Pope Benedict XVI: condoms make Aids crisis worse - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/5005357/Pope-Benedict-XVI-condoms-make-Aids-crisis-worse.html)

Is this the height of total irresponsibility on the part of both the Pontiff and the Church? Here we are in 2009, with millions of people in Africa infected with HIV including countless children, and this 'wise old sage' claims that condoms just aggravate the spread of AIDS. Religion is responsible for a lot of good in this world, but it is responsible for much more bad. Whilst I understand that the Catholic Church is desperate to increase the number of Church members, I cannot help feeling that this borders on the criminal.

What ever the pope's spiritual hopes for the abstinance of the African population, he knows in the short term that people will continue to 'fornicate', therefore infecting others and unborn children. Is this not to dissimilar to the men and women that are jailed, for knowingly having sex with people while they are infected with AIDS? Total irresponsibility at best, but totally criminal from a slightly different angle.

There was a VERY shrill woman on the telly last night who was
trying to defend the Pontiff's statement. LOUDLY.
"Abstinence is the only way to stop AIDS," quoth she in megaphone
like voice.
John Snow had to ask her to calm down a bit.
According to her the introduction of condoms only led to a rise in
the incidence of AIDS because it incited people to fornicate! Yeah,
Right!
So without our flexible friend we desist from the shameful practice?
Come on. Get real!
Bit like saying that you won't buy a Brolly 'cos it will only encourage
you to go out in the rain!

Many Africans do not use condoms, so that they are not the panacea they might seem to be.

Odd as it might seem, not everyone shares our blind belief in scientific truth. In many places you just do not have our sharp division between profane, objective reality and religious belief.

We go once a week to church, if that often, to hear stories about a woman who had a child without sex, getting the surprising news from a bird, or a man who lived to be 900 years-old, a boat that held two of every living thing... That is all okay because that's "religion," I guess and set aside from reality.

For a lot of Africans religion is a very different thing, something that pervades life and gives it a sort of labile quality. The old beliefs can still run strong as an undercurrent even though someone is registered as a Catholic, for instance.

It might be that the Pope is trying to find some middle ground that can harness some of this African religiosity, so that his being so dismissive of the use of condoms (given that they are not all that popular with many African males in the first place) might not be just purely destructive.

Most people are not stupid, so that they might well ask His Holiness just how much he knows first-hand about sex anyway. That would be like me pontificating about "natural childbirth," I suppose.

Or, indeed, breastfeeding Chuks.

The lady started screaming for the police and I had to leg it.

Seems we might have known the same Lady.

Chucks
I understand fully what you are saying about the African people but I don't think that is the reason why the Pope continues to dismiss the use of condoms as well as other forms of birth control. If the Pope said 'use them' then they would. Your argument stands good for the cultural ways of Africans perhaps, but the fact is that the Pope bans there use by any Catholic in any country in the world.

It is probably time to quit your religion when your only real hope of sustaining it is to convince several hundred million people, the majority of whom are illiterate, that whatever the cost you must continue to have babies. It is not only irresponsible from a moral view (AIDS), but also in a world designed to feed say 3 Billion, when we are now at 6 and will soon be 9. Still when Global warming doesn't kill us we will all starve to death.

Odd as it might seem, not everyone shares our blind belief in scientific truth. In many places you just do not have our sharp division between profane, objective reality and religious belief.

We go once a week to church, if that often, to hear stories about a woman who had a child without sex, getting the surprising news from a bird, or a man who lived to be 900 years-old, a boat that held two of every living thing... That is all okay because that's "religion," I guess and set aside from reality.

For a lot of Africans religion is a very different thing, something that pervades life and gives it a sort of labile quality. The old beliefs can still run strong as an undercurrent even though someone is registered as a Catholic, for instance.

It might be that the Pope is trying to find some middle ground that can harness some of this African religiosity, so that his being so dismissive of the use of condoms (given that they are not all that popular with many African males in the first place) might not be just purely destructive.So wouldn't the Pope do a LOT more good if he said that the correct religious thing to do was to use a condom rather than ACTIVELY discourage a group of people who already have a cultural aversion to using them.

This isn't a theological discussion of esoteric importance to a few theologists - this is millions of people's lives that are at risk, with that risk being made worse because of religious DOGMA and for NO other reason.

It is inexcusable, the least he could have done is keep his mouth shut rather than ACTIVELY discourage a PROVEN AIDS risk reducer.

That's not what that woman on the telly said!!!

Correction, not said, SHOUTED.

Choxolate, spot-on!

The Pope's statement is plain and outright denial of facts.

Er, sounds familiar. Didn´t we have something like that, say, in the Middle Ages?

"HIV and AIDS" is a complex, and complicated, crisis situation which involves many facets of beliefs, estimates, social conditions, and bio-medical facts. A "No condoms!" statement helps to aggravate it even further.

I consider the Popes comments as a crime against humanity.

But then, discouraging use of condoms amongst the least-educated parts of the world, is a great way of growing your religion's "customer-base", even if most of the new believers are cursed with a terrible disease and life-expectancy is in the early-30's.

Only a truly cruel & evil man could say such a thing.

Why does the Pope keeps his underpants on in the bath?
He hates looking down on the unemployed


Talking about something they know nothing about
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y204/Badyin/abstinence.jpg

Some people almost deserve to have a large, non-latex sheathed object shoved up their nether regions from time to time (if not more regularly), with a view to clarifying, if not reaffirming their proclaimed vision of the world... :ok::uhoh:

As the old joke ended, "you no play the game, you no make the rules!"

GF

I wonder if someone of the faith, for example a child or thousands of them in Africa perhaps could take out a Class Action against the Pope and the Church for the fact that they have AIDS? If a woman can be awarded $4M because her husband was addicted to ciggies then this must stand a chance. Any lawyers out there want to make a name for themselves?

