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

[KWhit]

Pope: Condoms not the answer in AIDS fight - Africa - msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29734328)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

In-vitro fertilization?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

[flere-imsaho]

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.

Yes, fair enough, but that would lead me to a broader discussion about organized religion I'd prefer to avoid, so I'm trying to focus on a narrow band of the argument. :)

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

1. Well, they're certainly practicing the "no condoms" part!

2. I think you underestimate the influence of Catholic missions, Vatican aid money, and the church's political influence and clout on the leaders of many of these nations.

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.

Yes, but arguably it's not as big of an issue for American Catholics who are more likely to have access to good health care, access to means with which to provide for a good number of children and, yes, access to condoms.

And what exactly is a "reasonable number of kids"?

For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume we're trying to get people to avoid having more kids than they can reasonably provide for. There's also a pretty significant women's rights issue here that I'm not really interested in exploring, but let's just say that pronouncements like these from the Pope do little but give cover to deadbeat husbands who father innumerable kids upon their destitute wives and do little, if anything, to support them. This is a not inconsequential problem in the 3rd world.

Now, the provision of condoms wouldn't necessarily solve that problem, but again there are numerous case studies where the provision of well-rounded sex education often leads to a certain empowerment amongst women and a strengthening of reproductive rights. Statements like this from the Pope tend to just short-circuit that whole process.

[DaddyTorgo]

I think Mr. Popeman said this because he's is actually a racist and he wants all the black people in Africa to give each other AIDS and die.


*okay not really, but you have to admit it did make you go "WTF!"*

[RainMaker]

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.

Yes, they are called Priests and they end up diddling our little kids due to their pent up sexual frustration.

But seriously, I'm sure there are people who have the mental makeup to not have sex. But they are rare and it's just impractical to expect an entire continent of poorly educated people will be able to accept that.

[JediKooter]

The pope is not being completely truthful here. It's sad that it seems that the catholic church gives the appearance that it thinks that the only way of spreading AIDS is through sex. Of course, what he said could just be a small sample of his entire statement, and we aren't getting the entire context of what he was saying.

From reading the article, this is what I get:

He fails to mention that raping baby girls will not cure AIDS either, but, given the catholic churches past and basically condoning pedophillia, this does not surprise me.

He also fails to mention that sharing needles by drug users can also potentially cause AIDS if someone is already infected, or not ensuring that the blood supply of hospitals is not tainted can potentially cause AIDS or not screening organ donors, etc...

My opinion on what he is alluding to, is that the catholic church is against any forms of contraception (duh) and since Africa is brimming with new converts, makes his rock star appearance to the masses on his "Just say No to condoms" tour and moves on. Gotta keep those pews full in order to keep the machine running.

[Klinglerware]

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.

While I agree that governance is undeniably poor in much of the African continent, I think that it is also unfair to lay blame solely at the feet of their governments without acknowledging that the West does play a role in problems Africa is facing today.

There is of course the legacy of colonialism: From the European colonial policies of top-down governance that left Africa ill-prepared to govern themselves, to the artificial borders that were drawn with little regard to pre-existing ethnic divides, contributing to ethnic strife that continues to this day.

Again, I do not mean to give a free pass to countries that are governed poorly: corruption and outright kleptocracy, ethnic favoritism, and so forth are keeping many African countries on their knees. But, it should still be noted that even African countries that are managed well have a difficult time flourishing in the global economic system. For example, governments that look to the IMF and the World Bank for much needed development capital often have to endure austere conditionality requirements that may in fact impede economic development. Also, Africa's largely agrarian economic base is acutely affected by Western economic policies: agricultural subsidies given to Western farmers has had the effect of keeping the prices of many Agricultural products artificially low--to the detriment of African farmers who cannot compete.

[Toddzilla]

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.That's how I roll...jump in, smart-ass comment, jump out before I get caught up in the shit...

[Groundhog]

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?

Because there are a lot of Catholics in the world, and they DO listen to this crap. Then they send missionaries over to these countries, and teach the locals that this crap is true as well.

Do you really expect a religious leader to say something that would go against the entire history of teachings of that religion?

Why not? The Catholic church has done this many, many times before. Evolution is one of the more current examples.

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 get worked up when any leader of a sizable faction of any kind spouts crap that is going to wind up seeing more people die as a result. This isn't just meaningless rhetoric. It's going to lead to more people dying.

[wade moore]

I don't even really necessarily agree with Dark Cloud's stance - but I do find it interesting how the people who are mocking this article completely ignore his very well worded and thought out post.

[Klinglerware]

I don't even really necessarily agree with Dark Cloud's stance - but I do find it interesting how the people who are mocking this article completely ignore his very well worded and thought out post.

I agree: I don't necessarily agree with Dark Cloud's stance either, but it should be noted that the NGOs running the condom distribution programs have been criticized for being just as paternalistic and "neo-colonialist" as the pro-abstinence groups. Neo-colonialism may be pushing it too far, but a lot of paternalistic rhetoric does seem to be thrown about when it comes to Africa--as evidenced by the comments from people on all sides in this thread.

[Easy Mac]

Wow, there are a lot of intolerant atheists on this forum

[Groundhog]

Wow, there are a lot of intolerant atheists on this forum

I wonder why.

