Pope states condoms aren't the answer to HIV

[Jordan St. Francis]

The shellfish and stoning question might be effective when speaking with Jews- but you should at least recognize its a useless tactic with Christians. Christian faith is based on an authoritative re-interpretation of Judaism. If you have done any readings on the Christian understanding of "the law"- an understanding rooted in both the words and actions of Jesus and of St. Paul, you will see that shell-fish eating Christians poses no hermeneutical problem.

This just happens to be a small "pet peeve" of mine, when people try to alter a long standing reading of the Bible because they act as though they were the first to read Leviticus.

 

[Imagist]

You are again mixing contraception with the campaign to slow down the spreading of HIV in Africa.

Given that the RCC's stance on birth control is based on its contraceptive value, my argument is legitimate.

Is this i in 4 that you cited data collected from Christians only?

No, but I don't have any reason to believe that Christian people's bodies work any differently from the bodies of the average person.

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're right, I don't understand how having protected sex is worse than dying. Please explain so that I might understand.

you failure to abstinence does not mean that abstinence is impossible,

I didn't fail to abstain, I didn't try. Why would I?

it just proves that you live your life guided by instinct alone,

Actually, it seems to me that I live my life by facts and logic.

not everybody choose to live like irational brutes do,

I haven't chosen to live like an irrational brute. It's not like I go around sleeping with every woman I see. It's irrational of you to assume that I do.

human are endowed we reason.

Which begs the question why you have so insistently endeavored not to apply yours to the facts.

 

[Imagist]

The shellfish and stoning question might be effective when speaking with Jews- but you should at least recognize its a useless tactic with Christians. Christian faith is based on an authoritative re-interpretation of Judaism. If you have done any readings on the Christian understanding of "the law"- an understanding rooted in both the words and actions of Jesus and of St. Paul, you will see that shell-fish eating Christians poses no hermeneutical problem.

This just happens to be a small "pet peeve" of mine, when people try to alter a long standing reading of the Bible because they act as though they were the first to read Leviticus.

However, people often cite the texts in Leviticus as evidence that sex outside of marriage is wrong.

Furthermore, you'll note that I referenced gouging out ones own eyes, which Jesus suggested to prevent yourself from committing adultery. This is a New Testament, Christian teaching which is not endorsed by Jews.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

You're right, I don't understand how having protected sex is worse than dying. Please explain so that I might understand.

Again, this is a fallacy. The Church is not at all saying this. It is saying that the only licit context for sexual expression is within marriage. Within that marriage, contraceptives work against an essential aspect of the purpose of marriage, and so must be avoided. Fidelity generally excludes HIV infection.

From the Church's POV, the question is not whether one should be using condoms to stop HIV infection. The question is when and how sexual expression is appropriate. The prohibition against condoms can only be understood in the totality of the Church's teachings on sexuality.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

However, people often cite the texts in Leviticus as evidence that sex outside of marriage is wrong.

Furthermore, you'll note that I referenced gouging out ones own eyes, which Jesus suggested to prevent yourself from committing adultery. This is a New Testament, Christian teaching which is not endorsed by Jews.

The Old Testament was always understood to be valid, even after Christ. The Christian interpretation inserted a division between cultic observance and the moral imperatives contained both in the law of Moses and throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. Marriage, as Christians have always understood it, is a sign of creation- it points to the purposefullness of creation. The cultic observances of the law, however, were designed as a provisional measure in salvation history- designed to set apart the Jews and make them distinct.

Secondly, Jesus was speaking in a hyperbolic sense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, this is a fallacy. The Church is not at all saying this. It is saying that the only licit context for sexual expression is within marriage. Within that marriage, contraceptives work against an essential aspect of the purpose of marriage, and so must be avoided.

So does celibacy, arguably, so what is the spouse of an HIV-positive person supposed to do, according to the Church?

 

[Imagist]

Again, this is a fallacy. The Church is not at all saying this. It is saying that the only licit context for sexual expression is within marriage. Within that marriage, contraceptives work against an essential aspect of the purpose of marriage, and so must be avoided. Fidelity generally excludes HIV infection.

From the Church's POV, the question is not whether one should be using condoms to stop HIV infection. The question is when and how sexual expression is appropriate. The prohibition against condoms can only be understood in the totality of the Church's teachings on sexuality.

Actually, the pope said that condoms are ineffective against HIV/AIDS. None of what you said makes the pope's statements true or responsible.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

No. The Pope made an off-hand statement that the distribution of condoms increases the problem. This was not a statement on the effectiveness of the individual condom in preventing transmission, but regarding the effects their distribution (e.g. that they encourage more risky behavior). At any rate, the negative effects of condom distribution have been documented by some researchers. I imagine the Pope was referencing the likes of these:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...tes/78435-dr-green-continues-re-hiv-aids.html

 

[logician]

"The Pope made an off-hand statement that the distribution of condoms increases the problem."

Especially after he made his statement.

Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. The Pope made an off-hand statement that the distribution of condoms increases the problem. This was not a statement on the effectiveness of the individual condom in preventing transmission, but regarding the effects their distribution (e.g. that they encourage more risky behavior).

Which I think is still factually incorrect, especially when you consider not just the positives and negatives of condom distribution by itself, but also its relative difference compared to the other options available, such as abstinence-only strategies.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Here is what the Pope actually said:

Question: The Catholic Church's position on the way to fight against AIDS is often considered unrealistic and ineffective,"
The Pope responded:

"I would say the opposite. I think that the reality that is most effective, the most present and the strongest in the fight against AIDS, is precisely that of the Catholic Church, with its programs and its diversity. I think of the Sant'Egidio Community, which does so much visibly and invisibly in the fight against AIDS ... and of all the sisters at the service of the sick.

