Pope states condoms aren't the answer to HIV

[Quiddity]

This Pope didn't write Humanae Vitae.

I know...I have a tendency of using words like Pope and Church in ways only catholics talk to each other. So when we say Pope, we sometimes tend to see it as the one voice of Christ through the Popes. No one Pope can contradict another when speaking officially. So, although he didn't write it, he certainly isn't going to contradict it officially. At any rate, thanks for catching that.

But in any case, it's based on some pretty specious logic: its main argument is apparently based on the inference of God's intent from the form of humans, and then exercises special pleading by not applying the argument to other aspects of life where it would be just as applicable.

I don't know what you mean by this.

 

[Quiddity]

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.

That's right...

Not telling them to use contraceptives because we have another way of living out our sexual life is not lying to them or even contributing to AIDS.....IF....*drum roll please*.......it's followed correctly.

In the same way that if you give Joe Schmo in Africa a condom and he doesn't use it right, he's probably going to do more harm then good.

No one would be silly enough to say condoms don't work because people aren't using them right (Our Lib media and organizations wouldn't dare allow that anyway).

I believe this is obvious to anyone who has no stake in defending the Catholic church as the reaction to this thread evidences.

Yes, because we all know anyone not defending it is immune to bias, presuppositions, etc.

This and numerous other situations just like this are why many of us see the Church as nefarious.

Nothing new for us really.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No one Pope can contradict another when speaking officially.

This statement twigged something in my head: if the Pope has the delegated authority of Christ on Earth (i.e. the "Keys to the Kingdom", "binding and loosing" and all that) but can never contradict a previous Pope, doesn't this mean that the authority of the Pope, and therefore the authority of Christ (since they're one and the same, right?) diminish as time passes?

Anyhow, that's probably a bit OT, but I needed to get it out while it was still in my brain.

I don't know what you mean by this.

As I see it, Humanae Vitae's central argument is that we can see God's intent in the human form: sexuality and procreation seem to naturally go together, therefore that's the way God wants it.

However, this argument can be applied to other aspects of the human form: for example, bipedalism and locomotion seem to naturally go together, so why can't that be the way God wants it?

The Church's position is that it is immoral to separate sexual acts from procreation, and therefore things like condoms (sex without procreation) and in vitro fertilization (procreation without sex) are wrong. Why is this any more valid than saying that it's immoral to separate walking from travel, and therefore things like treadmills (walking without travel) and automobiles (travel without walking) are wrong?

Basically, I think the Church committed two large errors in Humanae Vitae:

- baselessly inferring the intent of God from what it considered to be "Natural Law".
- not applying this "Natural Law" consistently.

 

[Alceste]

I know...I have a tendency of using words like Pope and Church in ways only catholics talk to each other. So when we say Pope, we sometimes tend to see it as the one voice of Christ through the Popes. No one Pope can contradict another when speaking officially. So, although he didn't write it, he certainly isn't going to contradict it officially. At any rate, thanks for catching that.

Please see post 125

Can a Church Law, or Canon, be reversed, or dropped if seen as no longer applicable, unjustified, or misguided?
Yes!
The Dum Diversas "We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery."

The Romanus Pontifex "-- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit --"

He didn't include this, but I think it you'll agree it defeats your argument:

whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator.

Read the Gaudium et spes

Edited to add: It took the Catholic church 750 years to come to terms with the Magna Carta. I find that puts things in perspective.

 

[linwood]

That's right...

Not telling them to use contraceptives because we have another way of living out our sexual life is not lying to them or even contributing to AIDS.....IF....*drum roll please*.......it's followed correctly.

But that`s not what`s being done.
In more than one instance evidence has been provided that the RCC is directly lying about the effects of condom use and or the actual physical properties of condoms.
In at least one instance going so far as to create out of whole cloth a conspiracy theory to support the accusation.

No one would be silly enough to say condoms don't work because people aren't using them right (Our Lib media and organizations wouldn't dare allow that anyway).

This is not even the issue here.
It may very well be true people aren`t using them right.
The obvious way to fix that is EDUCATION, not the intentional proliferation of lies.

Yes, because we all know anyone not defending it is immune to bias, presuppositions, etc.

My only bias is a preference for life over a mythical heaven.
My only presupposition is that life is more valuable than your dogma.

Nothing new for us really.

Yet you still have no desire to change what you know is wrong.

