Rome (that’s a department over there), ask them to look at the scientific evidence regarding condom use and whether it stops HIV or not.
They’re talking about using condoms to prevent AIDS, or the AIDS virus, from being transmitted from one person to another, and, specifically, in places like Africa and so forth. That means that in that case the condom would not be used as a contraceptive; because you’re not trying to prevent conception – it does prevent conception as a side effect (as long as the condom doesn’t fail). But, that’s not the purpose it’s being employed for in this case. It’d be employed as an anti-viral agent.
Because there have been Cardinals who have been running around saying different things about this and so he wanted to kinda get them all on one page and, as a pre-requisite for that, the Pope needed to try and find out what does the science say about this; because if condoms do not prevent the transmission of the AIDS virus, then there’s no point of even talking about this question.
So, the Pope did ask this one decastry to look into that and prepare a report on what science tells us about whether it does even stop the AIDS virus from going through or not, or if it even stop enough of it from going through to prevent infection with AIDS.
But, that decastry’s competence was only, or its brief in this case, was only to look at the scientific question not the moral question. That’s the responsibility of a different decastry and so, once the report is done, they’re supposed to forward the report over to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for them to look at it.
Iohannes,!
Y’er an idjut. Ou, si vous preferez,
I remain,
Jay E. Adrian
Postscript: Do pardon my lack of les accents aigus.
Be so advised:
It should read “FAVETE LINGVIS PVER” between the comma and exclamation point in the second sentence in my previous post.
J
I guess a lot of scientists and researchers are not encumbered by the constraints of ethics, natural law, or even plain good sense.
Tim J.:
Many of the scientists I have made the acquaintence of in my career actually truly believe (at least, the ones who aren’t actually out solely for the distinction) that scientific progress to benefit humanity is of the utmost importance and that it is invariably unjust for anybody, most of all, an institution like the Catholic Church to stand in the way of that progress that would (in their view) undoubtedly promote the good (such as the standard of living) of mankind and solve many of its medical dilemmas.
Of course, we know, from our point of view, just how wrong they are in theirs when you seriously consider the elements involved in making that happen. Even further, there is no real certainty that such would truly benefit humanity given its current results, but, then again, they would turn that back on us by pointing out that this is because we prevent them from doing so by our protests.
Unfortunately, there are the many who tend to think they are taking an objective stand on the issue, unencumbered by the personal beliefs we hold which, to their minds, clouds our judgment in the matter.
Put another way, in their minds, why not espouse these things which further the progress of research that may very well bring about various medical miracles to many health disorders and terminal illnesses that very well plague our society and have for many, many generations over the risible point that revolves around whether or not something as trivial as an embroyo can truly be considered a person?
Of course, the latter would demonstrate the very point that we would be trying to make from our end.
I also know that there are many good, ethical scientists (religious or otherwise) who would reject the kind of blind dice-rolling that others are encouraging.
If people think we can do the science first and worry about the ethics and consequences later, they need to check with Oppenheimer and Einstein.
OKAY! Thank you Esau. And I don’t think I stated before that I am happy about this document. They do need to have clear boundaries regarding bioethics.
The AIDS/condom issue seems very obvious to me.
You just DON’T take the risk. The CDC even says that IF you KNOW a partner is infected, the only course is to NOT have relations of that kind with the person…with or without the condom.
This is straight from the CDC:
The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to
abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous
relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.
If people think we can do the science first and worry about the ethics and consequences later, they need to check with Oppenheimer and Einstein.
Tim J.:
Like you, I believe similarly.
In fact, as I mentioned in passing, I think such folks should take heed of the apparent lessons inherent in the tale of Frankenstein and in its character, Dr. Victor Frankenstein; the fact that we musn’t allow our ambitions to get ahead of wisdom.
As I’ve said in the past, this modern promethean tale has great significance for humanity as a whole especially in these times of great modern technological advances as in DNA cloning and the like.
In the modern world we live in today, our technological capabilities has advanced far ahead of our collective wisdom that only time can tell whether our current actions in terms of certain heinous practices as far as cloning is concerned (such as that of human individuals) as well as stem cell research, who knows what dire repercussions lie in wait for us in the future?
We have made ourselves gods without the wisdom necessary to tame its power.
AnonnyMouse:
OKAY! Thank you Esau. And I don’t think I stated before that I am happy about this document.
Please kindly clarify on what you seem to believe I said regarding you on this matter, either implicitly or explicitly.
They do need to have clear boundaries regarding bioethics.
Certainly. I don’t think I’ve said to the contrary. In fact, I’ve often advocated such principles in my professional life.
The AIDS/condom issue seems very obvious to me.
You just DON’T take the risk. The CDC even says that IF you KNOW a partner is infected, the only course is to NOT have relations of that kind with the person…with or without the condom.
This is straight from the CDC:
The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.
I believe you may be neglecting the fact that the situation that’s being contemplated is that which relates specifically to such “hot” regions as those in Africa and the like where AIDS is overwhelmingly prevalent in the population.
Therefore, it would seem that one or both of the individuals within a married couple existing in such a region are infected with the disease.
Esau
Thank you for the sum up on the AIDS/condom issue and Rome’s response.
This was MY general comment/opinion
“They do need to have clear boundaries regarding bioethics”
“I believe you may be neglecting the fact that the situation that’s being contemplated is that which relates specifically to such “hot” regions as those in Africa and the like where AIDS is overwhelmingly prevalent in the population.”
