Pope states condoms aren't the answer to HIV

[Alceste]

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.

OK, that's a start. We are getting somewhere! This is what we all think. The statement I quoted came from Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family. He's dead now, (thank God), but his lie has been found to be repeated by RC priests and nuns all over the world.

Now, with this reprehensible person in mind - a close confidant of the pope, presumably serving at his pleasure - what do you think of the fact Benedict, in his first public statement on the topic, instead of setting the record straight, said that condoms make the problem of HIV worse?

 

[emiliano]

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

:areyoucra

Let see if I can make you understand, in spiritual matter the Pope that is a theologian lead you, he is the expert you are not and expert, you see the physical side of the issue, the Pope sees both.

 

[LuisDantas]

:areyoucra

Let see if I can make you understand, in spiritual matter the Pope that is a theologian lead you, he is the expert you are not and expert, you see the physical side of the issue, the Pope sees both.

What on earth leads you to think the effect of condoms on health is a theological matter?

For that matter, why should I necessarily lend credence to the Pope's Theology? Theology can simply be dismissed by anyone who feels like doing so. It's the nature of the discipline.

 

[emiliano]

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

It does matters if you are a Catholic the message is for you, the Pope as your lrader/sheapard is calling you to virtue so that you may live and that you may do that abundantly and that you may also live eternally, that you may withstand temptations through discipline, it is his duty of care for his flock

The difference being, apparently, that I am not pressuring others to put their lives in risk, unlike the Pope.[/QUOTE]
I can label this accusation to you and the brigade just as well. You and the lot are pressuring infected individuals to continue in their lust that got them where they are, this threats their physical body and in addition to this you are causing their spiritual death. What is ICAR? In any case it is the RCC that determines who is Catholic and who is not, I can assure you, you are not a Catholic.
That is not supposed to make sense, right?
Do you really mean that? That is so lame

 

[emiliano]

What on earth leads you to think the effect of condoms on health is a theological matter?[/quote]

Craicky! he doesn't get it. The Pope massage is a theological statement, the use of condoms has as it purpose to keep people in their sins (spiritually dead). The Pope addressed both problem by directing Christians infected by the virus to abstinence.

For that matter, why should I necessarily lend credence to the Pope's Theology?

That's where Salvation is, that where eternal life in God's kingdoms is, it is necessary that those infected through sin, repent and change their life's styles, those infected by other means (the sins of other) need to make sure that they don't infect other, this is also achieved through the virtue of abstinence.

Theology can simply be dismissed by anyone who feels like doing so. It's the nature of the discipline

No to us Christians is not, we want to know about God, we long to know Him, we seek His presence in our lives, in our everyday experiences, so speak for yourself.
Not having an incline to discipline in the nature of indiscipline, Your obstinant assertion that self-control/discipline is not achievable is what kill people both physically and spiritually.

 

[challupa]

:areyoucra

Let see if I can make you understand, in spiritual matter the Pope that is a theologian lead you, he is the expert you are not and expert, you see the physical side of the issue, the Pope sees both.

Well you see this is where we disagree. The pope does not have a more special connection to God than anyone else. That is something the RCC has been trying to say from it's birth, that the priesthood were the only way regular people could come to God or be saved. They became brokers for God and that is totally unnecessary. We each have a personal connection to God if we wish to recognize it and no one, not even the pope, knows what is right for you in your relationship with God. If the early churches hadn't told humanity they were spiritually sick, they would not be needed. Just like when we are not physically ill, we don't need a doctor. Humanity has bought into the lies that there needs to be a middleman between them and God and that is sad. That is just my thoughts on this.

 

[LuisDantas]

It does matters if you are a Catholic the message is for you, the Pope as your lrader/sheapard is calling you to virtue so that you may live and that you may do that abundantly and that you may also live eternally, that you may withstand temptations through discipline, it is his duty of care for his flock

True enough. Just as it is his flock's duty to keep him in line, despite an apparent relutance among Catholics to realize that.

It just turns out that he is doing a lousy job (in this particular matter at least) and I am calling him on that.

Simple as that.

