Pope states condoms aren't the answer to HIV

[Jordan St. Francis]

So, logician, should the moral question of the Church's prescriptions really be narrowed down to those monogamous couples who, though obedient to the teachings of the Church regarding marriage, nonetheless are unsure if they have contracted the virus? This seems to me to be a question that is truly peripheral to the Church's policy as a whole. (albeit, a legitimate concern) ie. is the crux of the problem really couples who are staying faithful?

 

[Alceste]

I hope this is rhetoric. Let us be serious- if one knowingly has HIV they need to refrain from sexual activity. To do so consciously without informing anybody is criminal. We can hardly call the Pope a murderer- he is compelling no one to act but rather laying out the teachings of an Institution to which he is bound to do- that condoms, along with all forms of sexual activity outside of the permanent bond of marriage, are immoral in the Church's eyes. He is not telling people to have sex without condoms, which is how HIV is contracted. He is telling them to have sexual relations according to the Church's standards, in which case the disease would not be contracted.

It seems to me that the primary complaint is that Africans are not hearing what the Pope is saying, misunderstanding him, so that they proceed to avoid condoms but not sex. So should he make it more clear?

I have addressed this a number of times, but it appears it hasn't come across. Do you recognize the difference between a factual claim and an imperative statement?

Factual claim: "[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The AIDS virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatazoon. The spermatzaoon can easily pass through the ‘net’ that is formed by the condom. These margins of uncertainty … should represent an obligation on the part of the health ministries and all these campaigns to act in the same way as they do with regard to cigarettes, which they state to be a danger[/FONT]."

Imperative statements: "don't have sex before marriage", "wear a condom", "don't wear a condom", "abstain from sex", "be faithful", "eat this wafer", "do unto others as you'd have done to you", "put your money in the little silver plate", etc.

The thing people take issue with are the false claims of fact. This is not about what the pope tells people to do. Nobody I know gives a fiddler's fart what the pope tells us to do or not do, and it's clearly the same in Africa. However, we all care when the Vatican makes claims of fact that we know to be false and extremely dangerous for anyone who has the misfortune to believe they are true.

 

[linwood]

I think the point of this thread is being pushed aside by many posts.

The point is that the Vatican should cease lying about factual information that cause great suffering.

It`s really that simple.

The point that the Pope has lied cannot even be attacked.
He has lied, this has been evidenced repeatedly in this thread.

The only topic left for discussion is what to do about it now?

 

[LuisDantas]

I hope this is rhetoric. Let us be serious- if one knowingly has HIV they need to refrain from sexual activity. To do so consciously without informing anybody is criminal.

True enough, but the matter at hand is mainly that of preventing acquiring HIV by way of condoms.

We can hardly call the Pope a murderer

I can and do.

- he is compelling no one to act but rather laying out the teachings of an Institution to which he is bound to do

The institution which grants him supreme authority and even infalibility status. So yes, he is indeed compelling legions of Catholics wordwide... in a frankly criminal way.

- that condoms, along with all forms of sexual activity outside of the permanent bond of marriage, are immoral in the Church's eyes.

The alternative is far more imoral, however. Besides, he could have simply refrained from speaking about the subject. He chose to take a stand, and is therefore now responsible for it and its consequences.

Since this stand will kill so many people, he is a murderer.

He is not telling people to have sex without condoms, which is how HIV is contracted. He is telling them to have sexual relations according to the Church's standards, in which case the disease would not be contracted.

He is effectively telling people that he would rather have then hurt themselves out of sheer lack of responsible planning than assume responsibility for their sexual health.

To claim that he would rather have people act in unrealistic ways is to claim that he is incompetent and ought not be listened to. Which is in fact a fairly solid claim, come to think of it.

It seems to me that the primary complaint is that Africans are not hearing what the Pope is saying, misunderstanding him, so that they proceed to avoid condoms but not sex. So should he make it more clear?

I don't see evidence of such a misunderstanding.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Alceste,

You are perfectly correct regarding the distinction between factual claims and imperatives. The Pope's statement was not that the usage of condoms make the problem worse. I hardly think his statement implies that the individual use of condoms fail with regularity. Rather, he was speaking of the distribution of condoms and said that they make the problem worse. It seems fairly clear to me that he had something in mind like the reports of Dr. Green, who himself is speaking of the affects of condom distribution (in truth or in error). In the view of the Pope, condom distribution is linked with and creates a mentality towards human sexuality that works against its containment.

Now, its certainly fair game to say this is a wrongful observation and support that with contradicting evidence. Nonetheless, we know that they are some professionals saying it. I do not reckon that the Pope is lying through his teeth, but sincerely believes, if from flawed studies (a point on which I myself remain unsure), that condom distribution has had an effect that works against its objectives.

I myself think it is possible that there is some merit to Green's analysis. Have there not been even cases here in North America where sexually spread infections of various kinds have been massively on the rise, even as the availability of condoms has become so widespread?