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/helokat/funnies/jce3t1193371527.jpg

this 'wise old sage' claims that condoms just aggravate the spread of AIDS.

Possibly what The Pope means is an unlubricated condom. Without the proper lubrication (which the prophylactic manufacturers usually specify in their literature) the condom latex can be more injurious to the tissue than "bareback" skin, as they say. During sexual knowledge, microscopic skin abrasion takes place to varying degrees dependent upon the lubrication available and the enthusiasm of the coupling.

The introduction of multiple partnerships without the device being substituted with a fresh one can now introduce contaminants from the previous coupling, thus allowing for infections.

God wants you to save yourselves until you marry (once) and thenceforth not stray outside the relationship. This is quite normal for Europeans but can be a difficult concept to sell in deepest darkest sweaty heaving Africa. Fornicators take their lives in their own hands... literally. And their souls. Condoms will not necessarily save one nor the other.

The race is on to save everyone in Africa and we're losing to the other side. We need to take any steps necessary to even up the score and not give Africa to the heathen opposition.

Support The Pope, people.

I just imagined the Pope calling out: "Use lubricated condoms only!!" ;) :}


However, this is too serious, and the Pope's message did, and will continue to, spread more unnecessary harm. :sad:

I do find it curious. The friend of a relative of mine has become pregnant, twice now, by her Catholic boyfriend. :rolleyes:

He refuses to wear a condom because it is against his religion. :uhoh:

However, he does not refuse to have sex before marriage. :suspect:

So who gets to decide which bit of the religious values you have to respect and which bit you don't? :confused:

And, more to the point, why does this silly bint not realise that he's being hypocritical?

Aaargh - people! They're weird! :ugh:

Well whatever happened, Thanks:ok:

A moderator with board-wide powers and long experience of the way discussions on religion tend to derail people, had temporarily removed this thread to the toolshed for consideration.
After careful consideration, and in view of the restraint and willingness to engage in a mature discussion rather than a slanging match shown by most of you on the Muslim protesters thread, this thread has been returned to JB.
Please make sure that reinstating it was the correct decision.
Thank you.

JB Mods (eternal optimists)

You are pragmatic, the Pope is Dogmatic. Never the twain shall meet.
I totally see your point, being a pragmatist myself. People should be allowed to be as deluded as they choose to be. Until they impact people who are harmed by such delusion. I equate rubberless African Sex to Russian Roulette; to the extent that suicide bombers are encouraged by Mullahs, I see an unfortunate and telling parallel. Sane people can weigh Reality and discern a personal "best course", the marginally insane or delusional do not have that luxury, and are to be pitied. Glad your back on.

AF

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee201/sitigeltfel/Popedevil.jpg

feckkinn priceless. "This Photo, This one here, Yes, this Photo from Friday." "If This Photo offends, we are sorry. This one, Yes."

So in a rather bizarre twist of fate, Catholic values, so often blamed for adding to population growth, could also contribute significantly to reducing it.
It seems it's a sin to prevent life through contraception, but it's okay to create life in the certain knowledge that it will die young from a terminal illness that will also infect others.
I agree with the poster that suggested the lawyers should get involved. The Catholic church must be worth more than most financial institutions on the planet right now, that must be temptation enough for them.
Ooh, temptation. Is that allowed?

http://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2009-03-18.jpg

On Abstinence.

A Rabbi and a Priest are sitting next to each other on an aircraft tucking in to their inflight meals. The Priest is enjoying the loin of Pork while the Rabbi obviously has the Chicken.

The Priest turns to the Rabbi and says "Rabbi, I hope you don't mind me asking but I understand that your religion forbids you as a Rabbi to eat Pork".
'Yes thats true Father replies the Rabbi
Ah but have you ever given in to the temptation and tried it' says the Priest
'I must admit I have Father' says the Rabbi. The Priest looks away with a self righteous smirk on his face.

'Father' says the Rabbi, 'I understand that as a Catholic Priest you are forbidden carnal knowledge with a woman'
''That is correct Rabbi' says the Priest
'Well have you ever fallen to temptation and, you know, tried it' said the Rabbi
The Priest glances down and says 'I have to be honest Rabbi, yes I have'

The Rabbi leans over and smiles and says 'It's better than Pork isn't it!"



Anyway, I digress, back to thread!!!

OK as a Catholic I'll bite. First a few points to start us off:

1) the Pope is not infallible on this; that only applies to matters of dogma;
2) getting men, in many cultures, to use condoms, is a pretty difficult thing;
3) condoms do have a failure rate (I have heard the figure of about 5% bandied about); abstinence, if practiced is 100% guaranteed to remove sex as a transmission vector;
4) the Pope is not a moral relativist: the Pope's job is to teach the ideal and promote the sanctity of all life.

Now let's look at this logically. History has shown that in spite of widespread promotion of condom use, its prevalence rate in Africa is perhaps somewhere around 10%, maybe 20% at best (Google it). So not only are they not used widely, I'm willing to bet that not all men that do use them, do so consistently.

So the rate of unprotected sex remains high and that remains a major virus transmission vector.

Secondly, in the-let's be generous-20% that do use them, maybe up to 5% fail. Of those 5% statistically some are bound to contract HIV. We're not talking of a few people but hundreds of thousands.

So if the Pope says "go ahead and use condoms", in effect he is condemning, ahead of time, a certain percentage of the population to contract HIV and die of AIDS. This he cannot do and be logically consistent on the message of sanctity of life. On the other hand if one elects to ignore the message of abstinence, then one is taking one's own responsibility; condoms are like a roulette game.

Therefore he can only preach what IS 100% effective.