The difference being, apparently, that I am not pressuring others to put their lives in risk, unlike the Pope.[/QUOTE]
I can label this accusation to you and the brigade just as well.

Which brigade?

You and the lot are pressuring infected individuals to continue in their lust that got them where they are, this threats their physical body and in addition to this you are causing their spiritual death.

Wow. Am I? Just how so?

What is ICAR?

Shorthand for RCC (more precisely, RCAC - Roman Catholic Apostolic Church) in Portuguese language. Sorry, I mixed languages unintentionally.

In any case it is the RCC that determines who is Catholic and who is not, I can assure you, you are not a Catholic.

Oh, I completely agree. I am indeed not a Catholic, I never was.

Here's hoping that the Church reconsiders its statistics sometime and excommuniates me eventually! It is sad to consider that Benedict XVI includes me in his numbers of adepts.

 

[emiliano]

Well you see this is where we disagree. The pope does not have a more special connection to God than anyone else.

What he has is a greater responsibility, a duty of care for your soul and that makes it a special connection, he was called to the ministry of priesthood and obeyed, that call has great sacrifices, God knew him and call him to this ministry, God knows you and me and called us to ours.

That is something the RCC has been trying to say from it's birth, that the priesthood were the only way regular people could come to God or be saved.

God give people different gift 6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; 7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; 8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.
Romans 12:6-8 (KJV)

They became brokers for God and that is totally unnecessary. We each have a personal connection to God if we wish to recognize it and no one, not even the pope, knows what is right for you in your relationship with God.

They are ministers (bishops) of the Moral Law to Christians, that is their gift.

If the early churches hadn't told humanity they were spiritually sick, they would not be needed.

It was the Lord Jesus that told religious leader of His time that they were spiritually sick and in need of a physician.

Just like when we are not physically ill, we don't need a doctor. Humanity has bought into the lies that there needs to be a middleman between them and God and that is sad. That is just my thoughts on this

But we do need intersession, a mediator between us sinner and a Holy God, most physical illness are the result of spiritual corruptions. Heal the soul and the body will heal as well.

 

[emiliano]

Luis,

True enough. Just as it is his flock's duty to keep him in line, despite an apparent relutance among Catholics to realize that.

No that is God's duty, He called Him He will sustain him.

It just turns out that he is doing a lousy job (in this particular matter at least) and I am calling him on that.

In reference to whom? His calling is to preach and support discipline through abstinence and he is doing a good job, He answers to Hid master, he is God's servant

 

[LuisDantas]

Luis,

No that is God's duty, He called Him He will sustain him.

Some people think so, yes. I don't see why I must agree.

Besides, if I did, then it would be all the more reason not to condone his mistakes...

In reference to whom? His calling is to preach and support discipline through abstinence and he is doing a good job, He answers to Hid master, he is God's servant

What the heck. He sure is disguising that fact well.

 

[Alceste]

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...

Sorry, you are wrong about that. Appeal to authority. The crux of it is, "I have found an 'expert' who appears to agree with some part of my opinion, therefore my opinion is valid'.

The doctor notes that even higher condom use doesn't correlate to lower HIV/AIDS prevelancy...

I think you need to read it again.

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?

I've said it consistently and repeatedly through 43 pages, so one last time won't hurt: I blame the pope for lying about the effectiveness of condoms. This has nothing to do with abstinence. The issue is that the RCC repeatedly, intentionally, and institutionally makes false factual claims about the effectiveness of condoms. Because the RCC lies about condoms ("they are nets that allow sperm and HIV through", "they are intentionally laced with HIV", and "they make the problem worse"), I hold them morally and ethically accountable for the consequences of their lies being believed, and people not wearing condoms because they are misinformed about the facts.

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...

Straw man. Nobody here suggested that sexual responsibility should not also be advocated. The issue is whether or not the RCC should propagate false facts about the effectiveness of condoms.

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...

See? "With condoms" you say. Even you understand that condoms do not "make the problem worse". I don't disagree. Even Dr Green doesn't disagree. Despite the fact he has allowed himself to become the go-to guy for RCC "appeal to authority" arguments, he doesn't actually advocate reducing the availability of condoms, like the pope, and he doesn't suggest that they don't work, when used consistently on an individual level.

