Pope states condoms aren't the answer to HIV

[Jordan St. Francis]

Penguin,

While true, is that really an argument against the Pope- that people are not listening to everything you are saying, so don't speak up at all?

Secondly, if the Church teachings actually increase the spread of HIV and Aids, would it not be so that the most Catholic African nations have the highest infection rates? From what I have read this is not so, there appears to be no correlation, positive or negative.

 

[Imagist]

Mister Emu (or others who feel like responding):

I've been thinking about a point that was raised by you and others in the thread:

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...

I don't know about you, but I can't think of a single Catholic I know who follows all the Church's teachings on every issue. In my experience, all Catholics pick-and-choose to a degree: some have no problem skipping Mass and confession, but think it's vitally important that they baptize their children. Some consider artificial birth control to be acceptable in marriage, but consider premarital sex to be wrong. Others are opposed to abortion, but are okay with in-vitro fertilization. Some don't do any sort of penance on Fridays during the year, but will give up things for Lent.

Frankly, it seems like it's a general rule that Church teachings will be followed widely, but not universally, among its members. I don't see why the Pope wouldn't expect this general trend to continue when it comes to the Church's teachings on sex: just like some Catholics will go to Mass but not confession, some Catholics will follow the Church's teachings on contraception but not pre- or extra-marital sex.

It's worth noting that telling people to abstain is very different from telling people not to use condoms. In the case of abstinence, people may take the pope very seriously, but there are strong hormonal and psychological forces which cause people not to do as he says -- it is highly unlikely that the pope's recommendation is the largest factor in a person's decision to have sex. In contrast, the hormonal and psychological factors in condom use are unknown and at the very least not as strong -- it is very possible and even probable that the pope's recommendation will be the largest factor in many people's decisions to have protected or unprotected sex.

 

[Imagist]

Secondly, if the Church teachings actually increase the spread of HIV and Aids, would it not be so that the most Catholic African nations have the highest infection rates? From what I have read this is not so, there appears to be no correlation, positive or negative.

There are numerous external factors to be considered here. Just as correlation doesn't indicate causation, lack of correlation does not indicate lack of causation.

 

[linwood]

There are numerous external factors to be considered here. Just as correlation doesn't indicate causation, lack of correlation does not indicate lack of causation.

Not to mention that even if true it doesn`t change the fact that the statements by the RCC are idiotic at best and/or evil at worst.

It`s effectiveness isn`t the point.

 

[emiliano]

I've heard this bit of rhetoric before. Yes, pro-condom lobbyists started lobbying on the topic about the same time that the HIV transmission rate rose. However, this is not a causal relationship: the pro-condom lobbyists were ignored. In fact, the reason the pro-condom lobbyists started lobbying on the topic of Uganda was that the Ugandan government had begun to implement the Bush-funded abstinence-only program.

You are not making sense here, if is true that it rose at the time of the lobbyist arrival with their free condom plan, what could be the cause for the deterioration of the program? On the Bush plan I ask you what was in place before they were offered financial support? This was support to a program already in place, Right?

You have a better chance of dying in an auto accident than you do of contracting HIV when correctly using a condom. If you really believe that protected sex is such a risky behavior that people shouldn't do it, then I suggest you get your priorities straight and start teaching people about the real danger: cars!

You have zero chance of dying of sexual abstinence, so what your point?

 

[darkendless]

You have zero chance of dying of sexual abstinence, so what your point?

Some people actually want to live a little though Emiliano, we're not all prudes

 

[gnostic]

While true, is that really an argument against the Pope- that people are not listening to everything you are saying, so don't speak up at all?

Secondly, if the Church teachings actually increase the spread of HIV and Aids, would it not be so that the most Catholic African nations have the highest infection rates? From what I have read this is not so, there appears to be no correlation, positive or negative.

So you think a Catholic nation (or with larger majority) has less HIV infections?

Tell that to Brazil.

Last year, they had over 196 million people in Brazil (census done in 2007). It is also the largest Catholic nation is the world, and yet Brazil have a staggering figure of 730,000 people (2007) infected with HIV/AIDS, about 240,000 were women HIV infected. Sure that percentage may be tiny, but the numbers showing almost three-quarter of million people infected is still large number.