He's no fool, he knows that few will comply. But few will comply with condom use anyway, so he may as well promote the ideal.

And let's face it throwing condoms at the problem is a cop-out of the root causes of poverty, lack of medical care, lack of education (especially of women), lack of women's rights, etc, that sadly, plague Africa.

But it's a lot easier to distribute condoms that address those issues isn't it?

Giving away condoms is like giving a few coins to a street beggar. Might help one guy for a short while but does not address the issue of poverty in a meaningful way.

Beech

If you think that human beings are going to stop having sex because the Pope says so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell to you.

With condoms if 5% fail rest 95% can be safe.

And with respect to the concept of celibacy, if the pope's parents had practiced his preaching he wouldn't be here in the first place. Does he realise that?

It's time for the catholic church to get real and get rid of meaningless and totally impractical dogmas.

This thread really gets me down.

Many posters here, and the Pope himself, have clearly not had first hand dealings with the people affected by his callous statement.

Telling people not to have sex has a significantly lower probability of compliance than tell people to have safe sex (which is proving effectiveness with the programs I am involved in, and if you want details, pm me).

BeechNut, even if what you say is true (which I disagree) about your numbers of people who will get infected with HIV despite using condoms, the numbers are still significantly less where people practice safe sex rather than preach abstinence.

It's nice to know the Pope cares so much about sacred spermatozoa that goes on to die anyway, more than he does about the millions getting infected with HIV. (And if anyone here subscribes to this theory let me take you to an African township and introduce you to 5-8 year old children who are acting as parents to their younger HIV infected siblings because both their parents died of HIV, and see if you still think so)

With condoms if 5% fail rest 95% can be safe.

Only if they are used in 100% of sexual encounters between non-monogamous partners.

I respectfully suggest that the chances of this happening are about equal to the chances of 100% abstinence happening. Therefore sex will always remain a major transmission vector for HIV.

The Pope is teaching what is is 100% effective if used. He's not in the business of preaching what is 95% or less, effective.

And with respect to the concept of celibacy, if the pope's parents had practiced his preaching he wouldn't be here in the first place. Does he realise that?

I didn't realize he was teaching celibacy for other than clergy. Last I checked he promoted the sanctity of marriage and the family and was definitely in favour of monogamous sex between married couples. He is most certainly not preaching celibacy for the rest of us.

BeechNut, even if what you say is true (which I disagree) about your numbers of people who will get infected with HIV despite using condoms, the numbers are still significantly less where people practice safe sex rather than preach abstinence.

Condom Prevalence Rate (ttp://bases.bireme.br/cgi-bin/wxislind.exe/iah/online/?IsisScript=iah/iah.xis&src=google&base=ADOLEC&lang=p&nextAction=lnk&exprSearch=11684937&indexSearch=ID)

"RESULTS: Only 4.4% reported consistent condom use and 16.5% reported inconsistent use during the prior year."

Beech

BeechNut, I am not trying to cause thread drift, but I take objection to your statements.

Since when did Christianity, or Catholicism preach that people never sinned?
If that was the case, why need confession?

The difference in this case, going to confession after you find out you are infected (if you even bother), how does that help wash away the HIV/Aids you inflicted upon those you infected?

Just think of Condoms as a form of real-time confession/penance, and I'm sure you can find some loopholes in Catholicism that will allow you to promote using them.

I don't believe I said that Christians never sinned.

I do believe I said, more or less, that the Pope will not promote sin, that he believes there is an absolute truth, and that it is his job to preach it.

And I respectfully suggest that a 5% increase in sexual morality in Africa (or anywhere for that matter) would provide equal or better results than a 5% increase in condom usage.

Beech

As I am no man's Judge, I merely note that the Ninth Circle is reserved for Betrayer's, traitors, those who dupe, defraud and sell the Lie. If, in presenting a facade of Love and Kindness, one leads another to his doom, though that man is complicit in his own Fall, is a candidate for Dante's special Hall of Evil.

In Law, I will share this foundation. If a Party to a contract has information that impinges on the terms of the contract, and does not inform the other of the pertinent fact, that person is guilty of a species of Fraud. Non-Disclosure is a very serious crime.

Having said these things, I am reminded of a profound caution a wise man gave to me.

In The Eyes of God, must that man be clean of Sin, Who would say:

"Follow Me"

Indeed Airfoilmod.

First stone casting


Another saying; '' First do no harm''


I submit the Pontiff has failed on this count.

In simple terms; your argument and stats, in your post 27, may well have some validity if it was not asking that the species refrain from doing what is the number one purpose of any species, to reproduce.

Please take a minute to consider the magnitude of what the Pope is preaching, and then consider how silly it is.

In simple terms; your argument and stats, in your post 27, may well have some validity if it was not asking that the species refrain from doing what is the number one purpose of any species, to reproduce.


With all due respect this is a silly comment. The Pope has asked no such thing. The Pope has merely suggested that adhering to a sexual morality of abstinence outside of marriage should be the standard for human behaviour.

Note I said "standard". We as humans will always fall short any higher standard and I will be the first to admit that I do, but if we do not set a standard, to aim for, we will get very low results indeed. In the province I live, it is reported that 33%... that's a full one-third... of pregnancies end up as an abortion. And yet this is an advanced Western society where condoms and other forms of birth control are readily available.

And yet we are so naïve to think that parachuting an IL-76 load or two of condoms into Africa will solve the AIDS problem???

Surely our own moral behaviour is no example to show to Africa. The Pope is correct in at least preaching the highest standard possible. As I suggested before, if 5% of the population take heed of his message and modify their behaviour accordingly, the result will be at least better, and probably superior, than increasing condom use by 5%.