 

[Alceste]

Alceste,

You are perfectly correct regarding the distinction between factual claims and imperatives. The Pope's statement was not that the usage of condoms make the problem worse. I hardly think his statement implies that the individual use of condoms fail with regularity. Rather, he was speaking of the distribution of condoms and said that they make the problem worse. It seems fairly clear to me that he had something in mind like the reports of Dr. Green, who himself is speaking of the affects of condom distribution (in truth or in error). In the view of the Pope, condom distribution is linked with and creates a mentality towards human sexuality that works against its containment.

Now, its certainly fair game to say this is a wrongful observation and support that with contradicting evidence. Nonetheless, we know that they are some professionals saying it. I do not reckon that the Pope is lying through his teeth, but sincerely believes, if from flawed studies (a point on which I myself remain unsure), that condom distribution has had an effect that works against its objectives.

I myself think it is possible that there is some merit to Green's analysis. Have there not been even cases here in North America where sexually spread infections of various kinds have been massively on the rise, even as the availability of condoms has become so widespread?

See, I understand what you're saying, but I am unable to divorce the pope's resounding silence regarding the fact that senior Vatican officials, as well as RCC priests and nuns across the world are teaching that condoms are "nets that allow sperm and STIs to pass through" from his statement that "condoms make the problem worse". It's inconceivable to me that he would be unaware of these lies, and utterly irresponsible - yes, even "evil" - that he would use his time in the spotlight to reinforce, rather than condemn the worldwide RCC campaign of misinformation.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

The Pope did not "use" this moment to bring forward the discussion on condoms. Its regarded widely as mistake of the notoriously inept press office which permitted the question of condoms to be asked on the plane to Africa by a reporter. The Pope was responding honestly to a question he was asked to comment on.

Secondly, it seems to me that many, including Catholics, over-estimate the role of the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope is the bishop of Rome- indeed the universal bishop, but this role does not cancel out the duties of the other bishops throughout the world. The Pope is not CEO of a company. He does not spend his time commenting on the various decisions and words of bishops throughout the world. Every bishop holds, independently of the Pope, valid Apostolic Succession and is himself the shepherd of his own flock.

 

[Alceste]

The Pope did not "use" this moment to bring forward the discussion on condoms. Its regarded widely as mistake of the notoriously inept press office which permitted the question of condoms to be asked on the plane to Africa by a reporter. The Pope was responding honestly to a question he was asked to comment on.

Secondly, it seems to me that many, including Catholics, over-estimate the role of the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope is the bishop of Rome- indeed the universal bishop, but this role does not cancel out the duties of the other bishops throughout the world. The Pope is not CEO of a company. He does not spend his time commenting on the various decisions and words of bishops throughout the world. Every bishop holds, independently of the Pope, valid Apostolic Succession and is himself the shepherd of his own flock.

OK, let's make things simple: what is your opinion of the claim that condoms are permeable to HIV? What do you think of people who would make such a claim? What do you think the impact of believing this claim would be on a large population?

 

[Katzpur]

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

Well, I'm not a Catholic, but I'm not sure I follow how sexual abstinance condemns millions to death. I never knew that not having sex outside of marriage was a cause of death. Ya learn something new every day, huh?

 

[linwood]

Well, I'm not a Catholic, but I'm not sure I follow how sexual abstinance condemns millions to death. I never knew that not having sex outside of marriage was a cause of death. Ya learn something new every day, huh?

The Pope and other representatives of the Vatican have explicitly stated that condoms "increase" the AIDs pandemic in Africa.
One bishop went as far as to state that condoms manufactured in Europe were "laced" intentionally with the AIDs virus.

These representatives are actually being defended in this thread.

Edit;

I never knew that not having sex outside of marriage was a cause of death. Ya learn something new every day, huh?

It is when the fastest growing victims of the AIDs virus in Africa are married monogamous women.

 

[emiliano]

Ad hominem. (You did.)

I have always have an interest in strange behaviors in people, that why I went from general nursing to developmental disabilities and then to mental health, one of the most interesting conditions is Grandiosity, I don't get the chance to nurse many of them because they are harmless and actually funny.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, I'm not a Catholic, but I'm not sure I follow how sexual abstinance condemns millions to death. I never knew that not having sex outside of marriage was a cause of death. Ya learn something new every day, huh?

Why, of course abstinence itself isn't dangerous.

Attempting abstinence, however, is, when it is done out of fear.

 

[emiliano]

Nope, I understand perfectly. I recognize an Appeal to Authority Fallacy, that is all.

What else there? if you want to know about God, you do not go the a Shoes sell man, do you? The Pope is a theologian and I leart that he is very Augustinian in his thoughts. write to him, he speaks Latin, I don't get impress by the Latin thing, so what exactly do you imply with "Appeal to Authority Fallacy" You are appealing to your own authority in a field that you know little about, in the final analysis what opinion carries the most weight to us Christians? Logically the experts, right?

 

[emiliano]

Maybe that is true. I have certainly not pinpointed those differences. Anyway, if he claims that abstinence is effective as an AIDS countermeasure, he is simply wrong. I have no intention of ignoring what I see and know just because he says so.

That is correct you are not of his flock, he does not have any responsibility or duty of care toward you except warning you of the consequences.