If you look at the US figure, there are 360 million people living in the US, of which nearly 469,000 people are known to be infected with HIV in 2007. Again, the percentage in the US, but percentages are deceptive.

When you compare HIV of 730,000 with 469,000, then I will have to say, Catholic nation of Brazil is not coping very well with the AIDS epidemics. I would say that Catholicism are in control of the disease is totally misplaced.

 

[emiliano]

So you think a Catholic nation (or with larger majority) has less HIV infections?
Tell that to Brazil.
Last year, they had over 196 million people in Brazil (census done in 2007). It is also the largest Catholic nation is the world, and yet Brazil have a staggering figure of 730,000 people (2007) infected with HIV/AIDS, about 240,000 were women HIV infected. Sure that percentage may be tiny, but the numbers showing almost three-quarter of million people infected is still large number.
If you look at the US figure, there are 360 million people living in the US, of which nearly 469,000 people are known to be infected with HIV in 2007. Again, the percentage in the US, but percentages are deceptive.
When you compare HIV of 730,000 with 469,000, then I will have to say, Catholic nation of Brazil is not coping very well with the AIDS epidemics. I would say that Catholicism are in control of the disease is totally misplaced.

Does Brazil have an Abstinence policy in place? Does the US have such a program?
If you want to make a comparison, compare it to the Ugandan programs in the 90s and what happen when the free condom lobbyist brought their program in.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Penguin,

While true, is that really an argument against the Pope- that people are not listening to everything you are saying, so don't speak up at all?

That's not what I said. My point was just that people pick-and-choose what Papal teachings to follow generally, so it's reasonably foreseeable that people would do the same thing in this specific case as well. It's never been the all-or-nothing, "you do everything the Pope says or you don't do anything the Pope says" scenario that's been implied by some people here. Not on any issue.

This has a further implication. IMO, people are responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions. One of the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the Church's stand on issues of sexuality is that it will lead some people into unsafe sexual practices. I'm not saying that the Pope shouldn't speak up on issues; what I'm trying to get across is that if the Pope chooses to speak, he should be held accountable for the effects - all the effects - he knows that speech will have, and should be judged accordingly.

If he wants to argue that this temporal harm is offset by some sort of spiritual benefit, well, he's free to do so, but I think it would be disingenuous for him or his supporters to pretend like he couldn't have known what was going to happen.

Secondly, if the Church teachings actually increase the spread of HIV and Aids, would it not be so that the most Catholic African nations have the highest infection rates? From what I have read this is not so, there appears to be no correlation, positive or negative.

It would be hard to figure out. It's not just a matter of "Catholic/not Catholic". Plenty of other denominations and religions have similar teachings in this regard.

However, that aside, as well as the fact that I'm having trouble finding reliable statistics, let's have a look at some:

HIV infection rate source: AIDS around the world
Religious adherence statistics source: Religion Demographics - Religious Affiliation by Country

Botswana
HIV infection rate: 23.9%
Religious affiliation: Christian 71.6%, Badimo 6%, other 1.4%, unspecified 0.4%, none 20.6% (2001 census)

South Africa
HIV infection rate: 18.1%
Religious affiliation: Zion Christian 11.1%, Pentecostal/Charismatic 8.2%, Catholic 7.1%, Methodist 6.8%, Dutch Reformed 6.7%, Anglican 3.8%, other Christian 36%, Islam 1.5%, other 2.3%, unspecified 1.4%, none 15.1% (2001 census)

Kenya
HIV infection rate: >5%
Religious affiliation: Protestant 45%, Roman Catholic 33%, indigenous beliefs 10%, Muslim 10%, other 2% (a large majority of Kenyans are Christian, but estimates for the percentage of the population that adheres to Islam or indigenous beliefs vary widely)

Tanzania
HIV infection rate: >5%
Religious affiliation: mainland - Christian 30%, Muslim 35%, indigenous beliefs 35%; Zanzibar - more than 99% Muslim

Nigeria
HIV infection rate: 3%
Religious affiliation: Muslim 50%, Christian 40%, indigenous beliefs 10%

And down at the bottom of the scale for African countries:
(AIDS stats from here, though I don't know how reliable they are)

Tunisia
HIV infection rate: ~0.1%
Religious affiliation: Muslim 98%, Christian 1%, Jewish and other 1%