Imagine if we set our aviation safety standards as low as our standard of sexual morality...

Beech

One is prompted to inquire of whom can we divine the "Standard". Ahh, yours. His? Then there's that rascally "expectation", a euphemism for arrogant judgment. Rubbers first, then the Pitch, OK? That way, you stand a chance of welcoming breathing brethren to the Flock.

One is prompted to inquire of whom can we divine the "Standard". Ahh, yours. His? Then there's that rascally "expectation", a euphemism for arrogant judgment. Rubbers first, then the Pitch, OK? That way, you stand a chance of welcoming breathing brethren to the Flock.

I would suggest that most Christian churches have similar standards.

I would also suggest that one is free to accept, or reject, the Catholic Church's standard, or any other Church or religion's standard for that matter.

However the Pope, the Church's leader, and indeed all religious leaders, are also free to preach their standards.

It's an interesting concept. It calls upon one to use one's conscience to parse the message, and decide whether it should apply to one's self or not.

But don't expect the Church to change its message to suit the fashion of the times. And that is precisely, to many of the flock, its main attraction.

Beech

All are free to Preach as they are moved to. If, by language or misunderstanding, a sheep is killed by rhetoric of one whose presence inspires a wish to follow, yet having been misunderstood, the herd strays, who then walks in Grace?

AF

All are free to Preach as they are moved to. If, by language or misunderstanding, a sheep is killed by rhetoric of one whose presence inspires a wish to follow, yet having been misunderstood, the herd strays, who then walks in Grace?

So are you saying that Grace is earned?

I rather was taught it was a free gift from God.

Beech

a Grant, not a Gift.

I'm sorry, but if this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7950671.stm) article from the BBC has any truth, the Pope really has his head in his arse.

He told the bishops they had to preserve traditional African families and protect the country's poor.Once upon a lifetime I was involved in a business in Zambia. The foreman had 5 wives, 3 mistresses, 2 girlfriends, and 2 girls in school waiting in line to work their way up the ranks.

This was a 'traditional African family'.

One of our business partners, a local chief, was also the local Doctor. He had one wife. His reasoning, upon being asked why he only had one and the foreman had an ensemble, was "one woman is enough trouble for any man". He, was a wise man, no wonder he was a doctor ;)

The foreman's ensemble, with rank, was not a) illegal, b) immoral c) against the norm d) unaccepted or e) in the minority.

[rant removed]

There is a saying, whether or not you may agree with it:
Africa needs African solutions to African problems.

I can tell you abstinence is not an 'African solution' to this problem; not even in the top 100.

Beechnut

When faced with an aircraft emergency that could deteriorate to a catastrophe, we in the aviation industry are taught that our best chance of survival is to go through our immediate and secondary actions, in order to put the aircraft in the safest possible configuration for that situation, therebye, allowing us some more time to sort the problem out with the minimum chance possible during that situation of the aircraft emergency deteriorating further. Get the idea?


The Pope did not take the stance that 'he is teaching what is 100% effective', he said that condoms aggravate the spread of HIV. That is very different, and he has failed in his responsibility as a leader on the world stage.

It may be a cultural no no for men to use condoms in Africa, but you underestimate the power of the Popes words. When he tells millions of illiterate people that birth control is not permitted by God, then they believe him, and they act on that, for heavenly salvation is their only way out of the misery of their lives.

If the Pope said, many of our flock are dying and millions of children suffering because of this disease spread by the devil. God says the way to fight it is to wear a condom while he thinks about a solution', then lo and behold, people in Africa would start wearing them, and all those God fearing young girls would tell their men to 'saddle' up before the hanky panky, or there is no hanky panky. The men as usual would moan and protest but eventually they would saddle up, because thats the latest message to their girls from God via the Pope.

The dogmatic arguement about the sanctity of life is totally flawed on this one. By wearing a condom you are not destroying life. There is no life to destroy in sperm. Sperm is but the food required for the egg (where there is life) to kick off. Abortion is a different subject and not one for this thread, suffice to say if young catholic kids were encouraged to have safe sex if they must have sex then a lot of potential abortions would be prevented. How many young catholic girls have had abortions over the years because of the shame of having a child out of wedlock? all because a man at the top of their church says you cannot use contraception. As for the sanctity of life, far better a rubber than an abortion or a child born with HIV.

This is all just a continuation of the desire by the church to have a gripping power hold over its people, without whom, the clergy and Vatican would be nothing. It is all a bit sinister and evil really isn't it? It certainly isn't loving towards humanity. Still as throughout history, any crime can be comitted in the name of the church and with a simple sorry and a Hail Mary you are absolved of all sin and guilt. The Pope can condemn millions more to die, and when he faces his own death he can be given absolution by saying sorry in his dying breath and all will be ok. My Great Grandfather was a monster of a man. A wife beating, child beating, drinking, gambling, womanising ba****d. In his final years he began to panic a bit, he was a god fearing catholic man and knew his time would soon be up and his life had been one of constant sin. He thought he could make ammends by giving lots of money to the church and when he lay in his hospital bed, he actually died with a smile on his face when the priest gave him absolution and said he is forgiven all his sins. I really hope when he got to the pearly gates the main man up there said turn around and go to the hot place, its me that forgives sin not anybody else.

If the Pope is right and God sits in judgement I think like many of his predecessors he is in for a big shock when his time comes and the main man passes that judgement.

Now I fancy my 15 minutes of fame, maybe I need to take my lawyer mate for a beer and persuade him to join me in a class action against the Pope on behalf of Catholic Kids in Africa with HIV.

Roger, well spoken!

