Pope states condoms aren't the answer to HIV

[Buttons*]

Just so we're clear here, and because Victor also asked for sources:

HIV can pass through "tiny holes" in condoms
Condoms and ARV drugs are intentionally laced with HIV

So, yeah, they really are spreading lies. Anyone who believes these lies, Catholic or not, risks losing their only incentive for condom use. The Catholic church is sitting on one shoulder when people are aroused, saying "don't use a condom - they're permeable to / laced with HIV" while the World Health Organisation is sitting on the other shoulder saying "research has shown repeatedly that condoms are impermeable to HIV". People have to select between two competing "facts". Who do you think they're going to listen to when most people are disinclined to use a condom to begin with? And which organisation is the proverbial "devil on the shoulder"? Is the devil not the prince of lies?

Even if the church does lie to its followers, I don't see why it matters to anyone outside of that community. What authority does the Pope have on your life? None, I hope.

I don't think that the Church should be blamed for a man's scapegoat. "Oh, I didn't want to wear condoms anyway, and the church gave me a good excuse" doesn't cut it for me. That's up to personal choice. That's up to sex-ed in schools and good parenting. Not the Church's problem.

 

[linwood]

Fair enough, the church shouldn't lie about condoms.

But why would it affect anyone outside the church? I still don't understand that.

Because Catholics who follow (or try to) the doctrines of the Church often have sex with people outside the Church?

Edit:

You do know how a pandemic works yes?

 

[Buttons*]

Because Catholics who follow (or try to) the doctrines of the Church often have sex with people outside the Church?

And the more educated people out there in the world don't check first?

 

[linwood]

And the more educated people out there in the world don't check first?

But we`re talking about some cultures that still believe in witchcraft and demon possession.

These people aren`t highly educated and they don`t seem to be getting educated by the Church.

Hell, the "highly educated" leaders of the Church still believe in demons and witchcraft.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fair enough, the church shouldn't lie about condoms.

But why would it affect anyone outside the church? I still don't understand that.

The Church carries influence. People besides Catholics pay attention to what the Pope has to say.

We saw the Pope's influence in the secular world in the fall of the Cold War. John Paul II's impact was one of the major factors - if not THE factor - for why Communism was toppled in Poland when it was. At other times in history, the Vatican has led the way for the world on various moral issues. Can the Pope really switch this secular influence on when he wants to talk about, say, corporate profiteering in the privatization of water services in the developing world and then switch it off when he wants to talk about the role of condoms in combatting AIDS?

And for the bonus question: when the issue is one where secular morals, objective facts and Catholic doctrine all have some bearing, how can we tell the difference between Papal statements that are meant for Catholics alone and ones that are meant for everyone?

 

[Smoke]

Fair enough, the church shouldn't lie about condoms.

But why would it affect anyone outside the church? I still don't understand that.

You honestly don't understand that the Pope has influence beyond his own church? Really?

Even if he didn't, would you really think his abominable lies were okay as long as the only people who died as a result were Catholics and their children?

 

[darkendless]

Even if the church does lie to its followers, I don't see why it matters to anyone outside of that community. What authority does the Pope have on your life? None, I hope.

I don't think that the Church should be blamed for a man's scapegoat. "Oh, I didn't want to wear condoms anyway, and the church gave me a good excuse" doesn't cut it for me. That's up to personal choice. That's up to sex-ed in schools and good parenting. Not the Church's problem.

Many support groups and aid agencies within Africa are religious based. Thus essential aid such as condoms are not supplied because of the doctrine of the agency itself.

Sex education in schools is frowned upon over here because of the diversity of religions. If you were catholic would you be annoyed if your child was told to wear a condom? As for religious schools, you get bibles thrown at you for using the word sex

 

[Buttons*]

You honestly don't understand that the Pope has influence beyond his own church? Really?

Even if he didn't, would you really think his abominable lies were okay as long as the only people who died as a result were Catholics and their children?

I really don't know how that's even possible. Things one group of people believes doesn't affect my life, and I don't know how it could unless you let it.

You love twisting my words, fair enough do what you want. One lie isn't any better than another, after all.

 

[Buttons*]

Many support groups and aid agencies within Africa are religious based. Thus essential aid such as condoms are not supplied because of the doctrine of the agency itself.

Sex education in schools is frowned upon over here because of the diversity of religions. If you were catholic would you be annoyed if your child was told to wear a condom? As for religious schools, you get bibles thrown at you for using the word sex

This comment at least is helping me get the point of what Africa has to do with the Pope. Thank you.

If we want that to change, why not make secular groups to do the same instead of just getting angry at the church? If we do, then why not put more of our constructive energy there instead of griping about the church not doing its job?

Now, in your case, I assume you don't live in Africa. I think the parents would be upset that sex with a condom was encouraged, but I think they'd be even more upset if the child was having sex at all outside marriage. Also, that's never happened to me - and I attended religious schools.