Egypt
HIV infection rate: ~0.1%
Religious affiliation: Muslim (mostly Sunni) 94%, Coptic Christian and other 6%

Mauritania (apparently the lowest rate for Sub-Saharan Africa)
HIV infection rate: ~0.6%
Religious affiliation: Muslim 100%

Niger
HIV infection rate: ~1.02%
Religious affiliation: Muslim 80%, remainder indigenous beliefs and Christian

The Gambia
HIV infection rate: ~1.02
Religious affiliation: Muslim 90%, Christian 9%, indigenous beliefs 1%

So... at least for Africa, if we can draw any conclusions at all from all this, here's what I think they might be:

- prevalence of Islam has a strong negative correlation with HIV infection rates.
- (based on my general impression of these countries) political stability and a higher standard of living also correlates negatively with HIV infection rates.
- Christianity in general (since most demographics I could find didn't distinguish between Catholics and other Christians) either has positive or perhaps no correlation with HIV infection rates.

Here's the thing, though: abstinence, when it's practiced, would reduce the likelihood of a person getting infected with HIV. Therefore, if we can assume that Christianity as a whole (at least for the purposes of these demographics) has a position on sexuality similar to that of the Catholic Church generally, then the absence of a negative correlation between Christianity and HIV would indicate that the tradeoff between the benefit of increased abstinence and the harm of increased unsafe sexual practices is at best a wash, or at worst tilts in favour of harm.

However, all of this depends on statistics that I admit are fairly suspect and probably subject to quite a bit of error.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does Brazil have an Abstinence policy in place? Does the US have such a program?
If you want to make a comparison, compare it to the Ugandan programs in the 90s and what happen when the free condom lobbyist brought their program in.

Yes, let's look at Uganda:

The second phase of the Ugandan HIV epidemic ran from 1992 to 2000. During this period the HIV prevalence fell dramatically, from a peak in 1991 of around 15% among all adults, and over 30% among pregnant women in the cities, to around 5% in 2001.

The third phase of HIV/AIDS in Uganda has seen the stabilisation of prevalence during 2000-2005, and reports of a slight increase in prevalence from 2006.
[...]
Many experts have also speculated that Uganda’s shift in prevention policy away from ABC towards US-backed abstinence-only programmes may also be responsible for an increase in risky behaviour, as comprehensive sex education and condom promotion are no longer mainstream.

Source: HIV & AIDS in Uganda

 

[emiliano]

9_10th penguin,
Before the free condom lobbyist arrival the police was abstinence and achieves a 15% reduction in the incidence of cross-infection in about 10 years. After the lobbyist arrival with their new strategy the rate of cross-infection rose, what does it tell us? President Bush offered them financial support when the revised program is 10 year old (2016), we will find out although there are two programs running and the blame for failures is put on one and the other. Did they come back to the abstinence program in 2006 and the condom lobby left?

 

[Imagist]

You have a better chance of dying in an auto accident than you do of contracting HIV when correctly using a condom. If you really believe that protected sex is such a risky behavior that people shouldn't do it, then I suggest you get your priorities straight and start teaching people about the real danger: cars!

You have zero chance of dying of sexual abstinence, so what your point?

You have zero chance of dying by not driving. That doesn't mean you should go around telling people to not drive, just as you shouldn't go around telling people to not have sex. On the other hand, it's okay to tell people to use seatbelts or condoms.

 

[linwood]

9_10th penguin,
Before the free condom lobbyist arrival the police was abstinence and achieves a 15% reduction in the incidence of cross-infection in about 10 years.

Reference?
This statement goes against my own knowledge of the ABC program in Uganda.

After the lobbyist arrival with their new strategy the rate of cross-infection rose,

Reference?
This statement goes against my own knowledge of the ABC program in Uganda.

President Bush offered them financial support when the revised program is 10 year old (2016), we will find out although there are two programs running and the blame for failures is put on one and the other. Did they come back to the abstinence program in 2006 and the condom lobby left?

You make a false argument.
The reason Uganda is now beginning to lose it`s battle against the spread of AIDs is because it has altered it`s attitude in order to receive the funds Bush offered with an abstinence only condition.

Bush has screwed Uganda.

