Not until we've walked a mile ...

I MUST ADMIT I WAS A BIT MIFFED AT THE RESPONSES TO Bishop Kevin Dowling's November Sounding Board ("Let's not condemn condoms in the fight against AIDS") that were so quick to condemn women like Lydia--women in Africa who have no family and no support system. They can lie down and die or go into prostitution. That's real life. I wish it weren't, but it is.

The other thing that Dowling didn't mention is this: Many women in Central and South America as well as in Africa who are married have to worry about getting HIV/AIDS from their husbands. They work away from home for long lengths of time and use prostitutes who could very well be infected. These are moral women trying to stay alive.

We in the United States have no idea what it is to live day to day in sub-Saharan Africa, in Guatemala, in the barrios of Brazil. Bishop Dowling knows--as do other missionaries. We in the First World would do well to listen with open ears to their questions about how to fight AIDS in countries where way too many are dying. We have a lot to answer for if we continue to remain self-righteous.

Joan M. Brausch

Midland, Mich.

There is something I do not understand in the debate about whether the Catholic Church should permit the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS. Obviously, most of the people who are affected have already rejected the church's teaching on sexual morality. Those in danger of AIDS for whom a condom would be useful are already engaging in casual or promiscuous sex. Why would they be interested in whether the church permits condoms?

The church does not permit fornication and adultery. Are there really people who ignore the church's teaching on chastity and purity but would think using a condom is a sin because the church teaches this? Do they need permission to use a condom in order to have illicit sex safely? What am I missing here?

Bernadette Moline

Williamston, Mich.