Pope states condoms aren't the answer to HIV

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thanks for the link. It's odd, because I recall Dr. Green saying something quite different than that- that a rise of infections in Uganda were connected to an increase of condom promotion. I found this small statement anyways from a recent symposium sponsored by the Templeton Foundation which concluded that:

[...]Abstinence works, and can and should be promoted.[...]

And I don't think anyone's arguing that point. The question isn't whether abstinence is effective at preventing HIV; it's whether an "ABC" approach is more effective than an "AB" approach (i.e. without the condoms). Both place heavy emphasis on the "A" part.

Are there any posters who would find it reasonable that the Church continue to promote abstinence as the only option for faithful Christians, but nonetheless not hinder attempts to educate people on what options there are if people chose to have sex?

Depends how it's done, IMO.

I do not oppose, by any means, education on sexual health. But from a moral stand point, I can not see how it is reasonable to expect the Church to actually teach the methods to subvert its own convictions- and those of an entire culture, mind you.

And (to repeat a point that's already been repeated several times in this thread) nobody's asking the Church to do that. All that's being asked of the Church and the Pope is to not actively stand in the way of others doing this.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

But is the idea that the Church is "standing in the way" merely by proclaiming its moral position?

 

[LuisDantas]

But is the idea that the Church is "standing in the way" merely by proclaiming its moral position?

Yes it is.

More specifically, I would say that it is the moral duty of the Church - any Church - to be realistic in its expectations and demands.

And it is the moral right (if not also a moral duty) of others to indicate the damage caused by those expectations and demands.

It is not that others should accept statements of moral positions; on the contrary, moral positions must be taken with full knowledge of the likely consequences, both wanted and unwanted.

 

[emiliano]

As noted by storm, other forms of birth control offer up to 99.99% effectiveness.

But my real puzzle here is this: you claim that 1 in 100 is too high a chance to take, but 1 in 4 is okay with you? Never mind that the actual transmission rate with a condom is actually more like 1 in 5000, not 1 in 100.

You are again mixing contraception with the campaign to slow down the spreading of HIV in Africa. Is this i in 4 that you cited data collected from Christians only?
You don't understand that from the point of view of the Pope there are other issues, spiritual issues and concept that you don't nor can understand, you are an atheist, you failure to abstinence does not mean that abstinence is impossible, it just proves that you live your life guided by instinct alone, not everybody choose to live like irational brutes do, human are endowed we reason. Christian are guided by other concepts .

Mat 6:33 But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But is the idea that the Church is "standing in the way" merely by proclaiming its moral position?

Yes.

We see in countless ways that the Church doesn't feel it necessary to press every issue of doctrine. If the Catholic Church can set aside its feelings on the matter of, say, the many heresies it feels have been committed by Protestants long enough to participate in inter-faith councils and the like, then it can temporarily hold its collective tongue about condoms while people of all beliefs go about combatting AIDS.

 

[emiliano]

Yes it is.

More specifically, I would say that it is the moral duty of the Church - any Church - to be realistic in its expectations and demands.

And it is the moral right (if not also a moral duty) of others to indicate the damage caused by those expectations and demands.

It is not that others should accept statements of moral positions; on the contrary, moral positions must be taken with full knowledge of the likely consequences, both wanted and unwanted.

No the moral duty of the Church is to apply it tenets,

Mat 6:33 But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.
1Pe 2:11Beloved, I beg [you] as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul,

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

More specifically, I would say that it is the moral duty of the Church - any Church - to be realistic in its expectations and demands.

Luis, the Church is a voluntary society. Where is the freedom of the persons involved to make their own commitments? The Church teaches that we ought never to sin, should it change this teaching too?

 

[emiliano]

You must be kidding.

No, I am a Christian. If am not able to do what right because I can not control my sexual lust in this life, may God take out before I infect (murder others) another human being.

 

[gnomon]

No, I am a Christian. If am not able to do what right because I can not control my sexual lust in this life, may God take out before I infect (murder others) another human being.

You could just get them cut off.

 

[LuisDantas]

No the moral duty of the Church is to apply it tenets,

The moral duty of the Church, just like everyone else's, is limited by and revolves around the need of avoiding doing harm if it can.

 

[LuisDantas]

Luis, the Church is a voluntary society. Where is the freedom of the persons involved to make their own commitments? The Church teaches that we ought never to sin, should it change this teaching too?

I don't know that it is a matter of freedom, but rather of influence.

As for your second question, sure. Any Church should and must change its teachings according to the changes in maturity of social and moral conquests.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, I am a Christian. If am not able to do what right because I can not control my sexual lust in this life, may God take out before I infect (murder others) another human being.

You really shouldn't equate such behavior with Christianity, you know.

 

[emiliano]

You really shouldn't equate such behavior with Christianity, you know.

Why not, do you want me to cite the scriptures that support it?

 

[emiliano]

You could just get them cut off.

You must be a late comer, thanks to the advances of medical science there is a solution, those that can't control themselves can render themselves impotent, so there is not need for the cutting off, BTW it is an allegorical thing that is taught in that discourse.

 

[emiliano]

The Catholic Church specifically? Probably not. Abstinence-only education generally, yes, I think the statistics bear out that the position the Church takes on this issue kills people... though their stance is also taken by other groups outside the Catholic Church.

And to whom is this abstinence only stategy directed to?

 

[emiliano]

The statistics that HIV is on the rise? Is it simply reasoned that condoms are being given to Africans, but HIV rates keep going up, and, hence, there must be some ideological factor such as "abstinence only" education in the way?

The Ugandan success is the only measuring case and is now non existent. Now there is an ABC strategy and the Church works on the A area of the program and the Pope is right the RCC is at the front of the campaign against the spreading of HIV in Africa.

 

[Imagist]

The Ugandan success is the only measuring case and is now non existent. Now there is an ABC strategy and the Church works on the A area of the program and the Pope is right the RCC is at the front of the campaign against the spreading of HIV in Africa.

The pope isn't working on the A area of the ABC program, he's working on the AB and directly fighting against the C part. Given that the C part is the most effective of the three, it's hardly accurate to say that he's at the front of the campaign against the spread of HIV. If anything, he's campaigning for the spread of HIV.

 

[Imagist]

And to whom is this abstinence only stategy directed to?

Directing this strategy toward any group of people will lead to some of them dying, and is irresponsible. As I have said before, even if his statements only lead to the deaths of Catholics, he's still killing people.

 

[Imagist]

Why not, do you want me to cite the scriptures that support it?

Yes, please quote them, and quote them in context, along with the nearby passages that say we should kill gay people and gouge out our own eyes. I suppose you also take an abstinence-only stance on shellfish? The bible says you should.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And to whom is this abstinence only stategy directed to?

Everyone. Or everyone in Uganda, anyhow.