[RendeR]

See my problem with the article is the fact that the Pope, someone hundreds of millions of people take as stating fact wether he speaks or farts, made a statement that is in fact wrong in every possible way.

He believes that condoms make the spread of AIDS worse. The facts of this matter irrefutably go the other way. Condom use reduces infectious disease spreading.

The Pope basically told his flock to believe something that is KNOWN to be false.

This is willful ignorance at its height.

This is why it bothers me as a non believer. Spreading willful ignorance is about as wrong as you can get. I'd have more respect for a felon.

[Easy Mac]

I wonder why.

I assume it's the small penises. Probably just scared that if the world does away with ribbed condoms, there's definitely they'll get sex again.

[RendeR]

I assume it's the small penises. Probably just scared that if the world does away with ribbed condoms, there's definitely they'll get sex again.


wanna try this again without mis-speaking in typed out text?

[RendeR]

Wow, there are a lot of intolerant atheists on this forum


When it comes down to choosing between intolerance and willful ignorance of the facts? yeah, color me intolerant.

[Easy Mac]

wanna try this again without mis-speaking in typed out text?

Damn iPhone autocorrect

[RainMaker]

Wow, there are a lot of intolerant atheists on this forum

Or people who don't like seeing millions of people die because some old guy thinks this book tells him it's wrong.

I would have the same anger toward an atheist who told his followers that it's ok to jump out of high rise buildings because they'll simply float to the ground.

[Easy Mac]

Or people who don't like seeing millions of people die because some old guy thinks this book tells him it's wrong.

I would have the same anger toward an atheist who told his followers that it's ok to jump out of high rise buildings because they'll simply float to the ground.

Way to compare apples to being retarded. If you would make one sensible argument, it would actually cause someone to debate you in a sensible manner. Unfortunately, you're essentially causing me to respond with quips in a similar manner.

[SFL Cat]

Rampant promiscuity makes any STD worse -- condoms or no condoms

[Easy Mac]

When it comes down to choosing between intolerance and willful ignorance of the facts? yeah, color me intolerant.

I find that amusing, given that studies by independent journals have shown that the rate of pedophilia amongst clergy is actually lower than that of the general populace.

Of course, then you'd argue that the church just tried to sweep it under the rug, which families never do...

Then you'd argue that the priests abused their standing in the community and using it to take advantage of children... which again, would never happen in the general populace.

What you deem willful ignorance is no different than your feelings regarding the Catholic church.

Look, I'm Catholic, but I agree that its less than realistic to believe that AIDS can be solved by simply advocating abstinence. I think its both short-sighted and dangerous to do so in a developing world. However, I also believe the same holds true by just teaching the developing world to only use condoms... because even in the developed world, kids will forgoe using them when in a sexual bind.

[jeff061]

Way to compare apples to being retarded. If you would make one sensible argument, it would actually cause someone to debate you in a sensible manner. Unfortunately, you're essentially causing me to respond with quips in a similar manner.
This is a trick!

Everyone knows you can't argue sensibly to the religious. If you could, well you know, they wouldn't be religious.

And please don'tmistake my complete and total lack of respect for your silly little belief with intolerance. Whatever keeps you happy. But old and wrinkly here is playing a dangerous game.

[RendeR]

Rampant promiscuity makes any STD worse -- condoms or no condoms


That would be a wonderful point to make if it held ANY relevance to the situation.

oh and of course: that is NOT what the Pope stated. based on the text given he is telling ALL catholics that handing out condems increases the prevelance of AIDS when in fact that is a lie, it is NOT the truth of the matter as facts have proven for decades.

I'm not arguing that he isn't following the catholic teachings, I am not saying that abstinance is not a good way to prevent std's from spreading. I am only stating that for someone in the POPE's position its pretty fucking stupid on a holy shit that's really stupid kind of level to make the statement he made.

It just makes himself and his entire religion look that much more ignorant to the world at large. thereby defeating his own premise of spreading the "good word".

[Groundhog]

Rampant promiscuity makes any STD worse -- condoms or no condoms

"Hey, you poor and miserable folks living in squalor without basic, fundamental necessities, stop having sex!"

[SFL Cat]

Yes, I believe the great humanitarian Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, referred to such folks as "weeds."

[RendeR]

I find that amusing, given that studies by independent journals have shown that the rate of pedophilia amongst clergy is actually lower than that of the general populace.

Of course, then you'd argue that the church just tried to sweep it under the rug, which families never do...

Then you'd argue that the priests abused their standing in the community and using it to take advantage of children... which again, would never happen in the general populace.

What you deem willful ignorance is no different than your feelings regarding the Catholic church.

Look, I'm Catholic, but I agree that its less than realistic to believe that AIDS can be solved by simply advocating abstinence. I think its both short-sighted and dangerous to do so in a developing world. However, I also believe the same holds true by just teaching the developing world to only use condoms... because even in the developed world, kids will forgoe using them when in a sexual bind.


What the fuck are you talking about here? I never mentioned the pedophilia issue at all. its another problem entirely.

As for your last paragraph which is at least pertinent to my statement:

The whole point is that the western world promotes FULL education including the use of anti-pregnancy tools such as condoms. No one on the non-believer side is arguing that its "abstinence" OR "condoms" as the only answers. the church on the other hand IS making that statement, that its abstinence only, so which side is being more insipid in their belief?

