Perhaps, after assisting the beaten man and providing food and shelter, the Samaritan finds the same man on the road in the same condition. At that point we provide assistance and maybe suggest an alternate route. We are caring for not only his physical needs at this point and are now moving in the direction of guidance.

I am speaking philosophically about things that ought to be and I appreciate you taking the time to work through these things with me. I understand that in the current situation it is impractical to consider battling the AIDS epidemic without providing condoms. I am not a missionary and I certainly don’t know what I would do if I were in that situation facing such despair.

Casey, If I understood you correctly, I think we’re not supposed to take into account how it is that people got themselves into trouble so much as helping them out of it. Missionaries in Africa face people suffering from AIDS all the time and have to decide how to help them. Unless the parable of the good Samaritan means nothing. And of course, many of those who have AIDS received it through various means–children whose mothers were infected themselves become infected, and then marry, and then yes, if they need condoms, they should be given just as we’d give a hungry person a piece of bread. The gospel of Jesus is the good news for the poor. I think God’s word is absolutely clear about love requiring us to care for our fellows according to their needs.

On contraception, I am conflicted between stewardship and following God’s word. I wonder how much of our sexual drive comes from the fall. C.S. Lewis gave the analogy of a strip tease involving a pork chop. How we might think this type of behavior odd to get excited and go about smacking our lips and thinking about pork chops all day. Lewis made the connection that our sex drive may be of the same sort of depravity and was the result of sin. From depravity we attempt to place bandages over sin in the attempt to be right with God. Condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS. As Christians, shouldn’t we try to work from a position closest to the word of God as possible? Shouldn’t we be concerned with what ought to be in cooperation with Gods word. How much of that involves ignoring him and then trying to solve the problems we create. I agree the state’s concerns and our concerns as christians will ultimately be different. To say that procreation is God’s gift to us and his command to fill the earth is not mocked when we artificially prevent creation is a sort of mockery in my opinion. Again, I am conflicted and I am trying to work out my own thoughts on these matters.

Thank you, for your thoughtful responses

On civil unions: I’m not aware that civil unions specify whether or not the partners of the union are expected to have sex (as is the case with marriage.) I believe that failure to consumate marriage has always been grounds to annul the marriage (in the case of catholic church teaching) or to end the marriage (in the case of the state’s recognition of marriage.) Again, there are church communities that have arranged for same sex people to be in a form of committed union (albeit without sexual intimacy), called brotherhoods or sisterhoods or monastaries. These groupings can be a stable family unit for adopting children. I know a catholic sisterhood that does this. In the case of “civil unions” I think the state is and ought to be uninterested in the exact nature of the relationship between the parties involved when it comes to sex or the absence of sex. Whether a Christian thinks the state should be in the business of providing civil unions or not seems to me to be a great example of a debatable issue among Christians. Some would say it’s fine, others would say it’s not a good idea. But it wouldn’t be a position that would necessarily constitute mocking God’s creative purpose, in my understanding.