Yet in a grotesque irony, PEPFAR funding has refashioned Uganda's anti-HIV campaign to fit the distorted notions of American conservatives (and their allies among Uganda's evangelical revivalists, who include First Lady Janet Museveni). "The policy is making people fearful to talk comprehensively about HIV, because they think if they do, they will miss funding," says Canon Gideon, an HIV-positive Anglican minister from Uganda who has been a leader in the clerical response to the epidemic. "Although they know the right things to say, they don't say them, because they fear that if you talk about condoms and other safe practices, you might not get access to this money."
Today, Uganda's infection rate is once again rising.



How Bush's AIDS Program is Failing Africans | The American Prospect

 

[emiliano]

Reference?
This statement goes against my own knowledge of the ABC program in Uganda.
Reference?
This statement goes against my own knowledge of the ABC program in Uganda.
You make a false argument.
The reason Uganda is now beginning to lose it`s battle against the spread of AIDs is because it has altered it`s attitude in order to receive the funds Bush offered with an abstinence only condition.
Bush has screwed Uganda.

So they went back to abstinence only program, thanks. When? As for the references I posted them a while ago, there is even a link to a John Rabe video. I have tried to explain to people that the Pope’s message was a massage to Christian suggesting a 100% effective way to slow down the spreading of this virus amongst Christians “Abstinence” folks in here got onto their high horse and accused and defamed the Pope, there is nothing stopping the godless using other methods, is there? Now I suggest that you do a research of the work of Dr Green and the links that I posted, in any case here is another and this shows that there are more than one program running and that is what makes a comparison difficult: New infections: It is likely that the number of new HIV infections in Uganda peaked in the late 1980s, and then fell sharply until the mid 1990s. This is generally thought to have been the result of behaviour changes such as increased abstinence and monogamy, a rise in the average age of first sex, a reduction in the average number of sexual partners and more frequent use of condoms13. Uganda's entire population was mobilised in the fight against HIV and everyone was made aware of the consequences that risky behaviour could have for their country. http://www.avert.org/aidsuganda.htm
As you can see a fair comparison is only possible if there is one and only one program, my understanding of this is that they have an ABC program and that each faction will continue claiming credit for the successes and putting the blame for the failures on the other as it is case of the strong criticism and distortions of the Pope’s message suffers, so I ask you again. Is abstinence only the sole program in Uganda now? This is but one of the BS expressed here “Bush has screwed Uganda” other blame the Pope’s message to the faithful. What a lot of crap!

 

[LuisDantas]

I have tried to explain to people that the Pope’s message was a massage to Christian suggesting a 100% effective way to slow down the spreading of this virus amongst Christians “Abstinence” folks in here got onto their high horse and accused and defamed the Pope, there is nothing stopping the godless using other methods, is there?

It's not like one must choose between being "godless" or trusting the Pope's judgement on these matters, you know. There are very good reasons for avoiding abstinence-only policies that have no relation at all to faith or belief.

Chief among them, their lack of realism and of positive results. Abstinence programs attain little more than destructive guilty.

Now I suggest that you do a research of the work of Dr Green and the links that I posted, in any case here is another and this shows that there are more than one program running and that is what makes a comparison difficult: New infections: It is likely that the number of new HIV infections in Uganda peaked in the late 1980s, and then fell sharply until the mid 1990s. This is generally thought to have been the result of behaviour changes such as increased abstinence and monogamy, a rise in the average age of first sex, a reduction in the average number of sexual partners and more frequent use of condoms13. Uganda's entire population was mobilised in the fight against HIV and everyone was made aware of the consequences that risky behaviour could have for their country. http://www.avert.org/aidsuganda.htm

As you can see a fair comparison is only possible if there is one and only one program,

Then one can only wonder why you are so adamant on making the extraordinary claim that abstinance-only, despite all evidence in the contrary, is the way to go.

my understanding of this is that they have an ABC program and that each faction will continue claiming credit for the successes and putting the blame for the failures on the other as it is case of the strong criticism and distortions of the Pope’s message suffers,

It should be noted that condom supporters never preached against abstinence, while abstinence supporters regrettably fail to return the favor. So to the extent that such a dispute exists, it is by choice of the Pope and some other abstinence supporters.