Unless, I guess, some convincing argument is actually presented to me. Do you have such an argument?

Are you a Catholic or a Christian? are you spiritually inclined? If you are not, then you won't be able to understand any of this.

Actually, I have a low opinion of the Pope, not of people as a whole. He ought to know better than to cause this much damage, or else remain silent on the matter.

I have a low opinion of you, but I will defend your right to express you opinions and really the condom brigade does as much damage and the end result will be a eradication of the virus through sterilisation.

Discounting the load of your questions, yes, I will say that it is indeed to much to expect people to generally abstain from sex. We ARE animals to such a degree that it simply does not make sense to expect otherwise.

It doesn't make sense to you because you don't believe in what Christians do, the Pope did not addressed you.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

OK, let's make things simple: what is your opinion of the claim that condoms are permeable to HIV? What do you think of people who would make such a claim? What do you think the impact of believing this claim would be on a large population?

Any one who makes this statement knowing that it is false is certainly committing a grave moral error. Bishops, priests or laypersons or Popes- it is deplorable and deservedly condemned.

 

[emiliano]

"Pope Benedict says the distribution of condoms is not the answer in the fight against AIDS.
He spoke aboard the papal plane on his way to Africa, his first trip to the continent as pontiff. But he insisted that the church is in the forefront of the battle against AIDS in Africa.
The Vatican encourages sexual abstinence to fight the spread of disease. "

In other words, the pope is signing the death warrant for millions if they follow his advice, if you have HIV, and DON'T know it, you doom others to posssible death if you have sex w/o using a condom, married or not.

People that have multiple sexual partners are the ones signing their own death warrant, those that know that they are infected and continue sleeping around are taking risks even with condoms usage, as they don't have the means available to them 24/7, and they don't have the will to abstain neither, abtinance is a learnt trait, the Church called it a virtue and if adhere to is 100% effective. So the RCC is really at the front of the fight against the spread of AIDS.

 

[LuisDantas]

What else there? if you want to know about God, you do not go the a Shoes sell man, do you? The Pope is a theologian and I leart that he is very Augustinian in his thoughts. write to him, he speaks Latin, I don't get impress by the Latin thing, so what exactly do you imply with "Appeal to Authority Fallacy" You are appealing to your own authority in a field that you know little about, in the final analysis what opinion carries the most weight to us Christians? Logically the experts, right?

Well, in this matter the Pope is no more of an expert than me, really.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is correct you are not of his flock, he does not have any responsibility or duty of care toward you except warning you of the consequences.

Are you a Catholic or a Christian? are you spiritually inclined? If you are not, then you won't be able to understand any of this.

According to the ICAR itself, I am. Not that I see the point, really. Why would it matter?

I have a low opinion of you, but I will defend your right to express you opinions and really the condom brigade does as much damage and the end result will be a eradication of the virus through sterilisation.

The difference being, apparently, that I am not pressuring others to put their lives in risk, unlike the Pope.

That is not supposed to make sense, right?

It doesn't make sense to you because you don't believe in what Christians do, the Pope did not addressed you.

Do you really mean that? That is so lame.

 

[LuisDantas]

People that have multiple sexual partners are the ones signing their own death warrant, those that know that they are infected and continue sleeping around are taking risks even with condoms usage, as they don't have the means available to them 24/7, and they don't have the will to abstain neither, abtinance is a learnt trait, the Church called it a virtue and if adhere to is 100% effective. So the RCC is really at the front of the fight against the spread of AIDS.

Do you realize that you are misrepresenting both the Pope's advice AND the actual situation?

 

[Mister Emu]

As a note, appeal to authority as a fallacy only works if the authority is invalid... The Pope for instance is an acceptable authority on Catholic Doctrine, and quoting him on that issue is not a fallacy... in the same way, a senior Harvard researcher in the spread of AIDS is a legitimate authority on the spread of AIDS... and therefore it is not a logical fallacy to bring him into the discussion...

I already answered it. Condoms are only effective when people wear them. When people don't wear them, you can't blame condoms for hastening the spread of HIV. A sound methodology would research the effect of condoms when they are used, not when they're haphazardly tossed off the back of pick-up trucks blasting rock music.

No you didn't. The doctor notes that even higher condom use doesn't correlate to lower HIV/AIDS prevelancy...

Also, why the double standard? You can't blame condoms(and by extension those who distribute them as the major answer to HIV/AIDS) for people not using them... but you can blame abstinence(and by extension the Pope who advocates it) for people not abstaining?

If those who distribute condoms without advocating sexual responsibility aren't guilty of the people who don't use having sex and getting HIV/AIDS, then the Pope isn't guilty of people who refuse to abstain and get it...

Anyway, if he claims that abstinence is effective as an AIDS countermeasure, he is simply wrong. I have no intention of ignoring what I see and know just because he says so.

Unless, I guess, some convincing argument is actually presented to me. Do you have such an argument?

An emphasis on behavior change towards sexual responsibility with condoms as a back-up produced the only measurable results in HIV/AIDS reduction that I have seen...

These representatives are actually being defended in this thread.

Someone defended the guy who said condoms were laced with AIDS?