Pity really.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think it is irresponsible for the pope to tell people in Africa not use condoms, however, does anyone really think that if the pope said it was alright, that anything would change?

I really can't see it affecting anything in any meaningful way. Sure, now people use the catholic church as a rationalization to not use condoms, however they are out getting aids from hookers and other women who aren't their wives. They only use the rules that allow them to do what they want, and ignore the rest.

If the pope said it was okay to use condoms, they wouldn't be any more likely to do so because it wouldn't confer any benefits to them in their view.

 

[DallasApple]

I think we need to clarify: he acknowledges that condoms are very effective when used consistently, but that they often tend not to be used consistently when distributed to populations. The proper response to this problem isn't necessarily to abandon condoms as a method of combatting the disease; I think it points just as strongly to integration of condoms into a larger strategy that both encourages other methods of prevention of HIV transmission and at the same time encourages greater consistency in condom use.

I agree with this..IOW NEVER have sex without a condom.Using one 4 times..but not on the 5th..Leaves you at high risk on the 5th.The previous 4 uses dont count anymore.

I have used LOTS of BC...But inconsitency was my problem..(with unwanted pregancies).

Also ..Im particulary interested in married people on this subject.Someone mentioned the highest rate of new cases of AIDS?HIV in Africa was that of married women that contracted from their husbands.

What in the 'heck"(wink to my Panda Boy on the heck part) are those women supposed to do?

Its sounds like the men are "cheating" anyway maybe no more so than anywhere else....Just so happens they live in a high population of people with the virus..

What is the woman supposed to do to protect herself??

Love

Dallas

 

[Quiddity]

This statement twigged something in my head: if the Pope has the delegated authority of Christ on Earth (i.e. the "Keys to the Kingdom", "binding and loosing" and all that) but can never contradict a previous Pope, doesn't this mean that the authority of the Pope, and therefore the authority of Christ (since they're one and the same, right?) diminish as time passes?

Anyhow, that's probably a bit OT, but I needed to get it out while it was still in my brain.

Things become clearer, that's about it. That just comes with progression. But yeah, I see what you mean in that future Popes will just be refering to older ones. But really, the world changes and so does the way we say what we mean.

As I see it, Humanae Vitae's central argument is that we can see God's intent in the human form: sexuality and procreation seem to naturally go together, therefore that's the way God wants it.

However, this argument can be applied to other aspects of the human form: for example, bipedalism and locomotion seem to naturally go together, so why can't that be the way God wants it?

Because me walking on two feet makes little impact on who we are as people on a psychological level. Sexuality is a bit more complex then that.

The Church's position is that it is immoral to separate sexual acts from procreation, and therefore things like condoms (sex without procreation) and in vitro fertilization (procreation without sex) are wrong. Why is this any more valid than saying that it's immoral to separate walking from travel, and therefore things like treadmills (walking without travel) and automobiles (travel without walking) are wrong?

Because of what I said above.

Basically, I think the Church committed two large errors in Humanae Vitae:

- baselessly inferring the intent of God from what it considered to be "Natural Law".
- not applying this "Natural Law" consistently.

Point taken, however, as well versed in Catholicism (for someone who isn't catholic) as you might be, you're missing something that would come out in a long dialogue on this document.

 

[Quiddity]

Please see post 125

What do you want me to tell you without getting into details of each document?

I can't tell you how many times I see people get the bible/church documents and think it says what they say it means.

We could just be in denial about you catching the obvious....or....just maybe, you're misunderstanding the document in it's entirety. It's ALOT of reading....

But hey, don't take my word for it.......really. Go back and read all those documents and see what was going on.

 

[DallasApple]

Are the men in Africa "culturally" ashamed (before HIV) to use a condom to begin with?

Do they have a "deep rooted' reason it makes them feel less masculine to wear one?

Love

Dallas

 

[Quiddity]

But that`s not what`s being done.
In more than one instance evidence has been provided that the RCC is directly lying about the effects of condom use and or the actual physical properties of condoms.
In at least one instance going so far as to create out of whole cloth a conspiracy theory to support the accusation.

Linwood, I'm not even going to argue the legitimacy of this at all. I'm just going to assume it's correct and stand right by you (imagine that?...the guy that has hated my guts so many times?) and get ****** at the bishops who are doing this.

This is not even the issue here.
It may very well be true people aren`t using them right.

Go to CDC, you'll find reports on it; if you're interested.

