POL / RELIGION: Pope says condoms make the AIDS problem worse

[KWhit]

Pope: Condoms not the answer in AIDS fight - Africa - msnbc.com

Benedict had never directly addressed condom use. He has said that the Roman Catholic Church is in the forefront of the battle against AIDS. The Vatican encourages sexual abstinence to fight the spread of the disease.

"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane headed to Yaounde, Cameroon, where he will begin a seven-day pilgrimage on the continent. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

Note to the Pope:

PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE SEX.

It's kind of important to many of us. Abstinance isn't really going to work.

Not surprising at all. Just disappointing.

[JediKooter]

Comming from the same church that excommunicated a mom and her daughter and some doctors because she was raped by her step dad because she had a life saving abortion?

Why are people still surprised by the moronic statements that come from the catholic church and religion in general?

Oh, and I'm sure the pope has plenty of scientific data to back up his statement...oh wait, science or common sense has never gotten in the way before, so, nevermind.

[jeff061]

He's just waiting for the Pope Hat shaped condoms before he gives his blessing.

[DaddyTorgo]

this dude with his goofy hats and 17th century beliefs is becoming less and less relevant every single day

[Crapshoot]

The Pope is an idiot.

[JediKooter]

The pope smokes dope.

[jeff061]

Well he can shoot lightening from his hands. So he has that going for him, which is nice.

[Gary Gorski]

Just out of curiosity...if you're either a) not Catholic or b) not a Catholic struggling to balance life today with the teachings of the church then why do you care what the Pope says? Does it matter what other religious leaders say? Do you really expect a religious leader to say something that would go against the entire history of teachings of that religion? Wouldn't someone like that generally be responsible for simply starting a new religion rather than be the head figure of one he/she doesn't agree with?

I always just find it odd that people get so worked up over what the Pope says or take the time to call him names or take shots at the Catholic faith. I don't think that any religious figure, Jesus himself included, laid out a groundwork and set of rules for that faith with a footnote to see what the world is like in 2000 years and then go ahead and make adjustments as needed.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Abstinance isn't really going to work for people who don't have a belief system that holds it in a high regard.

Fixed.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I don't remember propositional logic well enough to write a proof, but his argument is valid. I'm not saying that it's correct, but it's valid.

[Flasch186]

Cant wait for the usual suspects to come and defend this in here. Oh and the earth is over 5000 years old give or take a few.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Just out of curiosity...if you're either a) not Catholic or b) not a Catholic struggling to balance life today with the teachings of the church then why do you care what the Pope says? Does it matter what other religious leaders say? Do you really expect a religious leader to say something that would go against the entire history of teachings of that religion? Wouldn't someone like that generally be responsible for simply starting a new religion rather than be the head figure of one he/she doesn't agree with?

I always just find it odd that people get so worked up over what the Pope says or take the time to call him names or take shots at the Catholic faith. I don't think that any religious figure, Jesus himself included, laid out a groundwork and set of rules for that faith with a footnote to see what the world is like in 2000 years and then go ahead and make adjustments as needed.

And this. I'm not a Catholic, but as a Christian there is nothing really news worthy in his statement, but yet non-Catholics/religious people will talk about it like Catholics, and people who do buy into the idea of not having premarital sex are some sort of freaks.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I just had a thought (if you can believe that). So as the internet latches on to this "news story" and rages against the Pope, how many people are out there interpreting his statement as "Condoms cause AIDS"? Given many of the arguments I've read on message boards over the years, I'm arbitrarily setting that percentage at, oh, about 80%.

[Flasch186]

I believe the problem i have is the use of the word "Increases" which is absolutely ridiculous.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I believe the problem i have is the use of the word "Increases" which is absolutely ridiculous.

If you are having sex even with a condom on then you have a greater chance of getting AIDS than if you hadn't had sex in the first place. I'm pretty sure that's what he meant.

[Subby]

I see what he's saying. I don't see a whole lot in the way of facts to back up his assertion, but then again, religious leaders don't really trade in hard and fast data.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I believe the problem i have is the use of the word "Increases" which is absolutely ridiculous.

Well from his point of view having sex with a condom does increase the chance of spreading the disease compared to if the person just did not have sex in the first place which is what he's advocating which is what the Catholic church is always going to say about sex and contraceptives. Sex outside of marriage is wrong and contraceptives - even within marriage - are wrong. That's the doctrine and its not going to change.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Just out of curiosity...if you're either a) not Catholic or b) not a Catholic struggling to balance life today with the teachings of the church then why do you care what the Pope says? Does it matter what other religious leaders say? Do you really expect a religious leader to say something that would go against the entire history of teachings of that religion? Wouldn't someone like that generally be responsible for simply starting a new religion rather than be the head figure of one he/she doesn't agree with?