[Easy Mac]

That would be a wonderful point to make if it held ANY relevance to the situation.

oh and of course: that is NOT what the Pope stated. based on the text given he is telling ALL catholics that handing out condems increases the prevelance of AIDS when in fact that is a lie, it is NOT the truth of the matter as facts have proven for decades.

I'm not arguing that he isn't following the catholic teachings, I am not saying that abstinance is not a good way to prevent std's from spreading. I am only stating that for someone in the POPE's position its pretty fucking stupid on a holy shit that's really stupid kind of level to make the statement he made.

It just makes himself and his entire religion look that much more ignorant to the world at large. thereby defeating his own premise of spreading the "good word".

I'd disagree only in that you're parsing his words strictly based on your belief system. I'd argue that he's talking more about what he would consider rampant "moral irresponsibility" than condoms themselves causing the spread of AIDS.

I'd say his phrasing is more like the following:
People speed.
Seatbelts protect people in cars.
People speed more because seatbelts protect them.

His argument would be that we need to take away seatbelts and teach people to drive more responsibly and in a safe manner. Again, its not realistic, but I think that's a better parsing of his language than "he want's the 3rd world to die of AIDS".

and an fyi, i thoroughly dislike the current pope. I enjoy what he's done in making the mass itself more conservative, but i'm definitely not on board with the arch-conservativism he's been pushing.

[RainMaker]

Way to compare apples to being retarded. If you would make one sensible argument, it would actually cause someone to debate you in a sensible manner. Unfortunately, you're essentially causing me to respond with quips in a similar manner.

Ignore the analogy then.

Still, telling people in Africa that condoms don't prevent AIDS will kill millions of people. I don't know how you can argue that.

[Easy Mac]

What the fuck are you talking about here? I never mentioned the pedophilia issue at all. its another problem entirely.

As for your last paragraph which is at least pertinent to my statement:

The whole point is that the western world promotes FULL education including the use of anti-pregnancy tools such as condoms. No one on the non-believer side is arguing that its "abstinence" OR "condoms" as the only answers. the church on the other hand IS making that statement, that its abstinence only, so which side is being more insipid in their belief?

I'd argue there are many in this thread alone who are arguing that condoms are the only answer.

Also, I apologize for mis-representing your argument in the beginning of my response, as it was not germane to our discussion. I was using your post as more of a royal response to the peanut gallery as a whole.

[RainMaker]

His argument would be that we need to take away seatbelts and teach people to drive more responsibly and in a safe manner. Again, its not realistic, but I think that's a better parsing of his language than "he want's the 3rd world to die of AIDS".

While taking away seatbelts may cause people to drive responsibliy, it would still result in more unnecessary deaths.

And I don't think he's saying he wants the 3rd world to die of AIDS. I just think he's ignorant to reality. In civilized and highly educated countries we are not able to stop irresponsible sexual behaivor. This would seemingly make it impossible in a country that lacks both those elements. If he wants to preach abstinence and sexual responsibility, I'm all for it. But telling people that condoms don't prevent AIDS when every major medical study refutes that is tantamount to legal genocide.

[Groundhog]

I'd argue there are many in this thread alone who are arguing that condoms are the only answer.

I doubt that's true. Maybe I'm wrong. It's no secret that birth rates are highest in the poorest countries, and even in countries like mine and yours, it tends to be higher in poorer parts of the country. You can draw a lot of conclusions from that information.

[Easy Mac]

Ignore the analogy then.

Still, telling people in Africa that abstinence doesn't prevent AIDS will kill millions of people. I don't know how you can argue that.

Fixed :p

[RainMaker]

Fixed :p

That is fine and I'm all for it. It's telling people that condoms don't work which is wrong.

[Groundhog]

It's the difference between being realistic, and being idealistic.

[Easy Mac]

It's the difference between being realistic, and being idealistic.

I concur... though to be fair, the whole point of religion is to be idealistic. Being realistic just means I starve myself on Fridays for no good reason.:D

[RendeR]

I'd argue there are many in this thread alone who are arguing that condoms are the only answer.

Also, I apologize for mis-representing your argument in the beginning of my response, as it was not germane to our discussion. I was using your post as more of a royal response to the peanut gallery as a whole.


2 things you're arguing mistakenly:

no one is arguing that condoms alone are the only answer, the people who seem to say that I would say are looking at the pope's comment and defending the the fact that condem use helps to prevent std's. Nothing more.

You're also reading the poe's words and forming your own perception of what you THINK he meant. I'm reading his words and calling a dumbass a dumbass. his quoted statement is a pure and simple falsehood. Its not me perceiving it as such, its the facts. Condoms have been PROVEN to limit the spread of infectious disease. his statement blatantly says the opposite and it is obviously wrong. I cannot fathom how you or anyone else for that matter can read the statement from the Original Post and not read it for the words he says instead of what you want his meaning to be.

[Easy Mac]

That is fine and I'm all for it. It's telling people that condoms don't work which is wrong.

To be fair, with perfect use the failure rate is 1-2%.
With perfect use of abstinence, the failure rate is 0% (this assumes other risky behavior is not being engaged in by the person in both cases).

For typical use of condoms, its between 10-15%.
Of course, typical use of abstinence probably means a failure rate of close to 100% (typical use refers to not actually using the protective method in the correct way).