The obvious way to fix that is EDUCATION, not the intentional proliferation of lies.

I agree.

My only bias is a preference for life over a mythical heaven.

Right...

My only presupposition is that life is more valuable than your dogma.

That sounds like a dogma to me...

Yet you still have no desire to change what you know is wrong.

Pity really.

There is always that chance that I'm just not seeing it? But you go ahead and paint it the most vile way.

You haven't changed a bit.

Peace.

 

[Alceste]

I think it is irresponsible for the pope to tell people in Africa not use condoms, however, does anyone really think that if the pope said it was alright, that anything would change?

I really can't see it affecting anything in any meaningful way. Sure, now people use the catholic church as a rationalization to not use condoms, however they are out getting aids from hookers and other women who aren't their wives. They only use the rules that allow them to do what they want, and ignore the rest.

If the pope said it was okay to use condoms, they wouldn't be any more likely to do so because it wouldn't confer any benefits to them in their view.

I disagree. The problem is not "telling people not to use condoms", it's "lying about the effectiveness of condoms in the prevention of disease", which is a widespread practice in the Catholic church from Tanzania to Texas and the cornerstone of "abstinence education", wherever it rears its ignorant head.

If the pope said, for example "misinforming people about the effectiveness of condoms in the prevention of disease and unwanted pregnancy is an offense to God", he would make an enormous impact all around the world. It doesn't even have to have anything to do with their teachings on "fornication". It's entirely an issue of "bearing false witness", which is forbidden by God.

The reason we should all demand that he do this (or something like it), regardless of our beliefs, is that religious misinformation about birth control leaks outside the church and into the secular classrooms of Texas, where horny teenagers of every philosophical stripe learn that "“Although lab studies have demonstrated that latex condoms block the entry of the AIDS virus, there is no scientific evidence that they do so during intercourse” and “Out of 100 sexually active women, if a condom is used, 14 of the women will experience an unintended pregnancy during the course of one year.” (Thanks Sunstone).

With these lies rattling around in people's hormone-addled brains, where is the incentive to use a condom if you might get pregnant anyway, or get HIV?

 

[linwood]

Linwood, I'm not even going to argue the legitimacy of this at all. I'm just going to assume it's correct and stand right by you (imagine that?...the guy that has hated my guts so many times?) and get ****** at the bishops who are doing this.

You give yourself far too much importance Victor.

I don`t mind anger if it`s directed at a worthy cause.
If this angers you what are you going to do about it within your own religion?

Go to CDC, you'll find reports on it; if you're interested.

No need, I have "faith" they exist.

That sounds like a dogma to me...

Nope, it`s a value judgement.
You always seem to get those two confused.

There is always that chance that I'm just not seeing it? But you go ahead and paint it the most vile way.

Well, "blinded" is perhaps a better descriptive.

You haven't changed a bit.

Did someone say I had changed?
Changed how Victor?

Would you rather I became tolerant, perhaps even respectful of the destructive dogma the RCC promotes?

Sorry.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I disagree. The problem is not "telling people not to use condoms", it's "lying about the effectiveness of condoms in the prevention of disease", which is a widespread practice in the Catholic church from Tanzania to Texas and the cornerstone of "abstinence education", wherever it rears its ignorant head.

If the pope said, for example "misinforming people about the effectiveness of condoms in the prevention of disease and unwanted pregnancy is an offense to God", he would make an enormous impact all around the world. It doesn't even have to have anything to do with their teachings on "fornication". It's entirely an issue of "bearing false witness", which is forbidden by God.

The reason we should all demand that he do this (or something like it), regardless of our beliefs, is that religious misinformation about birth control leaks outside the church and into the secular classrooms of Texas, where horny teenagers of every philosophical stripe learn that "“Although lab studies have demonstrated that latex condoms block the entry of the AIDS virus, there is no scientific evidence that they do so during intercourse” and “Out of 100 sexually active women, if a condom is used, 14 of the women will experience an unintended pregnancy during the course of one year.” (Thanks Sunstone).

With these lies rattling around in people's hormone-addled brains, where is the incentive to use a condom if you might get pregnant anyway, or get HIV?

Well communicated. I agree - I hadn't really bothered to thoroughly think the issue through to its logical conclusion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because me walking on two feet makes little impact on who we are as people on a psychological level. Sexuality is a bit more complex then that.

Really?

