What do people think of this latest comment from the Pope?
http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/WorldNewsArticle.htm?src=w031715A.xml
http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/WorldNewsArticle.htm?src=w031715A.xml
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pope states condoms aren't the answer to HIV
- Thread starter challupa
- Start date
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Thank you to the leader of the Catholic Church for condemning millions to death.
Heh... you beat me to the story! While I was lollygagging with my own thread, you went and snuck in with this one! 
Here's what I wrote in my now-deleted thread:
From today's Toronto Star:
- while I know that condoms are prohibited according to Catholic doctrine, it still makes me both sad and angry when the Vatican brings the issue to the forefront, knowing the effect their statements will have... especially since his words will have an impact on non-Catholics who don't hold to the Vatican's doctrinal positions.
- the Pope's word may be authoritative on doctrinal matters, but when it comes to statements of fact, such as the efficacy of condom programs in combatting AIDS in Africa, I think that as a world leader he has a duty to ensure that his statements are factually correct... or at least not knowingly false. In this regard, I think he failed.
Things like this make it very difficult for me to consider the religion that is likely going to play some role in the lives of any children I have to be positive... or even benign.
Here's what I wrote in my now-deleted thread:
From today's Toronto Star:
I've got a few feelings about this:
- while I know that condoms are prohibited according to Catholic doctrine, it still makes me both sad and angry when the Vatican brings the issue to the forefront, knowing the effect their statements will have... especially since his words will have an impact on non-Catholics who don't hold to the Vatican's doctrinal positions.
- the Pope's word may be authoritative on doctrinal matters, but when it comes to statements of fact, such as the efficacy of condom programs in combatting AIDS in Africa, I think that as a world leader he has a duty to ensure that his statements are factually correct... or at least not knowingly false. In this regard, I think he failed.
Things like this make it very difficult for me to consider the religion that is likely going to play some role in the lives of any children I have to be positive... or even benign.
Yes I think this is not a good move. If abstience is his answer to the HIV problem he's not paying attention. My thought on this is if the threat of getting Aids doesn't stop people from having sex how does he think abstinence could possibly be the answer? It's time to pull heads out of sand and acknowledge that people are going to have sex so how can we prevent the spread of HIV based on that knowledge.Heh... you beat me to the story! While I was lollygagging with my own thread, you went and snuck in with this one!
Here's what I wrote in my now-deleted thread:
From today's Toronto Star:
I've got a few feelings about this:
- while I know that condoms are prohibited according to Catholic doctrine, it still makes me both sad and angry when the Vatican brings the issue to the forefront, knowing the effect their statements will have... especially since his words will have an impact on non-Catholics who don't hold to the Vatican's doctrinal positions.
- the Pope's word may be authoritative on doctrinal matters, but when it comes to statements of fact, such as the efficacy of condom programs in combatting AIDS in Africa, I think that as a world leader he has a duty to ensure that his statements are factually correct... or at least not knowingly false. In this regard, I think he failed.
Things like this make it very difficult for me to consider the religion that is likely going to play some role in the lives of any children I have to be positive... or even benign.
What are you talking about? Did you read this part?: The Vatican encourages sexual abstinence to fight the spread of disease.
Abstain from sleeping around ,have only one sexual partner and it will be slow down, if you are infected already abstain from all sexual activities.
Yes that would work if people really decided that they could do that. But what I am trying to say, is that this hasn't stopped anyone yet so why do we think that it will stop anyone in the future. Shouldn't we be open minded enough to say okay, if you're not going to be abstinent at least use protection. That just seems like common sense to me?:yes:
I agree. I think it would be more honest if he just came out and said "here's the position of the Vatican. We know it will cost lives, but we think this is an important issue, so we ask all Catholics to follow Church teachings despite the associated human toll."
They encourage abstinence to the exclusion of all else. Abstinence is just as effective when you have a condom in your pocket.
Also, I'm not entirely sure what their position is when one partner in a marriage is HIV-positive.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Imagist
Worshipper of Athe.
Abstinence would prevent HIV transmission with near-100% accuracy if anybody did it. However, nobody does, so we should encourage condom use. This is not a difficult concept.
Besides, abstinence is no fun.
That twigged something in my head:
emiliano, I'm an engineer. If I were to design a highway, I would have to take into account how people would actually use it. Even if I personally think that drivers should only drive at 80 km/h on it, never crash, and never lose control of their vehicles, if I were to design the road with an 80 km/h design speed (i.e. well below the 120 km/h I know they're going to try to go) next to an unprotected sheer dropoff instead of a clear zone or barrier and just have "no crashing" and "don't speed" signs put up, I'd lose my licence. Depending what happened to the road users, I might even be sued personally or go to jail.
It seems to me "abstinence-only" programs are the equivalent to this: they're based on what the proponents want to happen instead of what they know will happen and make the consequences worse when when it does happen.
I have a very difficult time trying to figure out why this type of behaviour is criminally irresponsible when an engineer does it but acceptable when a politician or religious leader does it.
methylatedghosts
Can't brain. Has dumb.
Standing there with a sign saying "Don't do that!" isn't going to stop people from having sex.
Instead, if you say "It's ok to do that, as long as you wear one of these little rubber thingies" you'd go much, much further.
Why? Because people are going to have sex regardless of "don't do that". Throw in a few condoms, and those that were going to have sex anyway will be protected.
linwood
Well-Known Member
This is pretty much my response to everything he says.
I have a hard time thinking of any single person who is responsible for the spreading of more dangerous ignorance than this man.
Ringer
Jar of Clay
For those of you who are up to speed on this issue I have a question for you...
Is HIV an epidemic (if that word is appropriate) in Africa because:
Is HIV an epidemic (if that word is appropriate) in Africa because:
- They have no idea whether or not they have HIV/AIDS
- Ignorant on how HIV is trasmitted
- Have no desire to be sexually abstinent to prevent HIV trasmissions
- Are clueless as to what HIV/AIDS is
Last edited:
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
The vatican has said that if one of a married couple has HIV condoms are allowed. I agree with what you say about just being honest. They need to address the needs of those who will not be abstinent and say that in that case be wise and use a condom. Good points Penquin:yes:
Storm ROFL Where did you find that? It's perfect.
My thoughts on this is that all of the above likely are in play here. But one of the reasons why that is, is that Africa has recently become a big Roman Catholic domain. I have heard of priests in churches teaching their congregation the evils of condoms, how they don't prevent Aids etc. instead of saying something about if you aren't going to be abstinent, then please protect yourself and others. It is wrong imo to not educate about Aids or spread erroneous propaganda in order to have your choice of belief upheld. It is not in touch with reality. If the threat of hell doesn't promote abstinence, how do they think they can promote abstinence by a threat of Aids? It doesn't seem very loving to allow their people to be uneducated and unprotected imo.
Here is a website that gives you some idea of what is being used as "education" about HIV
Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids | World news | The Guardian