I think attacking the sex angle of HIV in Africa is the wrong way for both sides. There needs to be better communications regarding the dangers of the disease itself, not just the ways to avoid it. Neither current approach really gets at the heart of the problem.

[Easy Mac]

2 things you're arguing mistakenly:

no one is arguing that condoms alone are the only answer, the people who seem to say that I would say are looking at the pope's comment and defending the the fact that condem use helps to prevent std's. Nothing more.

You're also reading the poe's words and forming your own perception of what you THINK he meant. I'm reading his words and calling a dumbass a dumbass. his quoted statement is a pure and simple falsehood. Its not me perceiving it as such, its the facts. Condoms have been PROVEN to limit the spread of infectious disease. his statement blatantly says the opposite and it is obviously wrong. I cannot fathom how you or anyone else for that matter can read the statement from the Original Post and not read it for the words he says instead of what you want his meaning to be.

Point A:
Molson said in post 34 "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"."

so there is at least one person who is saying that.

Point B:
I agree I'm using my interpretation of what I think he meant. I don't see how his words can be interpreted any differently than how I've previously described in what I thought was a totally great seat belt analogy.

[RendeR]

But the fact that you're using "your" interpretation is the problem.

Read his sentence. At the very least he should have explained that spreading condoms increases sexual activity which in turn will lead to more disease. if he had even come close to that I might have not cared. but he didn't, he chose instead to go for the sound byte and it makes him look like an idiot.

Your interpretation may inf act be what he MEANT, but that is not what he actually said and honestly, people around the world may or may not be as bright and up to speed on what the pope means as you or I and will take his words as gospel. (which by the way, catholics are taught to believe they are, God's words given human voice, and all that.)

Molson's statement is a WESTERN ONE. The Pope is talking about issues in the 3rd world. Molson's choice would be the proverbial needle in the African haystack.

[RedKingGold]

But the fact that you're using "your" interpretation is the problem.

Good thing there's only one way to interpret what someone says.

I mean, your interpretation MUST be correct, right?

[RendeR]

Good thing there's only one way to interpret what someone says.

I mean, your interpretation MUST be correct, right?


I'm not interpreting, I'm reading the words as they were stated, not extrapolating anything from them. Its not my opinion of his statement, its the textual facts of what he said. words have meanings on their own, at their root. His statements said condoms make the situation worse. They do not. Its not an opinion its the facts of the situation. Big difference.

[flere-imsaho]

I don't even really necessarily agree with Dark Cloud's stance - but I do find it interesting how the people who are mocking this article completely ignore his very well worded and thought out post.

I thought it was a good post as well, but didn't want to take the time to try and compose a thoughtful response.

I'm very familiar with pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial African history and am well aware of some of the patriarchial tendencies that linger on even to this day. I guess the question I have that has never been answered to my satisfaction is: what should the "West" do now, concerning Africa?

[RendeR]

I thought it was a good post as well, but didn't want to take the time to try and compose a thoughtful response.

I'm very familiar with pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial African history and am well aware of some of the patriarchial tendencies that linger on even to this day. I guess the question I have that has never been answered to my satisfaction is: what should the "West" do now, concerning Africa?


The better question is "Why should the West do anything? Why must one group always systemicly interfere with another?"

Its not our (the Western world's) place. If asked we can certainly offer suggestions, but why is our way better?

[RedKingGold]

I'm not interpreting, I'm reading the words as they were stated, not extrapolating anything from them. Its not my opinion of his statement, its the textual facts of what he said. words have meanings on their own, at their root. His statements said condoms make the situation worse. They do not. Its not an opinion its the facts of the situation. Big difference.

"Situation" = what?

[JediKooter]

I think if the "West" wants to help out Africa, they should be investing in its infrastructure and education and not focus soley on sex education. I do believe there are some aid groups that do try do that, but, lack serious government funding to make a dent. Now, whether or not the west should help/intervene, should be left up to the people who would be getting the help and not forced upon them.

Now comes along someone called the Pope, goes down there and talks about condoms. Seriously? Condoms? Not, build more schools, not the low mortality rate, not feeding the hungry, but condoms. Wow.

So Mr. Pope, what IS your solution to the AIDS problem in Africa? You called out condoms as not helping. So what do you think will help? You failed to mention that. AIDS/HIV isn't just spread via sex, so abstenence isn't going to solve the problem.

You are, Mr. Pope, like it or not, these peoples role model and I would think that on a human level (nevermind your status within the church) that if you had some compasion for your fellow man, you would provide details or a plan or something (other than condoms) to try and curb the AIDS problem in Africa.

You failed miserably Mr. Pope and you let your people down, regardless of your organizations silly beliefs and dogmatic principles.

[Noop]

I need some condoms.

[JediKooter]

I need some condoms.

Ribbed?

[KWhit]

I need some condoms.

Better not use them. The Pope says they give you AIDS.

[RendeR]

"Situation" = what?

The AIDS situation. as stated in the first post.

[wade moore]

I thought it was a good post as well, but didn't want to take the time to try and compose a thoughtful response.

I'm very familiar with pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial African history and am well aware of some of the patriarchial tendencies that linger on even to this day. I guess the question I have that has never been answered to my satisfaction is: what should the "West" do now, concerning Africa?