Indeed, there are many misconceceptions about the causes of the HIV and AIDS pandemic. To give you one example, somebody above noted "lack of education (especially of women)" as one of the causes. This only partly true. The highest HIV prevalence rates prevail amongst university students - in Botswana, a few years ago, around 50 % of all students enrolled were HIV positive. HIV knows no halt and barely observes education boundaries.

Another misconception is that there is a direct link between poverty and AIDS. Again, I'm not saying this is not true. What I'm saying is it ain't so simple. There are very high prevalence rates in the so-called middle and upper classes. Only, the true figures here are often not revealed because denial in these groups is high. (This is feared to be especially true in South Africa among "rural Whites".)

So what I'm saying is that what seem to be simple solutions (Educate people, this will solve the AIDS problem. Tackle poverty, this will reduce the spread of HIV.) take a lot more, and indeed, promoting these simple solutions bears in it the danger of ignoring the complex causes behind the problem. Of course education and poverty-reduction are important, but they don't run like clockwork to reduce the risks of infection.

We need complex solutions. In the meantime, use a condom.

Or be monogamous (long term partners). It's not that difficult, and there are lots of benefits. I think the Pope has a sound fundamental point to make, unpalatable though it might be to the enlightened mind. Even though he is wrapping it up in a religious context it makes sense to me. You shag your way around Africa, and you can expect the worst. How much education does that take?

WARNING!! THREAD DRIFT!!


a boat that held two of every living thing...


Actually, it didn't. Only the "good" animals were allowed on the Ark. The "unclean", etc, were left behind.

So the zealots can't even get that bit right!

Those who know me will know that I am not a believer in religion in any way shape or form and, having been educated by the nuns and then at a boarding school which was part seminary with the teachers/prefects being priests/trainee priests, I have an exteemely jaundiced view of the Church.

However, in the interests of clarity, what the Pope actaully said is shown below, and does not deserve the cut and paste job done by the press.

What the Pope actually said:

......"I would say that this problem of AIDS cannot be overcome with advertising slogans. If the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem. The solution can only come through a twofold commitment: firstly, the humanization of sexuality, in other words a spiritual and human renewal bringing a new way of behaving towards one another; and secondly, true friendship, above all with those who are suffering, a readiness - even through personal sacrifice - to be present with those who suffer. And these are the factors that help and bring visible progress.

Therefore, I would say that our double effort is to renew the human person internally, to give spiritual and human strength to a way of behaving that is just towards our own body and the other person’s body; and this capacity of suffering with those who suffer, to remain present in trying situations.".....

No, not really but plenty of second-hand, after 20-plus years in West Africa!

One colleague, in a bar (where else), my curiousity spurred by his rep as Sex God Number One in the expat community at that time, when asked by me if he had given any thought to this AIDS thing that was being talked and written about said: "Who, me? I am lucky!"

Me: "Uuuh, 'lucky' in what sense?"

Him: "No, just lucky, period. Bad things don't happen to me!"

Me: "So, like, you never need to take your umbrella along in case it rains, use condoms, that sort of thing?"

Him: "Huh?"

Me in the happy state of being overpaid and underemployed, at the Company Doctor's for my routine Medical, caught glancing at this really big carton of condoms on the desk: "Umm, Doctor, why do you have that big carton of condoms on your desk? Is this some sideline, 'something for the weekend'?"

Doctor: "Oh, those! I try to get everyone to use them. We have a lot of HIV here, you know. Most local men don't like to use them even though they are free. I even have trouble getting you ex-pats to pay attention. By the way..."

And so it was that HSE Co-ordinator chuks also became OIC Condoms, taking a couple of cartons along to put in the toilet of the bar for whoever might need some and topping the supply up as they ran out fairly regularly. We did this on a "no ask, no tell" basis, just trying to get our people to use the damned things when entertaining the local ladies. The booze was cheap and the sex was even cheaper and when you mix boredom with cheap booze and cheap sex, well...

How did the doctor end up with this great supply of the things in the first place? The U.S. Government supplied the things but the local people didn't like using them, or so I was told.

Where I was in West Africa, it was a man's world and they did as they pleased, leaving the women to deal with the consequences for the most part. Condoms were an annoying and unwanted reminder of acting responsibly that had no place in the bedroom, I guess.

What the Pope says, well... If you have been a good little Catholic then you shouldn't have any worries about HIV in the first place so that whatever the Pope has to say about condoms is neither here nor there. In reality, one would hope that people use common sense (and condoms) rather than turning to the Pope for advice about their sex lives.

In a very disappointing way, one that just says something about human nature, coming up out of poverty has helped the spread of HIV. That would be men now with enough money to buy a woman!

I do believe I said, more or less, that the Pope will not promote sin, that he believes there is an absolute truth, and that it is his job to preach it.

And I respectfully suggest that a 5% increase in sexual morality in Africa (or anywhere for that matter) would provide equal or better results than a 5% increase in condom usage.
Tugging spurious percentages out of thin air that have NO grounding in reality or any research does not help your credibility.

1. Whether condoms are 90%, 95% or 95.34565% effective is not relevant. They have been SHOWN, by scientific research to significantly reduce the risk of passing AIDS/HIV from one person to another during sexual intercourse. To deny this is is to deny reality.

2. To suggest celibacy before marriage and then expect total monogamy afterwards as a successful strategy to reduce AIDS/HIV has been shown not to work, particularly in parts of Africa. To deny this is to deny reality.

For a "world leader" to promote 2/. as an effective strategy whilst denying 1/. because of religious dogma is to deny reality. Not only that it is anti-human - it will result in more people dying.

There are 4 options in this scenario - do 1 and 2, do 1 but not 2, do 2 but not 1, do neither.
The outcomes are best for the first and get worse and worse, with third and fourth being an order of magnitude worse than the first two. To deny this it to deny reality.

You may draw your own conclusions about which options are the TRULY morally correct positions to take.

