darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Don't be rediculous. Hell will freeze over before the day. All they care about (well those who support the objective of this thread) is spreading their dogma like the disease they inhibit with such useless methods.
-
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
Don't be rediculous. Hell will freeze over before the day. All they care about (well those who support the objective of this thread) is spreading their dogma like the disease they inhibit with such useless methods.
linwood
Well-Known Member
Then why are the Pope and many other representatives of the Church miseducating people when they have the knowledge to educate them?
I would say it`s because that knowledge or that "truth" if you will directly contradicts the dogmatic "truth" of the Church.
I believe this is obvious to anyone who has no stake in defending the Catholic church as the reaction to this thread evidences.
This and numerous other situations just like this are why many of us see the Church as nefarious.
Buttons*
Glass half Panda'd
That's a rather harsh statement, and very untrue. I'm not catholic, I'll never be catholic, and I don't feel like spreading church dogma. However, I think that the problem would be greatly improved if people could keep it in their pants.
linwood
Well-Known Member
That's a rather harsh statement, and very untrue. I'm not catholic, I'll never be catholic, and I don't feel like spreading church dogma. However, I think that the problem would be greatly improved if people could keep it in their pants.
You do realise that most new cases of HIV in Africa are married monogamous women?
How do you protect these women from husbands who simply won`t keep it in their pants?
Idealism kills.
Jordan St. Francis
Well-Known Member
I am troubled by these comments, and do not know entirely what to think regarding this matter.
On the one hand, when the Pope speaks his critics can not isolate his statements regarding condoms from the larger picture that Catholics have in mind and our understanding of the real place of human sexuality within marriage. From this perspective, even though condoms might alleviate suffering, they do not strike the problem of sexually transmitted diseases and viruses at their root- promiscuity. The Church sees the HIV crisis as the result, in no small way, of a great lapse in fidelity. Condoms, which promote promiscuity, then can only be part of the problem when looked at from more than the present moment. They promote the very attitude which made HIV such a force, even though they simultaneously shield many people from its affects.
I think many large questions are at stake here, including the question of the indoctrination of foreign cultures under the ideologies of a very sexually permissive West.
On the other hand, I think concerning this question, it is especially important that all traces of ideology be avoided. We need solutions which both have a long-term vision, one that both tackles suffering now and is capable of confronting the underlying causes of HIV spread, including sexual and social attitudes. Condoms can only offer a temporary solution.
All in all, even as a Catholic, I can only say use your God given reason- if you are going to have sex contrary to the Church's standards of morality, by all means do it as safe as possible.
I did find this article which shows the the Pope is at least referring to actual current scientific opinions. Though it is not, for me, by any means decisive:
Harvard Researcher agrees with Pope on condoms in Africa
On the one hand, when the Pope speaks his critics can not isolate his statements regarding condoms from the larger picture that Catholics have in mind and our understanding of the real place of human sexuality within marriage. From this perspective, even though condoms might alleviate suffering, they do not strike the problem of sexually transmitted diseases and viruses at their root- promiscuity. The Church sees the HIV crisis as the result, in no small way, of a great lapse in fidelity. Condoms, which promote promiscuity, then can only be part of the problem when looked at from more than the present moment. They promote the very attitude which made HIV such a force, even though they simultaneously shield many people from its affects.
I think many large questions are at stake here, including the question of the indoctrination of foreign cultures under the ideologies of a very sexually permissive West.
On the other hand, I think concerning this question, it is especially important that all traces of ideology be avoided. We need solutions which both have a long-term vision, one that both tackles suffering now and is capable of confronting the underlying causes of HIV spread, including sexual and social attitudes. Condoms can only offer a temporary solution.
All in all, even as a Catholic, I can only say use your God given reason- if you are going to have sex contrary to the Church's standards of morality, by all means do it as safe as possible.
I did find this article which shows the the Pope is at least referring to actual current scientific opinions. Though it is not, for me, by any means decisive:
Harvard Researcher agrees with Pope on condoms in Africa
Last edited:
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
That's a rather harsh statement, and very untrue. I'm not catholic, I'll never be catholic, and I don't feel like spreading church dogma. However, I think that the problem would be greatly improved if people could keep it in their pants.
