Pope states condoms aren't the answer to HIV

[DallasApple]

What if there was a vaccine to prevent AIDs?..Would that not be the answer either?Would he still then say abstinence was the answer?

Love

Dallas

 

[madhatter85]

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.

Yeah i always find stories like this interest and i have to agree with most of what you said there.

Except this:

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.

Not all religions believe this nonsense. People have to be smart about things.

 

[challupa]

Not all religions believe this nonsense. People have to be smart about things.

That is very true. We must always allow for rational thought imo or we are letting humanity down. To hold on to our beliefs so tightly that we do more harm in the long run cannot be called skillful.

 

[linwood]

It gets even worse.

This happened awhile back.

This bishop not only states that condoms are useless but are purposely laced with the aids virus in order to spread the disease faster and farther.

The motive?

Condom companies want to kill off all the Africans so they can take over the continent.

My disgust for the Catholic church is reinforced on an almost daily basis.

(Newser) – Catholic opposition to condom use as an AIDS preventive in Africa took a bizarre turn yesterday when a respected archbishop in Mozambique charged that condoms imported from Europe had been deliberately infected with HIV. Maputo Archbishop Francisco Chimoio made his comments at an Independence Day celebration and reiterated them to the BBC.

World News | AROUND THE WORLD..: Bishop: HIV in condoms.(News) | Newser

 

[challupa]

What if there was a vaccine to prevent AIDs?..Would that not be the answer either?Would he still then say abstinence was the answer?

Love

Dallas

Abstinence is always the answer for the RCC. Not that that is wrong, but rather incomplete.

 

[Storm]

It gets even worse.

This happened awhile back.

This bishop not only states that condoms are useless but are purposely laced with the aids virus in order to spread the disease faster and farther.

The motive?

Condom companies want to kill off all the Africans so they can take over the continent.

My disgust for the Catholic church is reinforced on an almost daily basis.

Unforgivable.

 

[challupa]

It gets even worse.

This happened awhile back.

This bishop not only states that condoms are useless but are purposely laced with the aids virus in order to spread the disease faster and farther.

The motive?

Condom companies want to kill off all the Africans so they can take over the continent.

My disgust for the Catholic church is reinforced on an almost daily basis.

You know, I really don't see how this rigid stance can help the church. They are going to lose a huge number of their members to Aids. Is that prudent?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah i always find stories like this interest and i have to agree with most of what you said there.

Except this:

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.

Not all religions believe this nonsense. People have to be smart about things.

I meant Catholicism specifically. My wife and most of her side of the family are Catholic. My wife has made a promise to raise any children we have in the Church, and all of my nieces and nephews are growing up (or grew up) in Catholic homes. Regardless of my personal religious beliefs, the teachings of the Catholic Church have a direct impact on my loved ones.

 

[Smoke]

What do people think of this latest comment from the Pope?

I think that Benny is a bad pope and a bad man.

The vatican has said that if one of a married couple has HIV condoms are allowed.

You give Benny too much credit. It was widely reported in 2006 that such a statement was going to be issued, with a number of bishops and Vatican officials clearly favoring such a statement. However, no such statement was ever issued. The Vatican still forbids condom use even in the case of a married couple, one of whom has HIV.

 

[logician]

Just because abstinence works for the pope, doesn't mean it's going to work for everyone else.

 

[challupa]

I think that Benny is a bad pope and a bad man.


You give Benny too much credit. It was widely reported in 2006 that such a statement was going to be issued, with a number of bishops and Vatican officials clearly favoring such a statement. However, no such statement was ever issued. The Vatican still forbids condom use even in the case of a married couple, one of whom has HIV.

You're right Midnight Blue. I must have thought hearing that some condoned it meant it had been, my mistake. Here is a comment I found on the Holy See website regarding the issue:

3.6. HIV/AIDS infection among married couples
In this theme to be objective, I have here to say that a few cardinals33, very recently, have discussed this matter. They seem to leave the option open for married couples to decide for themselves how to defend against the disease when one of them is already infected by AIDS. Also the Southern Africa Bishops’ Conference intervened in the discussion with these words: “There are couples where one of the parties is living with HIV/AIDS. In these cases there is the real danger that the healthy partner may contract this killer disease. The Church accepts that everyone has the right to defend one’s s life against mortal danger. This would include using the appropriate means and course of action. Similarly where one spouse is infected with HIV/AIDS they must listen to their consciences. They are the only ones who can choose the appropriate means, in order to defend themselves against the infection. Decisions of such an intimate nature should be made by both husband and wife as equal and loving partners”34.
However, one has to recognize that there is a considerable difference of opinion among Catholic moralists on this topic. Moreover, even for those following this new point of view in the mentioned specific case, the moral law does not change as far as condoms and contraceptives are concerned as a matter of principle. In any case, I think there will be a clarification about this specific point of HIV/AIDS married couples from the part of the Holy See.