Morality is not absolute - it is relative to time and culture. This is as true of religious morality as any other form, for example the Crusades were morally acceptable in their time, burning "witches" was morally acceptable in their time, the Inquisition was morally acceptable in its time, the genocide of the Incas was morally acceptable in its time, slavery was morally acceptable in its time. None of these are morally acceptable now.

The Catholic Church has changed it's morality and the time is well past when it should abandon this "moral" stance on condom use.

Imagine if we set our aviation safety standards as low as our standard of sexual morality...

Most of the points you raise in your reply to me have been challenged by others and I see no point in doing so again.

However, the concept of sexual morality is subjective and varies significantly across cultures as well as individuals and, I my view, it is therefore wrong, if not arrogant, to judge others by your own, or anyone else's standard (including the Pope's) as your standard is no more valid than any other standard.

OK as a Catholic I'll bite. First a few points to start us off:

1) the Pope is not infallible on this; that only applies to matters of dogma;
2) getting men, in many cultures, to use condoms, is a pretty difficult thing;
3) condoms do have a failure rate (I have heard the figure of about 5% bandied about); abstinence, if practiced is 100% guaranteed to remove sex as a transmission vector;
4) the Pope is not a moral relativist: the Pope's job is to teach the ideal and promote the sanctity of all life.
1. The Pope is as fallible as any human on any subject
2. Actively discouraging them from doing so makes it even harder.
3. The "failure" rate of condoms (i.e. their use as a CONTRACEPTIVE device) has little bearing on their use as an AIDS/HIV barrier. You are falsely conflating the two. "Abstinence, IF practised ..." - so would cutting off all the men's genitalia - but it isn't going to happen is it. Let's try to be a little realistic and see the world as it IS, not as you wish it were.
4. "The Pope is not a moral relativist" - correct - he is a politician, the chairman of a huge organization. He does however represent the moral values of the Roman Catholic Church which most certainly ARE realtive to the social mores and times in which the Church finds itself. I do not see the RCC promoting the burning of witches (like it USED to do), or burning heretics (like it USED to do) or suppoting genocide (like it USED to do with the Incas), or supporting slavery (like it USED to do) etc. etc. etc. it's "official morals" change like everything else - can you deny this?

Just look at the RCC view on the celibacy of it's own clergy here (http://www.futurechurch.org/fpm/history.htm) to see "relative morality" at play in the RCC.

Chox

Nice link, every day's a school day!

1. Whether condoms are 90%, 95% or 95.34565% effective is not relevant. They have been SHOWN, by scientific research to significantly reduce the risk of passing AIDS/HIV from one person to another during sexual intercourse. To deny this is is to deny reality.

I of course am not denying that condoms are an effective barrier to the transmission of HIV during individual acts of sexual intercourse.

If they are used. Therein lies the problem. They aren't, at least not on a widespread basis, even when readily available, in the part of the world we are discussing.

2. To suggest celibacy before marriage and then expect total monogamy afterwards as a successful strategy to reduce AIDS/HIV has been shown not to work, particularly in parts of Africa. To deny this is to deny reality.

To suggest consistent condom use before marriage and in extra-marital relations as a successful strategy to reduce AIDS/HIV has already been shown not to work, particularly in parts of Africa. To deny this is to deny reality.

So the Pope says encouraging condom use won't work. Well, in point of fact, the results have shown that encouraging condom use won't work quite apart from what the Pope says. There are cultural factors at play in this fact as well. See the previous links I posted, and read the post from Chuks.

Sending over boxes of cheap condoms to Africa is about as useful as tossing a few coins to a street beggar will be for solving poverty. It may make you feel good for a moment or two; it may help someone, then again it may not, and it will do nothing to eradicate the problem.

The Pope is suggesting (from his FULL quote, not the chopped up media one), that a profound change in attitude is required to solve the problem. Cripes even if you DO believe condoms are part of the solution, a profound change in attitude is still required to even get most in Africa to consider using them as the record shows that usage rates are sporadic at best.

Meanwhile one hopes medical research will come up with a vaccine. Given the frailty of human nature it may be the only real hope.

"one woman is enough trouble for any man"

Wiser words were never spoken!

Beech

Pope is wrong!

End of story!

The Roman Catholic Church has been under increasing pressure to re-think its attitude towards women for a long time now. Whom the Church chooses as Pope can say a lot about how that struggle is proceeding.

As a lapsed Catholic I haven't been following this one as closely as Formula One but I believe it is correct to write that this Pope and his immediate predecessor are and were notable among other things as throwbacks to an age of male authoritarianism, with women firmly relegated to an inferior role.

Put simply, God put Man in the driving seat with Woman there to read the map, make suggestions, serve up the snacks, keep the kids in the back seat quiet but definitely NOT to take over the wheel, let alone decide which direction to take! (Call this one "A Scene from Childhood" and let's imagine it fit just fine in a Roman Catholic family around 1960.)

If you accept this curious view of creation then it is an easy jump to "woman as property," I fear.

From my point of view the Pope has big problems to sort out in the modern Catholic Church when it comes to questions of gender. There are many good arguments for allowing women full equality in the Church and only rather weak ones against that but the male-dominated Church is setting the agenda to promote things that come across as either wrong-headed or as side issues.

It might be a bit more intelligent to look deeply into how this AIDS epidemic has come about (when female sex workers and their male clients spread the disease in Africa in many cases) and then address the core issues instead of just putting out a fatwa on rubber johnnies. That would not go down very well with your average African male, I think, since you would be telling him to change his age-old way of life but it would speak straight to the issue on AIDS. It is the behaviour that calls for the use of condoms that is the problem and by problem I don't just mean AIDS and STDs but overpopulation due to leaving 51% of the people with no real option but to crank out the brats one after the other, economic under-performance and, and, and...

