Pope in Africa reaffirms "no condoms" against AIDS

Remove all ads!

Pope in Africa reaffirms "no condoms" against AIDS

Just another example of the backwardness of the RC Church. I personally find it appalling that African Catholics are told by their spiritual leader not to use condoms for AIDs control. Ridiculous and appalling...

 

Well, it's like I've said before...

...choking the popes' the best method of contraception...

...uhh, unless you're catholic...or a woman...

 

Oh dear, RC doctrine now promotes death through ignorance?

 

To play the devil's advocate (which seems wrong in a thread with the Pope ) have years of condom distribution done anything to combat AIDS in Africa? I'm thinking no. Condoms helped fight AIDS in western civilization, but wasn't it really more about the education and fear that was beat into us?

 

Well, in a way he's right. The only way to stop the rampant spread of aids is through abstinence and responsibility in sexual relations. For far too many, the availability of condoms mean they do not need to have any responsibility in sexual encounters. Unfortunately many people do not use condoms correctly and, used incorrectly, they provide little to no protection.

As Snook said, education is the key. But what do you do for those individuals who choose to remain ignorant?

 

Well, given that condoms seem to work pretty well everywhere else, I can only surmise that some combination of lack of use or improper use of condoms (which would stem from poor sex education) is the issue. You can send condoms to Africa - you cannot make people wear them. It would seem like if we used the same methods in Africa as we did in the US and Europe, we'd get similar results.

As to the Pope and his stance on condom use, it's pretty much a continuation of his predecessor JP2. JP2 was considered a very progressive Pope at the time he assumed that role, but that was over 30 years ago. For Benedict 16 to be continuing his policies is troubling.

When you think about it, Benedict 16 was a very uninspired choice. I don't know what the gathering of Cardinals talk about when they convene to pick a new pope (and I suppose neither does anyone else who isn't a Cardinal), but why they thought picking a guy with the same credentials as his precessor (and who was already in his late 70s) was a good idea is somewhat baffling to me. I imagine that Benedict 16 must be over 80 by now - not the kind of guy you would expect major change from.

 

I'm betting that the Pope and others with a mindset similar to him are thinking something along the lines of "if people are given condoms and told that the little rubber things will prevent the spread of AIDS, they will see it as a license to hump indiscriminately. Indiscriminate humping is not somethng we wish to encourage."

However, while I don't have any statistics handy, it's pretty clear that indiscriminate humping is one of the world's most popular pasttimes. That can't be stopped, though it can be braked.

The bottom line is that abstinence before marriage and fidelity afterward is the best way to stop the spread of all STDs. But since that isn't happening, I say give them condoms, teach them how to use them (and warn them that the damn things are NOT 100% effective) and make the progress you can rather than waiting for a utopic world where everyone controls their sexual urges perfectly.

 

I can understand that, but I don't think having (and using condoms) encourages indiscriminate sex, at least in Africa. I think the complete focus on abstinence is counterproductive; by negating the role of condoms the RC church indirectly reduces the impact that condom use would have. Sex is not going away, in Africa and elsewhere; I'd hazard a guess that the higher STD rates there exist exactly because condom use (proper one, at least) is less common than elsewhere. So if the Pope really thinks that the Catholic Church can help Africa's AIDS problem by opposing condoms, I definitely can not agree with his stance.

Of course, abstinence is a pretty sure way not to get AIDS from sexual relationships (although you can still get it in other ways), but it only helps those who observe it. For the rest, condoms are way, way better than anything else atm. It seems to me that the Pope is putting official doctrine above the lives and suffering of the people, and that is a big no-no in my book.

However, I don't know what choice he has. Wasn't there a doctrine in Catholicism stating that as the Pope is God's messenger on Earth, a Pope's decision can not be revoked or invalidated?

 

Yes, in the eyes of the RCC, the Pope's judgement is infallible. As a Catholic (at least in name if not in practice), I never could understand why condoms were considered against the rules for contraception. The RCC has a stance that life begins at conception. So I can see why they oppose oral contraception as that prevents the egg and the sperm from getting together. However, their rationale for banning all contraception (even the types where no conception/fertilization takes place) seems extreme IMO.