 

[Buttons*]

People besides Catholics pay attention to what the Pope has to say.

well obviously or this thread wouldn't exist

We saw the Pope's influence in the secular world in the fall of the Cold War. John Paul II's impact was one of the major factors - if not THE factor - for why Communism was toppled in Poland when it was. At other times in history, the Vatican has led the way for the world on various moral issues. Can the Pope really switch this secular influence on when he wants to talk about, say, corporate profiteering in the privatization of water services in the developing world and then switch it off when he wants to talk about the role of condoms in combatting AIDS?

Sex and AIDS aren't mutually exclusive. The main point I argue is that while there may be influence in the world, people have the ability to take it or leave it. Secular companies/groups have just as much of an impact on the world from what I've seen of it. I think the church thinks it's helping people. It's good intent gone wrong, but good intent nontheless. "Don't have sex outside marriage." Is one of those BIG messages that the church has always endorsed. While it's NOT ok to spread lies about the effectiveness of condoms, I feel that we're giving the Pope way too much credit in our secular world. He is not responsible for our choices. He's not responsible for mine.

And for the bonus question: when the issue is one where secular morals, objective facts and Catholic doctrine all have some bearing, how can we tell the difference between Papal statements that are meant for Catholics alone and ones that are meant for everyone?

.... I assume that the address is different. I'm sure that while the Dalai Lama says one thing in public, what he says to his disciples is more intricate and has much more to do with their personal religious practice.

 

[Buttons*]

But we`re talking about some cultures that still believe in witchcraft and demon possession.

These people aren`t highly educated and they don`t seem to be getting educated by the Church.

Hell, the "highly educated" leaders of the Church still believe in demons and witchcraft.

Oh, so we're only talking about undeveloped nations? I want to be clear. It seems we switch back and forth and argue for the west, and then when the west can be defended, we say, "But the point is the uneducated people." Well... are we talking about the entire scope of Catholicism worldwide?

 

[darkendless]

This comment at least is helping me get the point of what Africa has to do with the Pope. Thank you.

If we want that to change, why not make secular groups to do the same instead of just getting angry at the church? If we do, then why not put more of our constructive energy there instead of griping about the church not doing its job?

Now, in your case, I assume you don't live in Africa. I think the parents would be upset that sex with a condom was encouraged, but I think they'd be even more upset if the child was having sex at all outside marriage. Also, that's never happened to me - and I attended religious schools.

The church was doing fine until they refused to acknowledge the crisis, and ratify their stance to put human well-being ahead of their own doctrine. Secular groups do a little, but church groups (from what ive heard and seen on the net) are the main work horses.
I think the problem people have is not that these Aid groups have a moral code (its a good thing) but that this moral code is damaging a society they're apparently trying to help. What is the point in helping these people if 50% (just a guess) have a life altering illness?

I saw a documentary on Kenya where christians on missions go and educate. This is another big problem. Education needs to be fair and not laced with religion doctrine because these people aren't big on following religios dogma.

 

[Buttons*]

The church was doing fine until they refused to acknowledge the crisis, and ratify their stance to put human well-being ahead of their own doctrine. Secular groups do a little, but church groups (from what ive heard and seen on the net) are the main work horses.
I think the problem people have is not that these Aid groups have a moral code (its a good thing) but that this moral code is damaging a society they're apparently trying to help. What is the point in helping these people if 50% (just a guess) have a life altering illness?

I saw a documentary on Kenya where christians on missions go and educate. This is another big problem. Education needs to be fair and not laced with religion doctrine because these people aren't big on following religios dogma.

What exactly do you mean by "What is the point of helping these people if 50% have a life altering illness?" Do you mean enforcing moral code or helping them physically? I assume it's morally. Help is still help - even if it's not perfect. I know that it would be best to educate these people without a bias... but the thing is that since religious organizations are the ones who go out and try to help people (and have the ability to) they get to be the ones to decide how to help. At least they have it in their hearts to try and help! It's more than I can say for myself anyway.

We don't live in a perfect world, everyone can agree. Christians see that problem beginning with morality, and once you stay morally "good" the rest will follow. The rest of the world says, "Well, we can't fix anything, but at least we can try to help them protect themselves physically." It's a matter of how you're addressing the problem. I don't see the flaws in either way of helping because the intent is to HELP.

Flat out lies are different, no one should be lied to. However, I think that the church really does have good intentions for its followers. Anyone who isn't a follower probably shouldn't let themselves be influenced by it.

 

[Smoke]

I really don't know how that's even possible. Things one group of people believes doesn't affect my life, and I don't know how it could unless you let it.

I don't deny that it's most the uneducated, the ignorant, and the feeble-minded who listen to the Pope. I just don't think they should have to die for it.

You love twisting my words, fair enough do what you want. One lie isn't any better than another, after all.

What have I twisted?

 

[Buttons*]

I don't deny that it's most the uneducated, the ignorant, and the feeble-minded who listen to the Pope. I just don't think they should have to die for it.

I don't either... but if they really listened to the Pope, they wouldn't be having sex outside marriage in the first place.

It would just really be terrible to marry someone with HIV. Not sure how to reconcile that one.

What have I twisted?