A friend who knows Africa better than I do, and is a very polite, confirmed racist, laughed bitterly and said, "Trying to outbreed AIDS..." of one country in southern Africa. Well, they do have over 50% incidence of HIV in the general population so that I just had to keep my mouth shut about that, unable to come up with any snappy counter-arguments just off the top of my head!

Not to be unfair but the poor old Pope is already on thin ice with his dress sense, going about all gowned up as he does, so that talking plain sense to the laity might be a good way to show that he cares about more than just abstruse theology and the way things got done back when Galileo got himself into so much trouble, "the good old days."

By the way: Papal infallibility in matters of faith (he cannot decree that the Sun revolves around the Earth, for instance) only came in around 1870, I think. You could look this up but as far as I remember the Pope used to control a considerable chunk of what we know know as Italy. One interpretation of events states that when he lost his territories to the formation of modern Italy he was compensated by being given infallibility.

Beech

So the Pope says encouraging condom use won't work. Well, in point of fact, the results have shown that encouraging condom use won't work quite apart from what the Pope says. There are cultural factors at play in this fact as wellThe fact is that as a World leader, like all World Leaders the Pope should encourage their use, and then those that are disuaded from using them for their religious beliefs just might use them. If you get some Dr in Africa saying use condoms the chances are he will be ignored. If the Pope says use them, save the suffering of the little children, whose parents will both inevitably die, then it is likely to get a bit more of a positive response. In the meantime he can press for his idea of Utopia, but for a man who has influence over half a billion people in the World, to imply their use is futile is criminal.

Well said RS

I of course am not denying that condoms are an effective barrier to the transmission of HIV during individual acts of sexual intercourse.

If they are used. Therein lies the problem. They aren't, at least not on a widespread basis, even when readily available, in the part of the world we are discussing.
And the Pope actively telling people NOT to use them is going to help fix that problem is it?
To suggest consistent condom use before marriage and in extra-marital relations as a successful strategy to reduce AIDS/HIV has already been shown not to work, particularly in parts of Africa. To deny this is to deny reality.
And therein lies your error - have a look at THIS (http://africa.resurrectionsong.com/archives/001202.html) study in Uganda and THIS (http://www.avert.org/aafrica.htm)in sub-Saharan Africa generally. There are plenty more if you care to google for them.

So the Pope says encouraging condom use won't work. Well, in point of fact, the results have shown that encouraging condom use won't work quite apart from what the Pope says. And how do square this with you opening statement above that "condoms are an effective barrier to the transmission of HIV/Aids" - either they are or they aren't.

Sending over boxes of cheap condoms to Africa is about as useful as tossing a few coins to a street beggar will be for solving poverty.Is quite correct - but that is NOT what is being suggested. Condom use is PART of a whole strategy including education, acceptance of different sexual mores etc. NOBODY is suggesting that condoms ON their own are going to solve the problem. However any current solution that explicitly prevents their use will make things a LOT more difficult.

Cripes even if you DO believe condoms are part of the solution, a profound change in attitude is still required to even get most in Africa to consider using them as the record shows that usage rates are sporadic at best.

Meanwhile one hopes medical research will come up with a vaccine. Given the frailty of human nature it may be the only real hope I totally agree - shame the Pope doesn't. Let's be honest here the ONLY reason that the Pope is taking this stance is because of the contraceptive issue, he would rather a child be born with AIDS and then die a slow, painful and undignified death than not be conceived at all.

You may make of that what you will - I regard it as an immoral stance.

Chox
You are full of excellent little links today. I propose you start a thread entitled 'A Link A Day'.

You are full of excellent little links today. I propose you start a thread entitled 'A Link A Day'.
Keeps the bullshitters at bay?

You follow. Not the Pope, the other Man. The second Book is all about Him. The First Book is all about the Pope.

The First one is about Law. The second one is about Love. Which of these two is more important?? Love. Every Time. No one weeps for the Law. There are billions, possibly, who weep at the Love the Man embodied, that He would sacrifice Himself for the rest of us. No one suggests it is cute to flaunt God's Law, and one does so at great risk to His ethereal destination.

But I think we are talking about People who don't follow the One in the First place. What would He do? I don't know, but I can think. He would model His perfect behaviour for those who felt the calling to follow Him. As I understand and know Him, I would do anything He said. The Pope, not so much.

The fact is that as a World leader, like all World Leaders the Pope should encourage their use, and then those that are disuaded from using them for their religious beliefs just might use them. If you get some Dr in Africa saying use condoms the chances are he will be ignored. If the Pope says use them, save the suffering of the little children, whose parents will both inevitably die, then it is likely to get a bit more of a positive response. In the meantime he can press for his idea of Utopia, but for a man who has influence over half a billion people in the World, to imply their use is futile is criminal.

So let's assume for a minute the Pope says "don't shag, but if you do shag, use a condom". And let's assume 100% of Africans suddenly see the light and comply. And you're one of them. So you shag. But the condom is one of 5% maybe, that breaks. And you transmit or receive HIV because of it.

The Pope would then have misled you into serious harm.

Choxolate:
And how do square this with you opening statement above that "condoms are an effective barrier to the transmission of HIV/Aids" - either they are or they aren't.

You left out the part where I said "if they are used". If you are going to quote me to refute my arguments, please do me the courtesy of quoting me accurately. I would also add though that they are not proven to be 100% effective.

he would rather a child be born with AIDS and then die a slow, painful and undignified death than not be conceived at all.

You may make of that what you will - I regard it as an immoral stance.