Here is the actual website page if you wish to read the whole thing.

People on the Move, N° 101

 

[madhatter85]

That is very true. We must always allow for rational thought imo or we are letting humanity down. To hold on to our beliefs so tightly that we do more harm in the long run cannot be called skillful.

It's not about compromising my beliefs, but rather the opposite. I don't believe a god that loves us would want us to go around blindly doing things with absolutely no reason or rhyme.

 

[emiliano]

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:

This has been discuss here in this forum before, the Pope is the leader of the RCC and as such he issues directives to Catholic, the Church that he lead must not get involved in the distribution of condoms “if people really decided that they could do that”??? according to the RCC we one is in fact endowed with all we need to attain abstinence, and the Church is always ready to assist you in times when you are under the disturbances of the soul. His flock cannot engage in activities that encourages irresponsibility and find excuses for lack of self control. Abstinence/avoidance is a virtue and those that practiced overcome lot of evils.

 

[emiliano]

You know, I really don't see how this rigid stance can help the church. They are going to lose a huge number of their members to Aids. Is that prudent?

The Church is not in the business of becoming popular but to guide people to Salvation, in fact it is prophesied that the Church will become smaller toward the end.
Luk 12:32 Do not fear, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom

 

[emiliano]

Just because abstinence works for the pope, doesn't mean it's going to work for everyone else.

The pope commands the RCC to the virtue of abstinence not everybody, he knows that there are and there always be reprobates, surely he realises that some will be lost.

 

[Mister Emu]

I applaud Benedict for staying strong...

I ask this every time... What does it matter? Pope says do not fornicate, have one partner, or abstain. No one listens. Pope says do not use condoms. Everybody listens? Its obvious the Pope's influence is in question...

Now I agree that the bishop in Mozambique was way out of line...

 

[emiliano]

I think that Benny is a bad pope and a bad man.


You give Benny too much credit. It was widely reported in 2006 that such a statement was going to be issued, with a number of bishops and Vatican officials clearly favoring such a statement. However, no such statement was ever issued. The Vatican still forbids condom use even in the case of a married couple, one of whom has HIV.

And why should he change the Church tenets, one been that after sin and repentance there must be penance? This will show to his/her spouse that there is true repentance.

 

[Mister Emu]

To hold on to our beliefs so tightly that we do more harm in the long run cannot be called skillful.

There would be far more harm would the Pope counsel sin in the face of adversity...

 

[J Bryson]

The Church is not in the business of becoming popular but to guide people to Salvation, in fact it is prophesied that the Church will become smaller toward the end.
Luk 12:32 Do not fear, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom

So...what? He's trying to get people to salvation that much faster by having them die sooner?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I applaud Benedict for staying strong...

I ask this every time... What does it matter? Pope says do not fornicate, have one partner, or abstain. No one listens. Pope says do not use condoms. Everybody listens? Its obvious the Pope's influence is in question...

If you want to look at it that way, then the Pope's statements about condoms would be completely pointless. If people listen to the Pope uniformly, what would be the point of him saying anything about condoms at all? If everyone who listens to him is already practicing abstinence, then telling them not to use condoms would be redundant.

In reality, though, his actions cause problems within certain segments of society:

- if you imagine the Venn diagram, the areas "people who adhere to the Pope's teaching on abstinence" and "people who adhere to the Pope's teaching on condoms" don't overlap perfectly. There will be a certain region occupied by people who obey the one but not the other.

- there will be people who care about being seen to obey the Church's teachings, and not so much actually obeying them. These people might be perfectly happy to have an affair in secret, but wouldn't want to be seen procuring condoms.

- the effects extend beyond just the individual making the decision. For example, if one spouse obeys the Church teachings on both fornication and condom use but the other spouse doesn't, then the obedient and faithful spouse is at risk of being infected with HIV from the adulterous spouse's affair.

There would be far more harm would the Pope counsel sin in the face of adversity...

I've harped on this sort of thing before, but I don't see the fundamental moral difference between "just war" doctrine and allowing condoms in some sort of limited way to combat AIDS.

Edit - I think I should also point out something: in the balance that you're suggesting, the harm on one side is real and measurable in human life; the harm on the other side (assuming you're talking about the peril to people's souls or something like that) is harm that I don't believe actually exists.