Yeh but then again, get real. They've wasted enough time promoting a solution that is ineffective, so maybe its time to join the real world and tackle by whatever means possible rather than using outdated methods?
How is it untrue? The church is preaching abstinence. Im sorry but thats rediculous. How on earth do they think thats going to work? Are millions just going to see the light and stop having sex?
Buttons*
Glass half Panda'd
Buttons*
Glass half Panda'd
lol, I AM real
No worries there. It's not ineffective if people actually do what the church asks. For those who believe in the words of the bible and the words of the church, it's not an unreal expectation to wait until marriage. If you're engaging in a covenant with God and someone else, then it's no biggie. And it wouldnt' even affect anyone else outside the church if people in the church are doing what they're supposed to, the things they promised God they would do. darkendless said:
Mormons make it work. As for people who are in the Catholic church, they shouldnt' be having extramarital sex anyway. It's something that I've seen real people live up to. It's real, and it works. If someone is going to make that promise to god.... why is it unreal to ask them to keep their promise?
I know I started this thread, and I have been reading it. I haven't been participating because I just don't have anything else to say. I am having trouble understanding those who are still thinking abstinence will work though. It is proven that people will have sex whether it goes against catholic teachings or not. Therefore, there needs to be another solution. Education in the use of condoms and not mis-education like some of the clergy are doing. That is irresponsible imo.
Buttons*
Glass half Panda'd
Well, it's been shown that condoms aren't a completely safe way to have sex, because they don't ALWAYS, without fail, work. A friend of mine got pregnant after using condoms. *shrug*
Sure, people are going to have sex, and if they do, they should try to protect themselves. However, the ways that we have aren't perfect. If you don't belong to the church and adhere to its teachings then yes, obviously you need to do what is necessary. The Catholic church isn't saying HIV is ok, and that having sex is ok, and that it's ok to have sex without a condom. You know?
But if you DO follow the church, and you do abstain from sex, it should be OK not to wear condoms because....you aren't having sex. It does make sense.
I suppose it must make sense to people. It just doesn't to me. It's seems like the old analogy of "shutting the barn door after all the horse have escaped".
It doesn't put the horses back in the barn and you need to employ other strategies if you want to get them back under control or risk losing them completely.
Buttons*
Glass half Panda'd
I get what you're saying. But I just have one more comment.I suppose it must make sense to people. It just doesn't to me. It's seems like the old analogy of "shutting the barn door after all the horse have escaped".
Hope you don't mind.I don't think the Catholic church is out to control anyone. Really, they wouldn't be able to if they tried. I don't think the church should be held responsible for those who don't follow their rules and do whatever they want, only to come back and blame the church for their problems. I see this happening too much. The church is supposed to be a place where you can go, find helpful advice on how to live your life, and be at peace with God.
If someone wants to make a commitment to that church, and agrees to adhere to the laws that are in the good book, how can the church say, "Well, in case you dont' feel like following XXXXX law, we'll have to accomidate so that you'll be under our control forever." I think that, more than ever, the church is allowing for freedom of choice. You have the choice to be a member of the church and follow its rules, or you simply aren't a member, and their rules do not apply to you. That's how I see it anyway.
Buttons*
Glass half Panda'd
I sort of agree... if you're going to be a member... you should follow the rules or leave... you know?
I went to a Christian church... I didn't follow the rules.... so I left.
I'm probably not going to sue the church I belonged to if I get pregnant or HIV.
In terms of Catholic doctrine, I generally tend to agree with you. However, in another respect, I disagree: any factual claims he makes should be able to stand and fall on their own merits. Catholic doctrine doesn't have a whole lot of bearing on whether his claim that condom distribution makes the AIDS crisis worse is either true or false; the truth or falsehood of the statement doesn't depend on the Church's assessment of what's good or proper.
I disagree.