Well, you also didn't have several sniping, stereotyping, argumentative comments afterwords - so no worries. That was directed more to those that are continueing this same tired argument where they like the other side not making real points and then doing the same thing back.

[RainMaker]

Better not use them. The Pope says they give you AIDS.
Travis Henry got the memo.

[Noop]

Ribbed?

Only thing I like ribbed is beef and pork.

[Noop]

Better not use them. The Pope says they give you AIDS.

What if he blessed them? Holy condoms.

[SFL Cat]

Isn't all sex basically a sin in Catholocism? The only reason to engage in it is procreation? And this is a serious question. I'm not Catholic, but I've heard from some that is the church's theological position on intercourse.

[MikeVic]

I only read the first couple of posts and I don't want to get into a religious debate... since this is on the topic of AIDS, isn't the problem with AIDS in places like Africa due to women being raped at a crazy high rate? It's not like condoms are going to help that, women need some sort of defense against it, not slip a condom on the dude as he's raping her. I was always under that impression at least.

If this has been brought up already or is incorrect, my appologies.

[RainMaker]

I only read the first couple of posts and I don't want to get into a religious debate... since this is on the topic of AIDS, isn't the problem with AIDS in places like Africa due to women being raped at a crazy high rate? It's not like condoms are going to help that, women need some sort of defense against it, not slip a condom on the dude as he's raping her. I was always under that impression at least.

If this has been brought up already or is incorrect, my appologies.

Well Rape is OK according to the Bible as long as you marry the woman later and pay her father some cash.

[sterlingice]

This might derail things a little bit but I figured it was worth posting...

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?

I think this is actually a question that doesn't need to be dismissed offhand as it has been so far. I haven't played devil's advocate nearly enough today so here goes...

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.

I was talking about this with my wife tonight from the starting point of the question above. Frankly, the "people always do it" side is doing more of the preaching with stuff like "you can't stop people" or "sex is natural" or "we are biologically programmed to have sex". These aren't reasons or justifications- they're dogmatic phrases.

If suddenly the penalty for pre-marital sex were "guy gets nuts chopped off"- I'm pretty sure that would stop a lot of guys from doing it. It would lead to other behaviors such as lots of marriages for the purpose of sex and all the problems that entails. However, this reminds me of the line from Freakonomics, paraphrasing- give economists a problem and they will be able to devise an incentive system to discourage any problem (but notes there will also be side effects).

So, let's not pretend that just because "there is a natural predisposition" that we should let that behavior go unchecked. I mean, we all enter into a social contract that punishes people who have a biological urge to murder, rape, and steal. And it doesn't prevent all of the acts, not by a long shot. However, we still have laws against these things because we agree as a people that this behavior should be discouraged and punished.

I realize if we're talking about Africa, we're talking about a different set of circumstances. But like the discussion with my wife, I was trying to keep things towards theory because both instances where this defense is typically used in practice, disease in Africa and teenage sex/pregnancy have their own set of issues that can cloud the argument itself. You can throw up all sort of roadblocks but it's like the flying car discussion- the glib response everyone has is "people can't drive in 2D, there's no way we'd do 3D"- but if there was profit to be made and the technology infrastructure to do it, we'd be flying to work right now. If teenagers having sex threatened our entire existance and there were political and scientific will behind it, we'd work towards some sort of technology to prevent it (Everlast chastity belts? Sex detectors? Something else?)- we would try to make it happen if there was a great enough need.

So, again, is it really true that "people are going to do it anyways"?

SI

[Groundhog]

I was talking about this with my wife tonight from the starting point of the question above. Frankly, the "people always do it" side is doing more of the preaching with stuff like "you can't stop people" or "sex is natural" or "we are biologically programmed to have sex". These aren't reasons or justifications- they're dogmatic phrases.

"we are biologically programmed to have sex" isn't a dogmatic phrase. It's a biological fact. Teenage boys don't spend half their days thinking about sex because they are dirty little buggers.

If suddenly the penalty for pre-marital sex were "guy gets nuts chopped off"- I'm pretty sure that would stop a lot of guys from doing it.

Yeah, it would stop a lot of people from doing it out of fear of what would happen if they did. But many would still do it and risk the penalty, and all would still have the natural urges.

So, let's not pretend that just because "there is a natural predisposition" that we should let that behavior go unchecked. I mean, we all enter into a social contract that punishes people who have a biological urge to murder, rape, and steal. And it doesn't prevent all of the acts, not by a long shot. However, we still have laws against these things because we agree as a people that this behavior should be discouraged and punished.

Murder and rape aren't normal instincts. They are usually the result of some kind of harmful outside factors. Stealing is a little different, sure. I think we've all stolen something at one point or another, but it's several magnitudes below the other two.


I realize if we're talking about Africa, we're talking about a different set of circumstances. But like the discussion with my wife, I was trying to keep things towards theory because both instances where this defense is typically used in practice, disease in Africa and teenage sex/pregnancy have their own set of issues that can cloud the argument itself. You can throw up all sort of roadblocks but it's like the flying car discussion- the glib response everyone has is "people can't drive in 2D, there's no way we'd do 3D"- but if there was profit to be made and the technology infrastructure to do it, we'd be flying to work right now. If teenagers having sex threatened our entire existance and there were political and scientific will behind it, we'd work towards some sort of technology to prevent it (Everlast chastity belts? Sex detectors? Something else?)- we would try to make it happen if there was a great enough need.