 

[linwood]

I've said it consistently and repeatedly through 43 pages, so one last time won't hurt:

Your patience seems infinite Alceste.

:bow:

It`s really telling how none seem to actually confront your one simple point.

 

[Father Heathen]

What's even more disgusting is RFers who ***** but dont' do anything about the problems they see in the world - simply to make others feel bad.

And it's also disgusting to tear down others for their point of view.

Give me a break, princess.

Girls burned to death due to some silly religious/culture attitude. Sometimes people deserve to feel bad and be torn down for their point of view. Are you honestly saying that people should be silent and look the other way when it comes to injustice? That is disgusting. As far as not doing anything about the problems, speaking out against such atrocities is often all one can do. If that upsets you then I'm afraid you'll just have to learn to deal with it.

 

[darkendless]

Give me a break, princess.

Girls burned to death due to some silly religious/culture attitude. Sometimes people deserve to feel bad and be torn down for their point of view. Are you honestly saying that people should be silent and look the other way when it comes to injustice? That is disgusting. As far as not doing anything about the problems, speaking out against such atrocities is often all one can do. If that upsets you then I'm afraid you'll just have to learn to deal with it.

Especially when we cannot be sure where our money is going and whether its even getting to the people we donated it to. Are we helping people, or are we buying some new AK-47's for a bunch of freedom fighters in Somalia?

 

[Alceste]

Your patience seems infinite Alceste.

:bow:

It`s really telling how none seem to actually confront your one simple point.

It may not change anybody's mind, but it does make for an comprehensive tour of the museum of logical fallacies.

 

[Mister Emu]

Sorry, you are wrong about that.

I was wrong one on front, but not on the other... I was indeed thinking of a different fallacy when I said the authority had to be valid... but I was correct that there are valid appeals to authority. The Pope on matters of Catholic doctrine for instance...

The fallacy lies in "He's an expert so he can't be wrong", as opposed to "Here is an expert I bring in to the debate to support my position"... The former is fallacious, the latter is valid.

I think you need to read it again.

“We just cannot find an association between more condom use and lower HIV reduction rates

Harvard Researcher agrees with Pope on condoms in Africa

I blame the pope for lying about the effectiveness of condoms

But he's not, the distribution of condoms has shown to be ineffective. That people don't use them, or use them properly, or change to more risky behaviors does not change that ineffectiveness as a strategy...

Because the RCC lies about condoms ("they are nets that allow sperm and HIV through", "they are intentionally laced with HIV", and "they make the problem worse")

For the most part the various bishops are autonomous, but I think everyone here has agreed with you that the first two are wrong, morally, and that those falsities need to be dealt with... as for the bold part there have been several experts who have written about the fact that on a popular level the effectiveness of condoms is diminished, even possibly completely negated...

The issue is whether or not the RCC should propagate false facts about the effectiveness of condoms.

The Pope did not, and yes, something should be done about the falsities spread about individual condom effectiveness...

See? "With condoms" you say. Even you understand that condoms do not "make the problem worse".

Indeed I did say that, not the point of that statement(which was the abstinence has been shown to work, and is not invalid), but I did... Though I'm not sure how to take that "even I"

I will say this... condoms of their nature do not, but the programs that have been in place for the distribution of them haven't helped, and may have had a negative effect...

he doesn't suggest that they don't work, when used consistently on an individual level.

Of course not, his thing is not individuals anyways, it is populations...

Honestly, the bishops/priests/nuns you quoted who did spread false information about condoms, I can see the problem there... but the Pope's statements, are just a statement of reality, condoms haven't saved Africa from AIDS, and it seems unlikely that that will change... in their current form, the programs for distribution actually may have had a negative effect...

On an individual level they work, on the level of populations they don't... it seems contradictory, but it is what it is...

The Pope's comment can be interpreted differently, I think he is talking on the population level, and about the current forms of distribution programs, not individual condoms, if you believe he is, then we will have to agree to disagree until/unless he clarifies his position...

 

[Alceste]

But he's not, the distribution of condoms has shown to be ineffective. That people don't use them, or use them properly, or change to more risky behaviors does not change that ineffectiveness as a strategy...