"I would say that one cannot overcome this problem of AIDS only with money -- which is important, but if there is no soul, no people who know how to use it, (money) doesn't help.

"One cannot overcome the problem with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, they increase the problem.

"The solution can only be a double one: first, a humanization of sexuality, that is, a spiritual human renewal that brings with it a new way of behaving with one another; second, a true friendship even and especially with those who suffer, and a willingness to make personal sacrifices and to be with the suffering. And these are factors that help and that result in real and visible progress.

"Therefore I would say this is our double strength -- to renew the human being from the inside, to give him spiritual human strength for proper behavior regarding one's own body and toward the other person, and the capacity to suffer with the suffering. ... I think this is the proper response and the church is doing this, and so it offers a great and important contribution. I thank all those who are doing this."

I don't think this squares with Imagist's statement that the Church teaches it is better to die than to have sex with condoms.

Further:

The pope's words reflected a statement he made to South African bishops in 2005, when he noted that the church is in the forefront in the treatment of AIDS and said the "only fail-safe way" to prevent its spread is found in the church's traditional teaching on sexual responsibility.

In saying that condom-promotion programs only increase the problem, the pope appeared to agree with those who have put forward several arguments: that condoms have a failure rate and so are never completely safe; that encouragement of condom use may promote promiscuity, a factor in the spread of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS; and that reliance on condom campaigns has overshadowed more effective means of prevention, namely fidelity and chastity.

There is another factor in the pope's thinking, according to an Italian theologian, Franciscan Father Maurizio Faggioni, who has advised the Vatican on sexual morality issues. The pope sees condom campaigns as a question of cultural violence, especially in Africa, where there has never been a "contraceptive mentality," Father Faggioni said.

Whispers in the Loggia: Just Say No?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is another factor in the pope's thinking, according to an Italian theologian, Franciscan Father Maurizio Faggioni, who has advised the Vatican on sexual morality issues. The pope sees condom campaigns as a question of cultural violence, especially in Africa, where there has never been a "contraceptive mentality," Father Faggioni said.

I find it hollow at best and hypocritical at worst that the Catholic Church, arguably the driving force behind the vast majority of the evangelism and missionary work through history, would now be concerned with introducing new "mentalities" into a culture where they weren't present before.

 

[blackout]

I find it hollow at best and hypocritical at worst that the Catholic Church, arguably the driving force behind the vast majority of the evangelism and missionary work through history, would now be concerned with introducing new "mentalities" into a culture where they weren't present before.

Kinda makes your face go like this. :areyoucra

 

[Alceste]

No. The Pope made an off-hand statement that the distribution of condoms increases the problem. l

Then he's a retard, without even the most basic logical grasp of proper causal relationships. Condom distribution could not have impacted the spread of HIV any more than Gilligan's Island reruns, Somalian pirates or Britney Speares. Condom distribution has nothing to do with HIV transmission, and can have no impact, positive or negative. Condom use is the only thing that impacts HIV transmission, and even your RCC pet Dr Green says so. The challenge is to get them to be used, which is only possible if they have first been distributed, and which becomes very difficult when church leaders claim they are intentionally LACED with HIV.

 

[challupa]

Then he's a retard, without even the most basic logical grasp of proper causal relationships. Condom distribution could not have impacted the spread of HIV any more than Gilligan's Island reruns, Somalian pirates or Britney Speares. Condom distribution has nothing to do with HIV transmission, and can have no impact, positive or negative. Condom use is the only thing that impacts HIV transmission, and even your RCC pet Dr Green says so. The challenge is to get them to be used, which is only possible if they have first been distributed, and which becomes very difficult when church leaders claim they are intentionally LACED with HIV.

We're on page 60 and people still don't get that, my guess is they just aren't going to. :no:

 

[darkendless]

We're on page 60 and people still don't get that, my guess is they just aren't going to. :no:

Its all to easy to palm the blame off, the Church is used to it, their followers blame "evil" and "satan" for unfortunate events.

What makes you think the church would take even 1% responsibility when according to their sources, their programmes are working? Then again, their sources find what they are told to find. If they don't, then they are of no use to the church that would rather lie and fabricate the truth than address the problem which is challenging their long standing dogma.

 

[challupa]

Its all to easy to palm the blame off, the Church is used to it, their followers blame "evil" and "satan" for unfortunate events.

What makes you think the church would take even 1% responsibility when according to their sources, their programmes are working? Then again, their sources find what they are told to find. If they don't, then they are of no use to the church that would rather lie and fabricate the truth than address the problem which is challenging their long standing dogma.

You know I sometimes think it all comes down to the importance of humans. In religion we are lower than the low, being guilty and sinners and all. My thought is how could any of us actually be good enough to get to heaven. God is going to be very lonely up there all by himself. I think it's sad people view God as such a rigid dictator that needs things to be his way or else. Makes no sense to me at all.

 

[Storm]

This thread needs some humor.

 

[challupa]

This thread needs some humor.

Yes it does. Love that!!!

 

[emiliano]

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.

The Pope is working in the areas that have actually worked, the areas that the studies show as most effective, and because these facts he is right when he said that the RCC is at the front of the campaign.