I always just find it odd that people get so worked up over what the Pope says or take the time to call him names or take shots at the Catholic faith. I don't think that any religious figure, Jesus himself included, laid out a groundwork and set of rules for that faith with a footnote to see what the world is like in 2000 years and then go ahead and make adjustments as needed.

The pope unfortunately has more political clout and influence than most loonies. I hope he keeps saying stuff like this so maybe that changes.

[Flasch186]

I can see that than.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Just out of curiosity...if you're either a) not Catholic or b) not a Catholic struggling to balance life today with the teachings of the church then why do you care what the Pope says? Does it matter what other religious leaders say? Do you really expect a religious leader to say something that would go against the entire history of teachings of that religion? Wouldn't someone like that generally be responsible for simply starting a new religion rather than be the head figure of one he/she doesn't agree with?

I always just find it odd that people get so worked up over what the Pope says or take the time to call him names or take shots at the Catholic faith. I don't think that any religious figure, Jesus himself included, laid out a groundwork and set of rules for that faith with a footnote to see what the world is like in 2000 years and then go ahead and make adjustments as needed.

Where to begin?

1) The current pope while in a lower position advocated the church deal with the sex abuse by it's priests internally until the statute of limitations ran out on criminal prosecution. Including moving priests to other parishes to continue their abuse!

2) This same entity is allowed tax exempt status by our government.

3) The whole system is based on a fairy tale making both points 1 and 2 very scary.

4) I can argue basically any other topic with any person but when I bring up point #3 I am questioning their faith. (i.e. Somebody made up a bunch of bullshit that they could never in a million years prove so instead they will ask you to disprove it) And very rational people take religion’s side on this.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I believe the problem i have is the use of the word "Increases" which is absolutely ridiculous.

exactly. The Pope can say all he wants about religion, abstinence, abortion, etc... I respect the right to practice and preach religion.

But when you make absurd statements that just aren't true it destroys any shred of credibility you may have had.

It's like saying the sky is orange.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Lathum

exactly. The Pope can say all he wants about religion, abstinence, abortion, etc... I respect the right to practice and preach religion.

But when you make absurd statements that just aren't true it destroys any shred of credibility you may have had.

It's like saying the sky is orange.

Or saying that a virgin gave birth to a God who died and while still in bodily form rose into heaven to become one with himself again. That is a story that is definitely worthy of all sorts of respect.

[finketr]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Well from his point of view having sex with a condom does increase the chance of spreading the disease compared to if the person just did not have sex in the first place which is what he's advocating which is what the Catholic church is always going to say about sex and contraceptives. Sex outside of marriage is wrong and contraceptives - even within marriage - are wrong. That's the doctrine and its not going to change.

True.

The only foolproof way to not have a baby is to not have sex. All methods of contraception *can* fail except for true sterilization (removal of the gonads)

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Cant wait for the usual suspects to come and defend this in here. Oh and the earth is over 5000 years old give or take a few.

As opposed to the usual suspects who are already in here bashing organized religion?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by finketr

The only foolproof way to not have a baby is to not have sex. All methods of contraception *can* fail except for true sterilization (removal of the gonads)

Unless you're Mary.

[Pumpy Tudors]

this will not end well

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Didn't really start well either.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Didn't really start well either.

oh now someone wants to bring logic into it

[Toddzilla]

This holds as much relevance as Trojan making an authoritative statement about Catholicism.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by panerd

3) The whole system is based on a fairy tale making both points 1 and 2 very scary.

4) I can argue basically any other topic with any person but when I bring up point #3 I am questioning their faith. (i.e. Somebody made up a bunch of bullshit that they could never in a million years prove so instead they will ask you to disprove it) And very rational people take religion’s side on this.

Please do note people have gone out and tried to prove that Christianity is nothing, but bullcrap only to become Christians themselves. There are countless stories of people praying only for the prayer to be answered in ways that science/logic simply has no answer for.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Matthean

Please do note people have gone out and tried to prove that Christianity is nothing, but bullcrap only to become Christians themselves. There are countless stories of people praying only for the prayer to be answered in ways that science/logic simply has no answer for.

While I of course completely disagree with your last statement (littlewood's law), Gary asked why I would care about what the Pope says if I wasn't Catholic. Points 3 and 4 could be up for some interesting debate but the sex scandal would be a perfectly legit reason for someone to not only not listen to the Pope but to warn others to not follow his teachings. I am pretty sure the Pope's committment to refocusing on indulgences fits in there somewhere also. What century is this? If nobody listened then it would be fine but some people actually believe he is speaking for God. That is truly scary.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Lathum

exactly. The Pope can say all he wants about religion, abstinence, abortion, etc... I respect the right to practice and preach religion.

But when you make absurd statements that just aren't true it destroys any shred of credibility you may have had.

It's like saying the sky is orange.