You can't fight natural urges, not ones that occur in every healthy person - different from rape/murder. Doesn't matter what laws and punishments you setup - and some countries do indeed have laws and horrific punishments for this kind of stuff - it will happen. In smaller numbers perhaps, but it will still happen.


So, again, is it really true that "people are going to do it anyways"?


Yes.

[Neon_Chaos]

I'm not interpreting, I'm reading the words as they were stated, not extrapolating anything from them. Its not my opinion of his statement, its the textual facts of what he said. words have meanings on their own, at their root. His statements said condoms make the situation worse. They do not. Its not an opinion its the facts of the situation. Big difference.

The Pope was a bit out of line, but I believe he did add a few more words regarding the alternative to using condoms, to add a part of the statement that was omitted in the original quote and found in the article, which basically goes with the Catholic Church's stance on condoms, AIDS, et al.

"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."

The pope said a responsible and moral attitude toward sex would help fight the disease.

[Dutch]

Everybody quit your whining, if it wasn't for the Christians we'd have 20 billion damned people on this planet already.

[Karlifornia]

SI, comparing consensual sex of like minds to murder, rape, or robbery is a pretty big step. I know I've had some sexual experiences that feel akin to all three, but that is merely in the figurative sense.

In regards to abstinence, I don't think it's impossible. It's simply not in the realm of things that could be considered impossible. Yet, it is so outrageously improbable, that finding feasible, if less immediately satisfactory alternatives is an option, it is one that should be given a long look.

Religious dogma is nice and all, especially for those that subscribe to it. Who can blame them? I've often attempted to make sense of this existence, and I can't get irritated when someone else has found something that makes it all add up. Whether I agree with it or not is beside the point. It is a personal reconciliation that can hold great reward.

It's a personal thing. It's faith. That also means that you shouldn't be wasting your time by attempting to bathe in holy water those who find no holiness in the water. Telling people who don't mind premarital sex to mind it is like someone coming to you and asking for your wife to wear a burka any time she left the house. You would tell them to go jump in the lake, because you don't subscribe to it.

This also makes me think about "club houses" on high school grounds. Some high schools have little hangout spots with videogames, tv, and food for kids to come to after school ends. This is pretty much designed as an alternative to unsupervised get togethers, that could lead to "unsavory activities".

Now, I suppose the city could just make it a law that the kids have to go straight home by themselves after school. I'm sure this would be effective in cutting down what is considered deliquent behavior. This is also unrealistic (and just plain horrifying and antithetical to "capitalist American values"). Crazy-ass Marshal Law would be the only for sure solution.

So, people started creating these places where the teens could hang out under slight supervision, have amenities geared towards them, and enjoy the company of their peers. Does it provide a total solution to delinquency? Fuck no it doesn't. Does it realistically strive towards something better? I'd say so.

[RendeR]

The Pope was a bit out of line, but I believe he did add a few more words regarding the alternative to using condoms, to add a part of the statement that was omitted in the original quote and found in the article, which basically goes with the Catholic Church's stance on condoms, AIDS, et al.


I don't doubt there may have been a lot more that he said regarding the situation, as with any major public figure you have to be very careful how you phrase what you say because the media flunkies will screw with it at every turn to make it say something you may not have meant. People in powerful positions cannot aford to be lazy with how they state things. (and the added bit you listed really doesn't change the situation any though I am open to the fact he might have said even more that the reporter never bothered to write down)

[finketr]

Isn't all sex basically a sin in Catholocism? The only reason to engage in it is procreation? And this is a serious question. I'm not Catholic, but I've heard from some that is the church's theological position on intercourse.

No, sex is not basically a sin in Catholicism. Sex outside of marriage is fornication or adultery depending on the circumstances.

Sex inside of marriage is a wonderful thing according to the catholic church. The use of artificial contraception is the main issue. When you have sex you are supposed to be open to a new life starting. Natural Family Planning is the one approved method for trying to space children or not run the risk of having a child by not having sex during the wife's fertile time in her cycle.

The stance is that in the "two becoming one flesh" a condom is a barrier to that happening. The pills, IUDs, and other mechanical or chemical means mess with the reproductive system of the woman (or man if they ever come up with one). As it was presented to us, we don't allow a doctor to intentionally blind a person why do we allow the mucking about with the body chemistry of women?

[RainMaker]

Good news!

The Pope has denounced sorcery!

The Associated Press: Pope condemns sorcery, urges Angolans to convert (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iLJ2gzRRfTYc_YuS7r1yuwnmne-gD972GVSO0)

[Groundhog]

The pope is real stick-in-the-mud. :(

[revrew]

For the record: I am not Catholic.

But now that the Catholic-bashing has settled down, perhaps those that have been screaming about how "ignorant" the pope is might consider looking at the facts?

Actually, the studies show condom-distribution programs IN AFRICA (the U.S. numbers may be a bit different) DO, IN FACT, increase the prevalence of AIDS; and in nations like Uganda where abstinence AND MONOGAMY (an important component) are added to general AIDS education, the rates of HIV go way down.

In effect, it is not the pope who is ignorant, but the general populace, who is ignorant, simply, of the facts in the matter.