 

[emiliano]

It's not like one must choose between being "godless" or trusting the Pope's judgement on these matters, you know. There are very good reasons for avoiding abstinence-only policies that have no relation at all to faith or belief.
Chief among them, their lack of realism and of positive results. Abstinence programs attain little more than destructive guilty.
Then one can only wonder why you are so adamant on making the extraordinary claim that abstinance-only, despite all evidence in the contrary, is the way to go.
It should be noted that condom supporters never preached against abstinence, while abstinence supporters regrettably fail to return the favor. So to the extent that such a dispute exists, it is by choice of the Pope and some other abstinence supporters.
[/size][/font]

Well I think very little of the godless and I am convinced that only God can turn them around, so I go for a complete separation of us and they, the Pope warned Christians that condoms aren’t a 100%, and I read that one in one hundred fails to protect, plus the failure of the free condoms campaign in Africa attributes this to ignorance, these African don’t use them properly and it seem that they are unattainable, the Pope has a duty of care for his flock, thus he warns them; condoms are not the solution, abstinence, monogamy and matrimonial fidelity is. This call did not go out to the Godless, but to Christians. I really don’t understand the animosity that folks in this forum are showing toward the servant of God; he has a greater responsibility, that of protecting his flock Salvation, that’s his calling. What I meant was that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a Christian [fn] yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Don't even eat with such people (1 Cr5:11)
It isn't my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your job to judge those inside the church who are sinning in these ways (1 Cr5:12)

 

[LuisDantas]

Well I think very little of the godless and I am convinced that only God can turn them around,

In that case, I must assume I have been paying you entirely too much attention.

so I go for a complete separation of us and they,

Where are you going? Please leave the real state behind. And the Playstations III.

Of course, it would be better if you decided to learn to deal with people as people... or at least to accept that there is no such thing as meaningful differences between theists and atheists, nor any real way of separating the two groups of people.

 

[emiliano]

In that case, I must assume I have been paying you entirely too much attention.

Where are you going? Please leave the real state behind. And the Playstations III.

Of course, it would be better if you decided to learn to deal with people as people... or at least to accept that there is no such thing as meaningful differences between theists and atheists, nor any real way of separating the two groups of people.

I don't have to deal with them, that is for God to do, we deal with our own, our brother, that is was the Epistle recommends: you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a Christian, yet indulges in sexual sin, It isn't my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your job to judge those inside the church who are sinning in these ways. Most of the failed Churches that know are so because they fail to apply these teachings. The Pope call is to guide the church, to keep it sanctified (separated fro sin/immoralities) It isn't my responsibility to judge outsiders. For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and is himself destroyed or lost?
Atheism (there is no God) and deists “there is no such thing as meaningful differences”
You’re a funny guy!

 

[Imagist]

Even if the pope's intention is only to kill Christians, his actions are unacceptable.

Furthermore, regardless of his intentions, the form of sex education he is supporting doesn't limit itself to Christians. My high school was a public school in a largely Catholic area, and they taught abstinence-only to Catholics, Muslims, Mormons, Jews, and atheists alike. Am I to believe that this wasn't because of the 100% Catholic school board?

 

[Quiddity]

Mister Emu (or others who feel like responding):

I've been thinking about a point that was raised by you and others in the thread:



I don't know about you, but I can't think of a single Catholic I know who follows all the Church's teachings on every issue. In my experience, all Catholics pick-and-choose to a degree: some have no problem skipping Mass and confession, but think it's vitally important that they baptize their children. Some consider artificial birth control to be acceptable in marriage, but consider premarital sex to be wrong. Others are opposed to abortion, but are okay with in-vitro fertilization. Some don't do any sort of penance on Fridays during the year, but will give up things for Lent.

Frankly, it seems like it's a general rule that Church teachings will be followed widely, but not universally, among its members. I don't see why the Pope wouldn't expect this general trend to continue when it comes to the Church's teachings on sex: just like some Catholics will go to Mass but not confession, some Catholics will follow the Church's teachings on contraception but not pre- or extra-marital sex.

9-10ths_Penguin,

Do you think this is how we are as Americans? Maybe with things like speeding or jay-walking perhaps, but just imagine people pillaging, stealing, and so forth. Would you in any way undermine the validity of our laws and the authorities that enforce it simply because people decide to cherry pick? Or would you support programs that would continue to clarify that said things are indeed wrong?

I'm sure you see the correlation.