The distribution of condoms is irrelevant. Distributing condoms is not a factor if people don't wear them. You can't say the distribution of condoms makes the problem worse when people don't wear them. This is a standard causal fallacy. Correlation is not causation. Step one is getting them out there, step two is getting people to wear them. If men in Africa wear them consistently, then research has a hope of determining their impact on the spread of HIV. Step two has not been achieved. Do you have any suspicions why that might be? I do.

The Pope did not, and yes, something should be done about the falsities spread about individual condom effectiveness...

Yes, I am glad we see eye to eye on that. Who do you think would be a good person to address the propagation of lies about condoms throughout the RCC? What about this guy?

Indeed I did say that, not the point of that statement(which was the abstinence has been shown to work, and is not invalid), but I did... Though I'm not sure how to take that "even I"

It was only meant as, here you are defending the pope for saying "condoms make the problem worse", but you still acknowledge they are an essential part of any strategy that has a snowball's chance in hell of slowing down the carnage in Africa. I meant even the most sincere RCC apologists disagree with Benedict with regards to his statement that "condoms make the problem worse".

On an individual level they work, on the level of populations they don't... it seems contradictory, but it is what it is...

It's not contradictory. It's mathematics. Epidemiology takes all kinds of factors into account. What percentage of the population is infected, what behaviors influence the spread of the virus, how many people can one individual be expected to infect, how many people are wearing condoms consistently. When a certain level of the population is infected, an explosion of cases is inevitable. The horse is out of the gate, as somebody said earlier. In some places 26 % of the adult population is infected. In a climate like this, even sexually responsible people take an enormous risk getting married and being monogamous. If they are lucky enough not to have an infected partner, or to be infected themselves from birth (50/50), there is still no guarantee that partner will be faithful. Even if the unfaithful partner only slips up once, and sleeps with some monogamous person's wife, you've got your magic number. 4 sexually active people. One of them is likely to be infected, which means sooner or later all four will be infected.

The Pope's comment can be interpreted differently, I think he is talking on the population level, and about the current forms of distribution programs, not individual condoms, if you believe he is, then we will have to agree to disagree until/unless he clarifies his position...

His position is that HIV "cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems". Would you say this statement was a better use of his airtime than denouncing the RCC campaign of condom-related falsehoods?

 

[logician]

"His position is that HIV "cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems". "

Which is patently false.

 

[Mister Emu]

If men in Africa wear them consistently, then research has a hope of determining their impact on the spread of HIV

I disagree... condoms as a strategy hinge on distribution and use, if you cannot distribute enough to meet demand(sometimes the case, as with people who use them while they have them, but don't abstain when they don't), or if people do not use them enough/consistently/at all the strategy in its current form fails.

Do you have any suspicions why that might be? I do.

The Pope hardly has the influence you apparently think he does... it is, from what I have read, a far more cultural issue than religious one. Everyone from tribal leaders, to men, to at risk women disregard the use of condoms. Unmanly, un(enter ethnicity), "like eating candy with the wrapper still on, no one does that"...

Who do you think would be a good person to address the propagation of lies about condoms throughout the RCC? What about this guy?

I agree...

It was only meant as, here you are defending the pope for saying "condoms make the problem worse", but you still acknowledge they are an essential part of any strategy that has a snowball's chance in hell of slowing down the carnage in Africa. I meant even the most sincere RCC apologists disagree with Benedict with regards to his statement that "condoms make the problem worse".

It's all good, I was joking(as I hope the smilies indicated )

That said I do recognize that condoms can play a part in an effective campaign against HIV... but I think in the current iteration that the strategy of condoms to combat the spread of HIV could very well be exacerbating the issue.

His position is that HIV "cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems". Would you say this statement was a better use of his airtime than denouncing the RCC campaign of condom-related falsehoods?

I do not even know that he knows of some/many of the issues you raised... as I said, for the most part, bishops are autonomous...

As for the question, even if he knew, I think that advocating a solution that works is his best use for "airtime"...

 

[challupa]

Now those are interesting pictures, especially the first one!