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

[Noop]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Ribbed?

Only thing I like ribbed is beef and pork.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by KWhit

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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...

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?

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...

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.

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]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

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]

Originally Posted by RendeR

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]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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]

Originally Posted by revrew

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by jeff061

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]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

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

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Crim

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

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?

[finketr]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

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.

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

Originally Posted by finketr

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)