I don't think this is a very helpful statement and is so far removed from what the Pope teaches and the Church teaches... if one would actually bother to read his entire statement and the work of the many Church organizations in Africa caring for AIDS victims. There is nothing to suggest that the Pope wishes people to die a slow death.

Beech

Beech

So let's assume for a minute the Pope says "don't shag, but if you do shag, use a condom". And let's assume 100% of Africans suddenly see the light and comply. And you're one of them. So you shag. But the condom is one of 5% maybe, that breaks. And you transmit or receive HIV because of it.

The Pope would then have misled you into serious harm.
:ugh::ugh::ugh:

If I didn't think you were serious that would be funny.

Beechnut,
Your comments are proof of interplanetary travel.

A few Popes ago there was an attempt to drag the RC Church at least into the 20th Century. The last couple have managed to reverse the tide. A question of East European male macho?

You see the Pope is in a no-win situation. If he said "yes" to condoms and someone came to harm because of that policy (a finite and statistically predictable number would come to harm as the effectiveness rate is not 100%), then the Pope would be encouraging you to play a roulette game with your life by taking a risk. Maybe a lower risk than not using condoms, but a risk nonetheless.

If the Pope says don't use condoms, you're not satisfied with his advice, you think he should be encouraging condoms on the grounds that they will save "some lives".

The Pope does not say "saving 100 lives at the expense of one life" is a good thing. He's not a relativist, each individual human life has dignity and worth. So he can only suggest the sure thing.

So he places the responsibility right back where it belongs: on your shoulders. As was mentioned a few posts back, you shag your way around Africa, condom or no condom, and you are taking risks. He is saying in essence that the only certain way of avoiding HIV, is to keep sex to a monogamous relationship with the same partner for life. What a concept.

One is free to do with that information as one wishes, but one then takes the responsibility that goes with it.

Beech

The Pope isn't trying to sell anything, but he is expressing, for your consideration, a method for avoiding some of the turmoil modern life is prone to.

As for me, I'm gratified to observe that at least one quarter is not willing to compromise eternal truths in the interest of contemporary mores.

Abstinance until marriage and monogamy thereafter, unfashionable as they may be, appear to me to be a wise way to avoid many of the vagaries and inconveniences of modern life. That is what the Pope is saying. There is no need or justification to vilify him for that.

I think BeechNut has the better argument.

For background, I am a non-practising Deist, and never was Catholic.

If you just check ORAC's post #47 for what the Pope actually said, instead of what the papers loosely quoted him as saying, two very different things, then I think that, while you might not like his devaluing condom use for doctrinal reasons, he really was addressing the underlying issue.

I think it is grossly overstating things to make him out to be doing something wrong there when he was just setting forth the Church's official position, just doing his job. I think I see a problem with his attitude and with the attitude of his Church but I don't think his actions in this could be called immoral or wrong.

There's some sort of modern way that we commodotise so many things in life that really shouldn't be for sale at all. I have been privy to so many perfectly serious (totally mad) discussions about the price of a woman in Nigeria or Phuket, where can you get more and better bangs for your buck.

I have had people who should know better really getting on my case, even, as if to hint that I was at least quite remarkably stupid if not some sort of closeted homo not to let one of these bargirls latch onto my spotty, White, married self. Of course that one of my inquisitors was next forced to do one of those farcical routines of sending the visiting wife this way while his last bargirl conquest was sent that way... I could only laugh quietly to myself over that one!

Used to be, West Africa was so very far off. Nowadays it is only a satellite telephone call away from home, when more than one startled wife has had some rather suede voice on the line to "aks" if it is true that she and that dimbulb she is married to really have not had sex for the last year so that they are on the point of divorce when he can find True Lurve with Blessing, Prudence, Patience or whoever that is on the line from Lagos, as he obviously has told her. I suppose that sort of thing might make you pay more attention to whatever it was His Holiness is on about there, the whole thing and not just saying that the rubber johnnie might not be the key to saving African humanity from itself!

You can look around in much of Africa to check what is going on, when anyone with a few extra dollars to rub together just has to buy a woman or two or three, just trying to keep up with Mr Jones I suppose and AIDS be damned. It is going to take more than a few free condoms to sort this one out! That part the Pope got right but that said, yes, I think condom use should be encouraged.

Really, I think it would be much better for the Church to come down out of the pulpit and do more in common with other organisations trying to help there in Africa, not least the indigenous ones, to set aside doctrine as much as possible to help the people who are in such trouble. Follow the links to see just how engaged most African governments are in this fight against AIDS. (Hint: not very!)

This Pope comes across as caring more about his theology than about just helping those in need, as if he might have his priorities wrong. Does that make him such a bad person, though?

As a mere reflection on the ongoing discussion/events:

I, for one, feel embarassed to have the Holy Seat in my fatherland.
I know Gen. Giuseppe Garibaldi would have agreed!

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

As was mentioned a few posts back, you shag your way around Africa, condom or no condom, and you are taking risks. He is saying in essence that the only certain way of avoiding HIV, is to keep sex to a monogamous relationship with the same partner for life. What a concept.
You are being a little disingenuous here. NOBODY (as far as I can see) is saying that this is EITHER condoms OR abstinence, and nobody is saying that abstinecne isn't the surest method. However in the REAL world we should be trying to use both. It is only the RCC that is saying NO CONDOMS. Others (myself included) think that EVERY avenue should be used - education, condoms, chnaging moral values to promote abstinence.

The RCC is, in effect, removing one tool from the box in the fight against aids. Not because it doesn't work, not because it is ineffective but because they have a MORAL: objection to the use of condoms for birth control.

You said earlier that the Pope doesn't want a child to die from AIDs rather than not be conceived. I am sure he doesn't WANT it - but that is what will happen as the result of his pronouncements.

http://img.slate.com/media/26/090319_ed.gif