The bulk of my professional life is wrapped up in the major societal impacts that can be traced back to people's decision to use vehicle transporation instead of other modes like walking. I personally think it's made profound and major impacts on who we are as people. Look at the urban/suburban/rural dynamic. Look at "car culture" and its effect on neighborhoods, communities and the environment. I think you'd be hard-pressed to come up with an issue that has had as monumental an effect on the lives of every person in the world as our collective decision to drive instead of walk, and to transport our goods in vehicles instead of carrying them on our backs.

Look at the Earth from space and you can't see any obvious sign of humanity's choices regarding sexuality; at the same time, you can't help but see that it's criss-crossed with signs of its choices regarding mobility.

Point taken, however, as well versed in Catholicism (for someone who isn't catholic) as you might be, you're missing something that would come out in a long dialogue on this document.

Which is what?

 

[Alceste]

What do you want me to tell you without getting into details of each document?

I want you to admit that you are wrong. You claimed one pope can not contradict another, and yet the vatican website hosts contradictory positions on slavery from various popes. So you are wrong.

If you won't admit that you are wrong, I invite you to explain HOW it is consistent for one pope to tell the kings of Spain and Portugal to submit the unbelievers to perpetual slavery, and for another to say slavery is offensive to god.

I can't tell you how many times I see people get the bible/church documents and think it says what they say it means.

I can't tell you how many times religious people mistake lack of religious belief for lack of basic reading comprehension skills.

But hey, don't take my word for it.......really. Go back and read all those documents and see what was going on.

Nice try - you won't accept your argument has been defeated, won't explain why you think it HASN'T been defeated, and want to instead to send me off on a wild goose chase through a pile of intensely boring religious gibbering from centuries worth of dithering religious lunatics? No, thanks. Just state your argument please.

 

[Quiddity]

I want you to admit that you are wrong. You claimed one pope can not contradict another, and yet the vatican website hosts contradictory positions on slavery from various popes. So you are wrong.

If you won't admit that you are wrong, I invite you to explain HOW it is consistent for one pope to tell the kings of Spain and Portugal to submit the unbelievers to perpetual slavery, and for another to say slavery is offensive to god.
[/color]

I can't tell you how many times religious people mistake lack of religious belief for lack of basic reading comprehension skills.


Nice try - you won't accept your argument has been defeated, won't explain why you think it HASN'T been defeated, and want to instead to send me off on a wild goose chase through a pile of intensely boring religious gibbering from centuries worth of dithering religious lunatics? No, thanks. Just state your argument please.

You win...take care.

 

[Quiddity]

You give yourself far too much importance Victor.

How so?

I don`t mind anger if it`s directed at a worthy cause.
If this angers you what are you going to do about it within your own religion?

Write a letter to the Bishop. Talk to the priest. Talk to other catholics for starters...

No need, I have "faith" they exist.

Didn't think you had it in you.

Nope, it`s a value judgement.
You always seem to get those two confused.

Inclinations always come with some kind of attachment.

Well, "blinded" is perhaps a better descriptive.

Much better, thank you kindly.

Did someone say I had changed?
Changed how Victor?

Your kind words.

Would you rather I became tolerant, perhaps even respectful of the destructive dogma the RCC promotes?

Sorry.

You could seperate idealism from individual people for starters.

 

[Quiddity]

Really?

The bulk of my professional life is wrapped up in the major societal impacts that can be traced back to people's decision to use vehicle transporation instead of other modes like walking. I personally think it's made profound and major impacts on who we are as people. Look at the urban/suburban/rural dynamic. Look at "car culture" and its effect on neighborhoods, communities and the environment. I think you'd be hard-pressed to come up with an issue that has had as monumental an effect on the lives of every person in the world as our collective decision to drive instead of walk, and to transport our goods in vehicles instead of carrying them on our backs.

Look at the Earth from space and you can't see any obvious sign of humanity's choices regarding sexuality; at the same time, you can't help but see that it's criss-crossed with signs of its choices regarding mobility.

Isn't this sociological changes you are talking about here? People are pretty much the same before the car existed wouldn't you agree?

Which is what?

I was trying to avoid heading in this direction because it would not only get off topic but would spiral into a number of other questions.

Not really up to it today to be honest. I'm doing just fine taking a beating in this topic alone.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Isn't this sociological changes you are talking about here? People are pretty much the same before the car existed wouldn't you agree?

To a certain extent yes, but the same goes for contraception, IMO.