But it's not an absurd statement. If you don't have sex then you can't spread the disease through sex. Matthean hit it on the head - why is that people look at abstinance as "mission impossible" or that people are freaks if they do remain celebate outside of marriage? Why is "people are going to do it anyways" always the default answer?

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

This holds as much relevance as Trojan making an authoritative statement about Catholicism.

This is very funny, but little notice will be taken, as it will be buried in the vitriol. You need to pick your spots better.

[molson]

I wouldn't have sex if I didn't have a condom. To do otherwise is pretty retarded. I'm not going to "do it anyway".

Though I'd be pretty pissed if someone made condoms hard to get.

The Pope blabbering about it doesn't impact me one way or another though.

I don't totally understand the issue in Africa. It's like they don't give a shit about their lives. Or are insanely uneducated. Sad either way. I don't believe that people are animals and just can't control themselves. Otherwise, we wouldn't require consent.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by panerd

would be a perfectly legit reason for someone to not only not listen to the Pope but to warn others to not follow his teachings.

But I guess what I am trying to say is this isn't Pope Benedict's teaching. This is the "company line" as it were when it comes to sex and contraceptives. Benedict is certainly no JPII IMO and I'm sure throughout history there have been some popes that were not as good as others. That doesn't invalidate the principles something was founded on though.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't totally understand the issue in Africa. It's like they don't give a shit about their lives. Or are insanely uneducated. Sad either way. I don't believe that people are animals and just can't control themselves. Otherwise, we wouldn't require consent.

Now we're talking about the real problem here. Obviously his remarks were in regards to this situation and to be honest I don't know why things are like that there. It really is hard to comprehend a situation like that compared to the society we live in. But I think that simply handing out a bunch of condoms isn't going to solve the problem - just like in so many other facets education is the key. Plus better living conditions, better medicine, more food, more opportunity...a condom doesn't provide any of that.

[jeff061]

"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane heading to Yaounde. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

I'm sorry. This does not sound like he's describing how condoms affect people who are not having sex. He is saying condoms make the current situation in Africa worse than it already is.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

But it's not an absurd statement. If you don't have sex then you can't spread the disease through sex. Matthean hit it on the head - why is that people look at abstinance as "mission impossible" or that people are freaks if they do remain celebate outside of marriage? Why is "people are going to do it anyways" always the default answer?

Because it is impossible. Sex is natural and there is a reason we have hormones constantly pushing us to do it. Trying to stop people from relieving a natural urge is just not possible on a grand scale. You are better off educating people on how to do it safely.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Just out of curiosity...if you're either a) not Catholic or b) not a Catholic struggling to balance life today with the teachings of the church then why do you care what the Pope says?

The Pope has enormous influence, especially in the 3rd world. When he says stuff like this, he's whole-heartedly supporting abstinence-only birth control and STD prevention. Abstinence-only programs have been shown over and over again to be failures because people, on the whole, do not end up practicing abstinence.

If you're at all concerned about problems of overpopulation or the spread of STDs (like AIDS), and their resultant effects, and you support the teaching of other prevention methods, like using a condom, the Pope's statements are just a huge roadblock in the way.

That's why people get upset.

Originally Posted by finketr

The only foolproof way to not have a baby is to not have sex.

In-vitro fertilization?

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Why is "people are going to do it anyways" always the default answer?

Because that's the proven, macro-level view of the problem of overpopulation and STD transmission. You're assuming that when the Pope says "no condoms" Catholic men are going to a) not have sex outside of marriage and b) have a reasonable number of kids. The evidence in many Catholic-majority 3rd world countries indicates neither of these are safe assumptions.

[Young Drachma]

The west sending money for condoms and contraceptives to the developing world is pretty silly, but only because it's a waste of human capital. If people feel like condoms are a panacea that will allow them to have sex carefree, then they'll do it.

If the birth control were taken out of the equation, then people would have to focus on the real problems. But boiling the problem down to "well, those uncouth folks are gonna fuck anyway, might as well make sure they fuck safely," is a pretty large error in western health policy towards Africa and other parts of the developing world.

[/soapbox]

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Because it is impossible. Sex is natural and there is a reason we have hormones constantly pushing us to do it. Trying to stop people from relieving a natural urge is just not possible on a grand scale. You are better off educating people on how to do it safely.

It is not impossible. There are millions of people who have gone through life and continue to do so with one sexual partner (or none I'm sure) so its far from impossible.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

But I think that simply handing out a bunch of condoms isn't going to solve the problem - just like in so many other facets education is the key. Plus better living conditions, better medicine, more food, more opportunity...a condom doesn't provide any of that.