 

It's beyond extreme, it's "principles" taken to a level of stupidity. The rationale is that encouraging contraceptive use is tantamount to encouraging promiscuity. That may be true, but if converts is what they want, they'd better focus on keeping those converts alive, which means telling them that although the Church preaches abstinence and it is a sin to fornicate, if you do fornicate at least be smart enough to sheathe your sword so you are alive later to repent of your sinful actions.

But I can see the Church not wanting to actually pay what amounts (in their eyes) to God's money to supply those condoms that encourage fornication. But how they're coming across is "it's OK to fornicate, but don't even THINK about protecting yourself." They shouldn't forbid or discourage condom use. I think they should focus on encouraging abstinence and just refrain from talking about condoms.

 

Fanatism and common sense rarely intersect.

Examples:

My ex-father-in-law (a very intelligent and talented man who I still respect in spite of his daughter...) was vehemently against using federal funds to conduct AIDS research. His opinion was that he disagreed with the lifestyles which led to the spread of AIDS and so he should not have to pay to support people who chose those lifestyles (promiscous sex and drug use). In all other things I found him to be extremely compassionate -- just not this.

The first Planned Parenthood branch was opened in Utah under extensive protests. I was watching a talk show where one of the leaders of the protest was being interviewed. She had a 15YO daughter and the interviewer asked if the daughter had been taught the basics of sexuality. The woman said, 'No -- that should happen just before marriage.' The interviewer pressed on, 'It's estimated XX percent of young adults are having sex in this community alone, based on surveys in our high schools.' The woman was shocked such surveys were allowed. He continued, 'Wouldn't you rather have your daughter know and understand the risks of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases in this climate?' The woman responded, 'If my daughter was that kind of tramp she would have to live with the consequences of her actions without my help.' The interview ended.

For most religions they are not saying 'fornication is okay' -- they are saying the only acceptable means to prevent pregnancy and STD's is abstinence. I agree 100% that such a mode of thinking is outdated and unrealistic, but that won't sway the devout.

 

I just have to say, I don't think that point of view is outdated -- it very much applies to today and those with the moral fibre to follow it are much happier (and disease free.)

I also will say that it is obviously unrealistic to expect people to be perfect all the time and not make mistakes. Without going into yucky details, suffice it to say that I am not being sanctimonious on my high horse here -- I'd made LOTS of mistakes and have been incredibly lucky to have not reaped the whirlwind for my bad choices. If such consequences had come, though, I was fully prepared to take responsibility for those choices and not tried to blame it on my genes or human nature ("I couldn't HELP myself, I'm a slave to my passions!" kind of crap.)

 

Actually, I think DC has one of the highest rates for AIDS.

Maybe the Pope should spread some of his "wisdom" here in the US instead of Africa.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/16/health/main4868123.shtml?source=RSSattr=Health_4868123

 

To be perfectly blunt and crass here, I don't think that the "being alive" part matters much to fanatics.

If a person has sinned, there's always plenty of time for repentance even if, and especially if you know that you're dying slowly.

If a child contracts HIV/AIDS during childbirth, may God have mercy on that poor child's soul. Nothing could have been done to prevent it, it was God's will.

The logic goes in these lines: nothing can and nothing should be done to prevent a disease that has such a strong link to a sinful act. If HIV wasn't sexually transmitted, that catholic church's stand would be different. This much is clear to everyone.

Continuing the morality, death and dying is part of life. One should try one's best to live one's life without sin, repent the sinful acts that are inevitably part of being a human, pray for forgiveness and do no harm (unless it's some sinners,heathen or pagans that need to be imprisoned, tortured, impaled, drawn, hung, quartered, burned at the stake, or...condemned to live the rest of their lives knowing that they will die slowly, every day full of misery and pain, and with the knowledge that they can blame only themselves for their accursed state...)

edit: some typos, of which one was 'prey' for forgiveness...how fitting, especially since that's not even a typo...funny tricks my mind plays with me...

