second thoughts on second things

By Diogenes (articles ) | May 03, 2006

Below I quote C.S. Lewis:

To sacrifice the greater good for the less and then not to get the lesser good after all-- that is the surprising folly.

Since my occasion for citing that quote was a conversation about the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS, let me add a second thought.

A married couple might decide to sacrifice the integrity of their marital act for the sake of preventing disease. We could all understand that decision, even if we did not condone it.

But the decision is based on the assumption that a condom will prevent the transfer of the HIV virus. Will it? Reliably? Always? Because one failure could mean a death sentence. And then it wouldn't be just the marital act that was sacrificed; it would be a human life, too-- offered up as a victim to condomalotry.

Given any choice at all-- and unless we're talking about rape, which is an entirely different matter, couples do have a choice-- rational people do not base serious moral calculations on the assumption that a thin sheet of permeable latex is adequate defence against a tiny, deadly virus.

Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 7 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - May. 07, 2006 10:58 PM ET USA

    Hypothetical word games toy with reality which in this case would not justify an oops, I was wrong. You did get it. I hold. Ah, but I distinguish! Tune in to "Let's Make a Deal." There you can lose only a million dollars. How about celebacy? It is possible to live that life. Even some priests do it.

  • Posted by: - May. 05, 2006 3:01 PM ET USA

    I don't know what you mean. Condoms have been proven in laboratory tests to be 100% effective in preventing HIV transmission. . . . . . No if we could just get everyone with HIV into a lab....

  • Posted by: - May. 04, 2006 12:03 PM ET USA

    I've heard the HIV virus is transmitted by ANY transfer of bodily fluids. Doesn't this also involve kissing? No one is even remotely suggesting we refrain from that also. Condoms are manufactured to a standard of holes no larger than 5 microns in diameter. The HIV virus is 1 micron in diameter. How will a condom "PREVENT" the transfer of the HIV virus? It may reduce the possibilities, but it certainly won't "prevent" them. The word "NO" is also a practice of "safe sex".

  • Posted by: - May. 04, 2006 11:10 AM ET USA

    Quadratus, perhaps you are beginning to believe what Pope Paul VI meant when he said: " I fear we have only succeeded in allowing Satan into the sanctuary."

  • Posted by: - May. 03, 2006 6:31 PM ET USA

    What kind of monster wants to risk the life of another if knowingly infected with HIV, married or not?

  • Posted by: - May. 03, 2006 1:35 PM ET USA

    Well put! If I contracted AIDS or any STD I would remove myself from any contact with my beloved spouse - I wouldnt risk the smallest chance of her infection. My love would be expressed by a total abstinence that would even avoid the near occasion of sin (that is passionate kissing for you folks in Rio Linda)

  • Posted by: Quadratus - May. 03, 2006 12:49 PM ET USA

    The condom issue is a Trojan horse (no pun intended), a crevice where the forces of “modernity” want to pry open and enter. On humanitarian grounds (baseless) they want to start a process where the Church accepts a contraceptive method. Once this horse is inside the walls then total acceptance of all contraceptives follows and not far behind abortion. Those modernists inside and outside the Church are counting on this.