See this link:
hxxp://209.62.84.132/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92702

[Mac Howard]

Actually, the studies show condom-distribution programs IN AFRICA (the U.S. numbers may be a bit different) DO, IN FACT, increase the prevalence of AIDS; and in nations like Uganda where abstinence AND MONOGAMY (an important component) are added to general AIDS education, the rates of HIV go way down.

From what I read (there are several articles - google "Uganda condoms") Uganda reduced the percentage of AIDS in the population from around 15% to 6% with the ABC program (abstinence, be faithful and use condoms) between 1992 and 2004. At that point a new leader was influenced by American evangelicals to take on an abstinence only program and condoms were made unobtainable there. Despite the recent introduction of anti-viral HIV drugs AIDS is now on the increase again in Uganda.

[jeff061]

Yes, I don't thing anyone was arguing against educating abstinence along side condom use. Simply the idea of only bring up abstinence and then going one further and laughably saying condoms are not only ineffective, but increase risk.

And no, I don't think handing condoms out and saying "have at it boys" really helps at all. There needs to be a campaign of information dissemination with that.

[Mac Howard]

Isn't all sex basically a sin in Catholocism? The only reason to engage in it is procreation? And this is a serious question. I'm not Catholic, but I've heard from some that is the church's theological position on intercourse.

That is my understanding too which raises the question why Catholicism promotes the "rhythm method" of contraception. Withdrawing on the point of ejaculation is about as unnatural an action as I can imagine and certainly doesn't do a lot for procreation :)

Knowing how pragmatic the Catholic Church is on subjects that affect its influence and appeal, I suspect the Church itself recognises the "impossibility" of a purely abstinence based lifestyle. Insisting on sex only for procreation would condemn a significant proportion of the community to a life without any sex at all (ie those who don't want children, those who have a couple and don't want more, those who cannot support children and those who can't have children etc) and that wouldn't do much for its appeal. So they allow for a little bit of sin - you can always confess it on a Sunday :)

The condom it seems is a little bit more sin than they can tolerate :(

[Mac Howard]

Yes, I don't thing anyone was arguing against educating abstinence along side condom us.

I think you'll find the pope is.

But, in fairness to the pope, he is only promoting Catholic dogma. Some would argue the dogma itself is unacceptable, particularly in the light of the AIDS epidemic it tolerates, and even some Catholics feel that this is one of those areas of dogma that should be left quietly to fade away. Unfortunately this pope is proving, as he was expected, to be a stickler for dogma. He has become an embarrassment for some Catholics and this is just another of those embarrassments.

[Crim]

That is my understanding too which raises the question why Catholicism promotes the "rhythm method" of contraception. Withdrawing on the point of ejaculation is about as unnatural an action as I can imagine and certainly doesn't do a lot for procreation :)

Knowing how pragmatic the Catholic Church is on subjects that affect its influence and appeal, I suspect the Church itself recognises the "impossibility" of a purely abstinence based lifestyle. Insisting on sex only for procreation would condemn a significant proportion of the community to a life without any sex at all (ie those who don't want children, those who have a couple and don't want more, those who cannot support children) and that wouldn't do much for its appeal. So they allow for a little bit of sin - you can always confess it on a Sunday :)

The condom it seems is a little bit more sin than they can tolerate :(

Edit:
I know you only typed it once, but i just saw The Princess Bride again a few days ago and i can't stop quoting Inigo Montoya.
You keep saying this word, "rhythm method." I do not think it means what you think it means.

Calendar-based methods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhythm_Method)

[JPhillips]

For the record: I am not Catholic.

But now that the Catholic-bashing has settled down, perhaps those that have been screaming about how "ignorant" the pope is might consider looking at the facts?

Actually, the studies show condom-distribution programs IN AFRICA (the U.S. numbers may be a bit different) DO, IN FACT, increase the prevalence of AIDS; and in nations like Uganda where abstinence AND MONOGAMY (an important component) are added to general AIDS education, the rates of HIV go way down.

In effect, it is not the pope who is ignorant, but the general populace, who is ignorant, simply, of the facts in the matter.

See this link:
hxxp://209.62.84.132/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92702

I can't find solid numbers, but Uganda is far less clear cut than you present it. It seems the most effective HIV prevention programs combine monogamy, abstinence and condoms. This is from Frontline.

In the early 1990s, President Yoweri Museveni was seen as a new breed of African leader, someone willing to aggressively confront the epidemic. Following wide-reaching and candid health education programs, HIV/AIDS cases among adult Ugandans dropped from an estimated 15 percent in 1992 to roughly 6 percent by 2004. (You can read more on Uganda's broad-stroke approach in the background feature.)

But in the same year, Museveni did a public about-face, declaring war on condom use and promotion. Billboards advertising condoms were replaced by messages celebrating virginity. Condom ads disappeared from radio, and the country's leading condom brand was recalled amid claims of defects.

To find out how these changes affected a country once heralded as one of Africa's AIDS-prevention success stories, reporter Daniele Anastasion traveled to Uganda to talk to all sides in the abstinence debate. Her research took her to religious leaders, youth counselors, health workers and the office of Uganda's first lady, Janet Museveni, a born-again Christian and longtime abstinence campaigner, who, many say, is at the heart of the country's newfound evangelical fervor and anti-condom stance.

In her report, Anastasion says that the premier's wife "recently staged a virginity march in Kampala, and, on World AIDS Day in 2004, called for a national census of virgins."