I don’t believe that the evidence of the CDC neglects the point that the only way to prevent this is to NOT have relations with someone who is infected, with or without a condom.
AND, in my opinion, if my husband were to be diagnosed and I not, I never would imagine that he would be ME at a risk. That would be selfish. Neither would I put him at a risk.
Response to your last comment; if one had AIDS and the other didn’t, I think it would be selfish and risky to use the condom. And if they BOTH had it, well then it would be a moot point.
AnonnyMouse:
Don’t get me wrong — I believe you have posted very valid points in both your prior as well as in this, your latest post.
AND, in my opinion, if my husband were to be diagnosed and I not, I never would imagine that he would be ME at a risk. That would be selfish. Neither would I put him at a risk.
You’re truly a loving and faith-filled person; that is awesome! If only there were others that possessed the same quality!
However, there may be those who feel otherwise and can’t stand not being with their spouse in such an intimate fashion.
There is a Japanese story I’m reminded of regarding a married couple where the husband, through his charitable work helping several peasants at various villages, had contracted a certain disease (I think it was leprosy; can’t be sure) which he did not want to pass on to his wife and, therefore, never wanted to sleep with her and ever cautiously kept his distance away from her.
Ultimately, the wife told her husband she could not stand being without him, to not actually feel the warmth of his embrace, and went on to tell her husband that she wanted, in fact, to share in her husband’s suffering because that is how much she loved him; she would actually risk contracting her husband’s disease simply for want of her husband’s embrace.
At the risk of being thrown off for hijacking this thread I will say to you, Esau
That the fact that all might not feel the same way about not having relations with their spouse when they are infected does not imply that condoms should/could be “O.k’d” in marriages where one partner is infected. It is a false sense of security. AND it drives me NUTS (not you personally) that the sex crazed world can not even fathome having an intimate (not sexual) relationship with their spouse! That is why it BURNS MY BUTT that I have not seen or heard of one Bishop saying for those infected, we need to care for you and you must NOT do anything that would infect your spouse. All intimacy with my husband does not begin and end with sex. But if you looked at the world today, you would be hard pressed to tell otherwise.
NOW if I could not even touch my husband, NOW THAT would be a sacrifice. And I personally would care for him if he were to contract leprosey. There is a difference to me.
G’nite. Sorry about the HIJACKing Jimmy
AnonnyMouse :
That the fact that all might not feel the same way about not having relations with their spouse when they are infected does not imply that condoms should/could be “O.k’d” in marriages where one partner is infected.
I don’t believe that I’ve sanctioned the use of condoms in my comments; in fact, that is the reason I highly commended you for your thought on the matter.
AND it drives me NUTS (not you personally) that the sex crazed world can not even fathome having an intimate (not sexual) relationship with their spouse!
and
All intimacy with my husband does not begin and end with sex.
Actually, the kind of love you speak of is, indeed, true love. That is why I wished that others possessed the very same quality as you have.
I know, in fact, of couples who were separated from each other during the world wars and, in spite of the immense length of time before they finally reunited, they loved each other so much, they kept themselves pure for the sake of the other in anticipation of their reunion.
These days, I know of a few spouses (those of military men/women who are out there fighting their hearts out on foreign soil and risking their very lives for their country) that actually dump their military husbands/wives (in some cases, unbeknownst to their spouse in the military) because of what they consider the inconvenience of not having sexual relations because they’re away and so, instead, engage in illicit love affairs with other folks.
I remember this loving story of an old couple where being in each other’s presence was enough for them (since that is how much they loved each other) and that it was not really the sex.
It kinda reminded me of some of the saints and their relationship with our Lord.
“I tol’ y’all ”
This is my first post here and Mr. Jimmy has made me feel right at home with his cajun accent. I lost mine years ago but it comes right back if I so desire. I suggest that John (IDM) stay away from South Louisiana if you can’t distinguish cajun from redneck. Dem cajuns dey ain’t gonna cotton to no fru fru men who tink dey better dan erryone else cher!
Laissez les bon temps rouler. …
What about the spouse who doesn’t have the luxury of the option to refuse sexual intimacy with a spouse who has AIDS?
Sharon, we always have the right to refuse. Could you be more specific?
I would like to say something else to you Sharon that you are right that we need to be open to our spouses needs (I think they are referred to as duties? or dues?) in this way and sensitive to each other. It would be an out right wrong for me to say NO forever to my husband without a ligitimate reason. BUT doesn’t AIDS supercede this? We have 3 children. Now, I do not feel it would be wrong say NO to my husband if we found out he were infected with AIDS. That “no” being forever NO because we have other responsiblities, MY being able to care for HIM and our children. If this is not agreed upon this is where a priest/counseling and/or separation would take place.
Sharon,
What about the spouse who doesn’t have the luxury of the option to refuse sexual intimacy with a spouse who has AIDS?
Posted by: Sharon | Jan 31, 2007 9:15:22 PM
It is not a luxury it is a God given right to free will. On the other hand, there are rapists, and some of them are husbands who will take by force what is not offered willingly. That is NOT sexual intimicy it is rape. Clearly in the case of rape, it is not illicit for the woman to request a condom be used to protect her from disease and pregnancy. This would have to be an actual rape and not an end-run around the morality of the situation (God will know).
God Bless,
Matt