I've used an analogy before to point out what's wrong with this argument: even though seatbelts "shield many people from the effects" of collisions, nobody goes around saying that seatbelts encourage risky driving.
In addition, I think that condoms are an important part of an educational movement for greater safety and responsibility in decisions about sexuality. This movement is directly opposed to STDs in general and HIV in particular, despite the problems the Church has with it.
Frankly, I think the real social attitude that's at the root of the AIDS crisis in Africa is the developed world's general ambivalence to the troubles of people in Africa. In a large part, it's the lack of action on the part of those of us with the resources to combat this problem that's really let it get to the point that it has. AIDS is now a treatable disease in the developed world; for the most part in Africa, it's still a death sentence.
The Vatican has the weight to sway a huge body of public opinion for good or bad. We saw this in things like Pope John Paul II's instrumental role in bringing freedom to Poland and ending the Cold War. But what does Benedict do? He creates conflict instead of co-operation. Rather than taking action with real effects to end suffering, he stirs up a hornet's nest of squabbling over doctrine.
Benedict XVI has the ear of the world. Does he use it to call attention of the very real sin of the world as a whole to do virtually nothing to accomplish the Millenium Development Goals on the eradication of AIDS? Does he use it to shame developed countries into providing the funding for the drugs that would stop pregnant HIV+ women from passing the disease to their children? No... he uses his pulpit to decry the "sin" of distributing barriers to the transmission of disease. Rather than work toward a goal where virtually the whole world would follow the Church's lead with only a little bit of cajoling, he pushes at the spot where he knows that others will push back and efforts will be squandered by both sides to go virtually nowhere.
The problem I see in this is that the Church seems (at least to me) to be directly opposed to this position. The way I take the Pope's message, he apparently does not believe that the option should even be open to people to choose to be as safe as possible if they choose not to follow the Church's teachings.
I'm not sure the article says what you're suggesting, though it seems like the editor is trying to make the same connection you are. The message I got from the article was that simply handing out scads of condoms isn't terribly effective in certain circumstances, but can be very effective in other circumstances (he gave the result of distribution to brothels) and has no problem with condom distribution as part of a larger strategy. The message I got from the Pope is that condom distribution is inherently negative.
So... whenever people do it, people will do it? Isn't this kinda like saying "if the ship doesn't take on water, it won't sink"? Yes, it's technically true, but only trivially. The Church asking people not to have sex outside of marriage is rather ineffective at actually making people not have sex outside of marriage.lol, I AM real
I think the unrealistic part is in relying on people to keep their promise when all experience shows that a very large number of them don't.
Buttons*
Glass half Panda'd
And this is the Church's fault?
Yes, but that's on the part of the individual, isn't it? I knew TONS of mormons who made similar promises and have kept them. It has to do with your level of commitment - the Church isn't responsible for that.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
No, they don't ALWAYS work.
However, in a two year study of 245 European couples, where one partner was infected and the other was not,124 couples who reported consistent and proper use of latex condoms resulted in 0 (zero) partners being infected.
The remaining 121 couples who reported inconstant condom use resulted in 12 partners becoming infected. That's 10%.
So not only use, but proper education works best, but even inconsistent use is better than none.
The Church is responsible for the reasonable foreseeable consequences of their actions. Part of the reasonable foreseeable consequences of the position they've taken is that a number of people will fail to adhere to the Church's teaching on fidelity, but the Church's teachings (or simply lack of teaching on contraception and safer sex) will make it more likely that these people will practice safer sex when they do have sex.
I suppose that one can argue that this is counterbalanced by positive consequences in some other way, but it's still a part of the equation.
Buttons*
Glass half Panda'd
In your opinion, what is the church's roll in education? What is the parent's role? Why does the Catholic church in particular have anything to do with people making individual choices concerning sex?
As I've said before, the church has rules... members are expected to follow those rules. This rule about condoms is for the members who are following the rules of the church. I don't think what the Pope says on condoms has anything to do with anyone else except for those who are, indeed, doing everything they can to be what the church expects of them.