She also reports that some Ugandan AIDS programs are no longer promoting condom use for fear of losing their funding. The United States is the single largest donor to AIDS prevention in Uganda and much of the aid is dispensed through religious-based groups.

For Ssempa and others, the problem isn't just about morality but about different cultural values. "The Western perspective toward AIDS prevention is largely a result of the '60s; faith is a very low value," he tells Anastasion. "In Africa, 80 percent of the people are peasants. They're largely traditional. They're largely religious. And the model that supports them to fight HIV/AIDS is different. But there's this one-size-fits-all that's being put on us -- more condoms, more condoms, more condoms."

Ssempa believes that you can't promote condoms and abstinence at the same time; it's just too confusing to young people. Instead, he urges them to stay pure before marriage.

Whether it's religion, money or a combination of the two moving AIDS prevention away from "safe sex" to "no sex," the changes in Uganda are becoming apparent.

"In the first two years since the U.S.-funded focus on abstinence," Anastasion reports, "Uganda's rate of HIV infection has nearly doubled."

[Mac Howard]

Edit:
I know you only typed it once, but i just saw The Princess Bride again a few days ago and i can't stop quoting Inigo Montoya.
You keep saying this word, "rhythm method." I do not think it means what you think it means.

Calendar-based methods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhythm_Method)

Yes you're right, I believe the "rhythm method" refers to using appropriate times of the month but the principle stays the same - you have sex while avoiding procreation but I think you'll find the withdrawal method is also acceptable :) or not :) Accepting either does suggest that the Catholic Church accepts that a procreation-only sex isn't going to wash even with the Catholic community.

And what's this about The Princess Bride? That's a film my daughter enjoys watching. Are you telling me there's stuff in there about contraception? :eek:

[finketr]

That is my understanding too which raises the question why Catholicism promotes the "rhythm method" of contraception. Withdrawing on the point of ejaculation is about as unnatural an action as I can imagine and certainly doesn't do a lot for procreation :)

Knowing how pragmatic the Catholic Church is on subjects that affect its influence and appeal, I suspect the Church itself recognises the "impossibility" of a purely abstinence based lifestyle. Insisting on sex only for procreation would condemn a significant proportion of the community to a life without any sex at all (ie those who don't want children, those who have a couple and don't want more, those who cannot support children and those who can't have children etc) and that wouldn't do much for its appeal. So they allow for a little bit of sin - you can always confess it on a Sunday :)

The condom it seems is a little bit more sin than they can tolerate :(

The Catholic Church does not believe that sex is only for procreation. The Catholic Church believes that the union of husband and wife should be open to the creation of new life (a baby).

Natural Family Planning ("newer" rhythm method) is 99% effective at providing contraception. This is the same rate as other mechanical and chemical means of contraception (condoms, IUDs, BCPs, etc). NFP is acceptable to practice if the couple cannot support a child financially, there are other issues surrounding the couple like health, emotional or others. I know you will point out that couples practicing NFP seem to have a lot of kids. The couple that my wife and I learned from have 5 kids and there ages are 12, 9, 6, 3, and a newborn. Note the spacing of the kids. Anyway, NFP tells you when to abstain from sex based on the wife's menstrual cycle for those days during her ovulation.

Coitus interruptus (withdrawal at ejaculation) isn't really an approved method by the Catholic Church and since the fluid released contains some sperm and can lead to an unplanned pregnancy anyway.

I have been reading up on this subject as a newlywed from a book provided by the Diocese's Office of Family Life called Good News About Sex and Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions About Catholic Teaching (http://www.amazon.com/Good-News-About-Sex-Marriage/dp/0867166193).

It is when sex has an artificial barrier to conception or is outside the bonds of matrimony that the aspect of sin comes into it.

--tim

[Mac Howard]

EDIT: my original post was possibly too aggressive

The Catholic Church does not believe that sex is only for procreation. The Catholic Church believes that the union of husband and wife should be open to the creation of new life (a baby).

I don't understand why you think the second justifies contraception any more than the first. All contraception, including the rhythm method, denies the creation of new life. That is its purpose. Using the rhythm method does not allow anyone to justifiably claim they're conforming to Catholic dogma on sexual union as stated in that second condition.

I'm not in any way criticising your use of the rhythm method but the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church in promoting one form of contraception (the rhythm method) while condemning another (condoms) as sinful when both offend the condition you describe particularly when denying its community that second has a significant responsibility for millions of deaths from AIDS.

It's not so much the pope's stating of the dogma that is unacceptable. It is the dogma, coupled with the hypocrisy, and its consequences that is offensive.

[finketr]

Mac,

I think I didn't type that out well (stupid work getting in the way of posts).

When you practice NFP, you can still get pregnant because you aren't taking the extra step to prevent a baby if that's what happens. It can still happen. The baby may be unplanned and a surprise but that couple knew that when they made love.

The main point I was trying to make is that sex is not sinful within marriage and open to new life. No chemical or mechanical means to block the conception.

I'll tell you that the way it was was presented, especially in terms of the pill and surgical means, made sense at the time.

In the absence of other factors: You don't allow doctors to remove healthy tissues for just any reason. You don't allow the prescription of drugs that intentionally damage your patients. Why is it allowed to do things to people that interfere with the natural processes of reproduction? (this is a paraphrase so apologies in advance)