Saying I'm cool with letting Catholics die I feel that's rather harsh and not the point of what I'm trying to say.

 

[darkendless]

What exactly do you mean by "What is the point of helping these people if 50% have a life altering illness?" Do you mean enforcing moral code or helping them physically? I assume it's morally. Help is still help - even if it's not perfect. I know that it would be best to educate these people without a bias... but the thing is that since religious organizations are the ones who go out and try to help people (and have the ability to) they get to be the ones to decide how to help. At least they have it in their hearts to try and help! It's more than I can say for myself anyway.

We don't live in a perfect world, everyone can agree. Christians see that problem beginning with morality, and once you stay morally "good" the rest will follow. The rest of the world says, "Well, we can't fix anything, but at least we can try to help them protect themselves physically." It's a matter of how you're addressing the problem. I don't see the flaws in either way of helping because the intent is to HELP.

Flat out lies are different, no one should be lied to. However, I think that the church really does have good intentions for its followers. Anyone who isn't a follower probably shouldn't let themselves be influenced by it.

Good intentions will have an adverse affect and increase the HIV infection rate. It takes more than good intentions to benefit a society. The needs of the community an organisation is trying to help need to be addressed before anything else. I think thats where a lot of anger comes from. The church is ignoring this problem which has spiralled out of control in order to preach and reinforce their dogma to people who obviously care very little.

If 50% of people have HIV, what does it matter if this organisation gives them free health checks? Sure they stay alive, but if this organisation gave out condoms instead of flu shots these people wouldn't be in the situation.

Next year im going to Vietnam (if my application is successful) with griffith univeristy as part of an engineering programme to build them houses that are safe to live in. Now how would they benefit if we went there and build them a huge open courtyard? Sure, were helping them, but they dont need a courtyard, they need houses that stand up. Its like in Africa, they don't need health checks, they need condoms so they dont need health checks. Do you get what im trying to say?

 

[Buttons*]

Good intentions will have an adverse affect and increase the HIV infection rate. It takes more than good intentions to benefit a society. The needs of the community an organisation is trying to help need to be addressed before anything else. I think thats where a lot of anger comes from. The church is ignoring this problem which has spiralled out of control in order to preach and reinforce their dogma to people who obviously care very little.

Do we have evidence that AIDS spreads faster and more frequently because of what the Pope says? It seems like a slippery slope unless we have stats for it. But what you're saying does make sense, and I understand better why people are upset about it.

If 50% of people have HIV, what does it matter if this organisation gives them free health checks? Sure they stay alive, but if this organisation gave out condoms instead of flu shots these people wouldn't be in the situation.

Giving out condoms isn't going to help the people who already have HIV and AIDS, similar to how a flu shot will not help them either. Condoms would help keep the spread of HIV to a minimum. (if people actually use them.) But I still think the Church is given far too much credit for aiding the spread of AIDS. There are ways that secular people can help, and it's not going to be by attacking the church's stance on anything. It's about as pointless as lecturing an African who believes in a tribal religion on the importance of loving Jesus.

Next year im going to Vietnam (if my application is successful) with griffith univeristy as part of an engineering programme to build them houses that are safe to live in. Now how would they benefit if we went there and build them a huge open courtyard? Sure, were helping them, but they dont need a courtyard, they need houses that stand up. Its like in Africa, they don't need health checks, they need condoms so they dont need health checks. Do you get what im trying to say?

Yes, I get your point.

 

[Sententia]

Thank you to the leader of the Catholic Church for condemning millions to death.

I'm reminded of the scene in religulous where the senator says you dont have to pass an IQ test to be a US Senator.... Appearantly that goes for the pope position too.

Where's that clip? hehe YouTube - "You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate"

 

[Sententia]

Do we have evidence that AIDS spreads faster and more frequently because of what the Pope says?

Ummm no. We might now though. As such an important figure in so many people's lives I find this completely irresponsible, dishonest and immoral. Can we fire this pope?

The pope said Condoms increase the problem. This is irresponsible because of his position as a figure of power, dishonest because its false and immoral because not only will it most likely lead to the death of millions it is also making claims about a subject he knows nothing about.

CNN's clip.
YouTube - cnn - pope on condoms and hiv/aids

 

[tumbleweed41]

Giving out condoms isn't going to help the people who already have HIV and AIDS, similar to how a flu shot will not help them either. Condoms would help keep the spread of HIV to a minimum. (if people actually use them.) But I still think the Church is given far too much credit for aiding the spread of AIDS. There are ways that secular people can help, and it's not going to be by attacking the church's stance on anything. It's about as pointless as lecturing an African who believes in a tribal religion on the importance of loving Jesus.

Buttons, the RCC and the Pope promote the spread of Aids in Africa and elsewhere by speaking out against the ONLY preventive measure that is PROVEN to work with sexual active adults. Promoting abstinence is fine, but to deny that Condoms SAVE LIVES is irresponsible and makes the RCC a party to DEATH. If the RCC changes its tone, and only 25% of the population is saved by doing so...then 25% more people LIVE.