AmericanPapist Comments
The article point up the fact that ordinary people--even smart ones--have a hard time coming to grips with things like intent and double effect in moral analysis. And when you say things like usury are okay sometimes--because they're not really usury--you tend to get the effect of people buying into the thing wholesale.
People can understand black-and-white stuff, but they have a hard time understanding anything more refined than, "X is bad!"
Why just HIV? As every Catholic knows, there's been a ban against condomized sex in other situations wherein other diseases and even pregnancy pose a grave risk. Diabetes. Heart conditions. Risks of prolapsed uterus. I mean, they're innumerable. In those cases, a couple can be celibate or practice NFP, since they have a grave reason to practice it.
So how come all of this debate only mentions HIV and condoms? It's not like the Pope will come out and say, "No condomized sex for anyone in these grave situations, except in cases of HIV".
Because this "debate" is only centered around HIV, I tend to think this "debate" is a complete invention by progressive opportunists who are hoping that mere exposure to their cause after Cdl. Martini's comment will result in wider acceptance of their cause. I doubt there is genuine debate at the Vatican at all. If there were genuine debate at the Vatican, they wouldn't be narrowing this down to a debate about what to do only in the case of HIV, with so many other grave situations besides HIV.
Well, in the case of pregnancy there's no way double effect would work since contraception is precisely what you're intending to do in such cases and therefore cannot be a foreseen but unwilled side-effect. As for other diseases, you have a point.
Commenting by HaloScan