 

This kind of mess is typical for religion. Any religion in which the people stop to think for themselves and let the religious leaders do it ends in stupidity like this.

Religion is meant to enrich your life, not run it.

 

Nah. If religion was meant for anything, then it certainly would be meant to run our lives. The idea that the individual is more important than dogma has only been around here for half a millennia (IIRC.) In the olden days, people were regularly sacrificed to the gods for the future of the tribe. To keep the gods happy or alive, blood (or something else involving death) was needed. Most people are familiar with how the Aztecs sacrificed captured slaves just to keep the sun going. I also remember reading about how the Aztecs drowned their own children to appease some rain god. The life of an individual human has always been less important than the tribe and its religion, until now that is.

Having a religion that enriches ones life is just like paying lip service. It is meaningless to only perform the fun parts of a religion and ignore the less fun ones. A dogma is a whole package, you either live by the full package or you don't. You can't be picky about the parts of the dogma. Since when do *you* decide which rituals are important enough to be carried out? Since when do *you* decide which virtues are important to be lived by? Since when do *you* decide what is morally right and morally wrong? You might feel that the dogma is outdated and doesn't apply to these times, but why hasn't God then *inspired* some people to add new chapters?

Doesn't it seem absurd to you that there are people who believe in some god but also believe that they are smart enough to determine which rituals, virtues, and morals are important and which ones aren't? It's making up the god as you go along!

In other words, you don't run religion, religion runs you!

Doesn't really go up with most current religions. Most religious people will still help you if they find you wounded somewhere on the side of the road instead of passing by and saying "Sorry, can't do anything. It was God's will that you got injured." Remember the good Samaritan from the Gospel of Luke?

 

If the RC is going to outright say not to a potential help in reducing the transmission of AIDS in Africa, then surely they should assist in dispelling the myths out there?

In some places it's spread as fact that sex with a virgin means you can't get AIDS, some places view it as if you have sex with a virgin then you can CURE it. Getting facts across is half the battle, denying the fact condoms could help is blinding those who could genuinely benefit from their use.

As for sex only being taught just before marriage - nonsense. I am afraid I agree with my mother with it should be taught in a matter of fact way early in school. I was given a very thorough () sex education at home from the age of seven, by the time it was taught in schools it was the age where children just got giggly and silly about it and started ludicrous rumours. In high school I had a friend who was signed out of all sex ed lessons because of the parents beliefs. She had a HELL of a time through puberty I can tell you that! She was genuinely scared and concerned about thoughts and dreams she'd have, her parents made her feel GUILTY whenever she asked about it and all.

I know, I am biased, I believe dispellnig ignorance is paramount importance in most situations. Ignorance should never be an excuse, a person who willingly stays blind to the truth will never earn my sorrow when it bites them in the ass.

In the instance of Africa, those who follow the church most religiously are generally those who are at their lowest and in need of the hope it offers them. To blindly say NO to those who need all the assistance to get back up is appalling. I understand standing by principals - but lines MUST be drawn, examples should be given and truthful, honest information should be shared simply and clearly for people to make their own informed decisions.

 

If you are not married, you do not have sex. There are no secondary rules for what happens when you break the primary ones.

If you are married and diseased and the disease is sexually communicable, you don't have sex either.

If your argument relies on it also being ridiculous and appalling to say that premarital sex is wrong, then you have beef not only with what the Pope says but also with what the whole Catholic Church does, as well as the Orthodox Church (some branches don't disallow contraception but none allow premarital sex) and some Protestant denominations.

As for when you are married and diseased, you do not risk communicating your disease to someone whom you love, sorry. Your sexual drive must take a back seat to the safety of your loved one. If you're an avid hunter, you don't shoot a deer if your wife stands a foot away from it. If you badly want sex but you're diseased and your wife is not, you bear it like a man and you don't endanger her.

 

Your insight into the human psyche is astounding chev.