Planned Parenthood has numerous case studies where comprehensive sex education combined with the provision of birth control devices (such as condoms) consistently shows progress in slowing down birth rates and STD transmission rates. Unfortunately, organizations like Planned Parenthood, which pursue this as a policy, are blacklisted by the Vatican, and other organizations committed to abstinence-only education, which greatly limits their ability to operate in Catholic-majority countries or regions.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

But it's not an absurd statement. If you don't have sex then you can't spread the disease through sex. Matthean hit it on the head - why is that people look at abstinance as "mission impossible" or that people are freaks if they do remain celebate outside of marriage? Why is "people are going to do it anyways" always the default answer?

that isn't how I interpreted his statement

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Because that's the proven, macro-level view of the problem of overpopulation and STD transmission. You're assuming that when the Pope says "no condoms" Catholic men are going to a) not have sex outside of marriage and b) have a reasonable number of kids. The evidence in many Catholic-majority 3rd world countries indicates neither of these are safe assumptions.

Many religions still have a "be fruitful and multiply" component, so bringing overpopulation into this discussion isn't going to help matters as controlling it is not a goal of many churches, especially Christian ones.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

The west sending money for condoms and contraceptives to the developing world is pretty silly, but only because it's a waste of human capital. If people feel like condoms are a panacea that will allow them to have sex carefree, then they'll do it.

If the birth control were taken out of the equation, then people would have to focus on the real problems. But boiling the problem down to "well, those uncouth folks are gonna fuck anyway, might as well make sure they fuck safely," is a pretty large error in western health policy towards Africa and other parts of the developing world.

[/soapbox]

Bringing things like couth into this is probably unwarranted. I have a feeling that most in favor of contraception in the developing world are also in favor of contraception here at home. Why can't we focus on the "real problems" while also limiting the damage of the current situation? Why must it be either/or?

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Because it is impossible. Sex is natural and there is a reason we have hormones constantly pushing us to do it. Trying to stop people from relieving a natural urge is just not possible on a grand scale. You are better off educating people on how to do it safely.

Yep.

Abstinance policies don't work because we are biologically programmed to have sex. I suppose there are people who can go their whole lives without having sex, but in the grand scheme of things they are very few and far between.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The Pope has enormous influence, especially in the 3rd world. When he says stuff like this, he's whole-heartedly supporting abstinence-only birth control and STD prevention. Abstinence-only programs have been shown over and over again to be failures because people, on the whole, do not end up practicing abstinence.

Well if people don't practice what he is preaching then it would seem his influence can't be that great.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If you're at all concerned about problems of overpopulation or the spread of STDs (like AIDS), and their resultant effects, and you support the teaching of other prevention methods, like using a condom, the Pope's statements are just a huge roadblock in the way.

Because that's the proven, macro-level view of the problem of overpopulation and STD transmission. You're assuming that when the Pope says "no condoms" Catholic men are going to a) not have sex outside of marriage and b) have a reasonable number of kids. The evidence in many Catholic-majority 3rd world countries indicates neither of these are safe assumptions.

Forget 3rd world countries - the assumption that Catholic men (and women) are not going to have sex outside of marriage doesn't even hold true here. I know that some Catholic men and women here don't follow the church's teachings on that subject and it certainly seems to be no small minority of Catholics either. And what exactly is a "reasonable number of kids"?

And again, I don't think the Pope is the roadblock (nor do I think Africa is a Catholic majority). How about the people that truly have influence and power - their governments? The church has been giving the same message for years and years - I don't think that its being taken in too well. If you really want to stop the spread of STDs and AIDS I think you need to take a good look at the groups governing those countries. If they don't want their own people to be healthy and empowered and advancing as a civilization handing out a bunch of condoms isn't going to do the trick - even if the Pope would say its ok.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Yep.

Abstinance policies don't work because we are biologically programmed to have sex. I suppose there are people who can go their whole lives without having sex, but in the grand scheme of things they are very few and far between.

No, abstinance policies don't work because people don't want to/have the willpower to follow them. I didn't say people should go through life without having sex - that would pretty much put an end to population. But it's certainly not impossible to go through life with one sexual partner. Just because the majority of people may not want to do that doesn't make it impossible.

[jeff061]

Just impractical and unreasonable. No not impossible.

[Gary Gorski]

And for the record (because I may not check back in on the thread since I'm leaving now) - I don't think its realistic that our culture (and others) are suddenly just going to take up abstinance and take a much more serious approach to sex. I think that the world has a very, very carefree attitude towards sex and that it is such a powerful force that you certainly just can't flip a switch and have people change their attitude toward it.

That said I do think it's a mistake to either leave abstinance out of the discussion or not put it in a positive light when educating (kids especially) about sexual health and I don't think the answer to the spread of STDs and AIDS is to just hand out condoms. Chances are if people are going to have unprotected sex then they're still going to do so if a) the supply of free condoms runs out or b) is not immediately and easily accessible. The culture is what needs to be changed - especially in 3rd world countries - and that takes leadership in those countries - not comments from a religious authority figure.