Pope states condoms aren't the answer to HIV

[tumbleweed41]

Strangely this is correct, the Pope is responsible in the discharge of his office, more than a billion and a half soul’s Salvations depend on it.
Mar 8:36 For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?
Encouraging people to continue in their sins is evil and unloving, and not fitting of a Christian, encouraging them to virtue is beneficial and loving, these are the characteristic that this man is showing us.

But as we have seen, the "sin" of non procreative sex is not Biblical, it is by Church decree. A decree which, like others before it, may be rescinded by the Pope and the RCC.

 

[darkendless]

I agree with the pope that you can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms. Condoms are only 99.9% perfect, while abstinence is 100% perfect. Pity those poor uneducated Africans can't control themselves perfectly *frown*/.

No but it helps. Abstinence is a joke, people who excercise it show great control, but 99% of people just aren't like that. teenagers boink like rabbits, thats just how it is.

The Pope honestly cannot justify promoting abstinence other than with his biblical mumbo-jumbo, i think the rest of the world rolls their eyes when he opens his mouth because there isnt a snowballs chance in hell that Africa is going to improve while the church holds such a rediculous stance.

 

[challupa]

Just for clarification here from the Christians....where is the sin? Can anyone show me where sex, without procreation, is a sin? This is the RCC's stand behind all of this. No condoms, no birth control, no vasectomy.... Where is the sin????

If you are stopping procreation, you are not making more potential Catholics. That has been an issue for centuries. The Israelites also felt that way because they were usually a tribe on the verge of extinction. It was important to go forth and multiply. In Quebec for example they pay more child benefits for the number of children you have. A documentary I watched a few years back said that it was to encourage larger families. I know that is somethiing I have been told for years. Most people who are not RC see that as wealth greed with no consideration for their people. I don't know, but I still believe that a leader of a huge organization should at least offer condom use to those with aids. That is just my personal opinion, and obviously doesn't carry any weight anyway.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree with the pope that you can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms. Condoms are only 99.9% perfect, while abstinence is 100% perfect.

Actually, it's a matter of ex cathedra doctrine that abstinence is absolutely not 100% effective.

Anyhow, you know what works even better than preaching abstinence? Preaching abstinence and making condoms available. This is similar to the rationale we use to teach people how to drive safely while also teaching them to buckle their seatbelts.

Pity those poor uneducated Africans can't control themselves perfectly *frown*/.

:sarcastic

But as we have seen, the "sin" of non procreative sex is not Biblical, it is by Church decree. A decree which, like others before it, may be rescinded by the Pope and the RCC.

I was thinking something similar earlier today. The Church's position is that they have been granted the "Keys to the Kingdom", or the authority of Christ over matters here on Earth, right? There's quite a bit more to Christ's authority than simply issuing penances for sins in confession. Within the framework of the Catholic Church, how is it not within the Pope's purview to declare condoms allowable if he wanted to?

It seems to me that even if you accept the Church's position to the point where you accept that there is some sort of spiritual harm that they're avoiding, which excuses the temporal harm they're causing, you would also have to accept that the Pope would have the power to remove that spiritual harm if he chose to do so, wouldn't you?


Mister Emu, I want to go back to something you said now that I've had a chance to think about it more:

The Pope has a moral duty to lead the Church in being the "pillar of truth", and leading the Church in right and wrong... that is his primary duty, after that is physical needs...

"Primary duty" isn't the same thing as "sole duty". Even if he believes that his religious duties take precedence over his duties in terms of physical needs, isn't he still responsible for resolving any conflict between them?

Also, regardless of what he or the Church see as their duty, I think that it's within the purview of society to hold aid agencies to certain standards.

As a possibly absurd example, say McDonald's got into the disaster relief business. They would approach towns flattened by hurricaines or earthquakes and said "if you let us build a big McDonald's with a drive-thru in your town square, we'll help you rebuild." Would it not be appropriate for the government or the people to tell McDonald's that this behaviour was inappropriate?

Now, I don't think this is directly analogous to what the Church is doing here, but the idea I'm trying to get across is that there are limits. Bringing in aid to a country doesn't give an organization free licence to do whatever it wants; I think that there's an implicit social contract that puts moral, if not legal, restrictions on what that organization should and shouldn't do. Among other things, this makes it inappropriate for that organization to take advantage of their position in one regard (e.g. disaster relief or developmental aid) for gains in another (e.g. selling hamburgers or promoting a particular doctrine).

 

[J Bryson]

This is a weird response to the discussion, to use condoms to continue in sin (not repenting ) is the way that Salvation is lost, the fastest way to salvation is repentance, actually is the only way. Death does not equal Salvation, where do you get this weird notions from?

Because it's the only thing that makes any logical sense. This is just as insane as the persecution of Galileo, just as blind in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, and a million times more inhumane. Eventually, the church has to admit that it's wrong when continuing down this path leads to so much suffering and death.

 

[sojourner]

Maybe if the reservoir tips were shaped like some of the saints...

 

[challupa]

Because it's the only thing that makes any logical sense. This is just as insane as the persecution of Galileo, just as blind in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, and a million times more inhumane. Eventually, the church has to admit that it's wrong when continuing down this path leads to so much suffering and death.

Yes I agree. I believe that we cannot hang onto beliefs that no longer serve the times. We should not hang onto beliefs so tightly that we cannot change when we grow and learn new things and the world changes. That is the trouble I have with beliefs that are unchallengeable and centuries old. They were possibly good for the times they originated in, but times change and so do the needs of humanity. We must acknowledge that we have brains for a reason and that they have been equipped with the ability to change the life we see around us. God or no God, we cannot survive if we do not evolve in all ways.

 

[challupa]

Maybe if the reservoir tips were shaped like some of the saints...

LOL, then maybe they'd be okay to use?

 

[Mister Emu]

Wait - I agree that the Church doesn't generally take the position that the ends justify the means, but I think they do acknowledge that results do matter; bad ends aren't justified just because they were arrived at by "good" means.

Bad ends would be intending to do evil... of course not...

I know that you picked this as an absurd example, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. A big part of the problem of AIDS in Africa is the effect of the disease on the social framework of whole nations. If a country is in a food crisis because so many of their farmers have been incapacitated with AIDS, I don't think it would really solve anything in the long run to kill them outright.

Maybe the food shortage problem wasn't so thought out, but it would end HIV/AIDS... my point is, that you wouldn't accept those means to come to those ends...

- I think that's a pretty accurate description of what the Church is doing here: they're doing evil (i.e. following a policy with a definite and significant cost in human life) for what they consider to be "good" (i.e. furtherance of doctrine).

The Pope knows that abstinence is less effective, but an evil, artificial birth control, cannot be justified by an ends, less people with HIV/AIDS... All in all, I think you are twisting what the Pope says mightily here, he is offering the only doctrinally acceptable solution to the issue... His ends aren't the furtherance of doctrine, but the saving of lives, and souls...

- in the relationship between a service provider (and by this, I'm referring to the Church's role as a quasi-NGO, not painting salvation as a "service") and the society it serves, who is the proper judge of "good" and "evil"?

Both, if the provider finds it evil, he does not provide, if the society finds it evil, they do not accept...

For non-religious NGOs, I personally think that they should take into account the values of the societies they serve... and I don't see a reason to make an exception to this for religious ones

So you are saying that organizations should provide services they find evil? That isn't going to work...

If I understand the Church's position on war, it's that it is sometimes justified to give up something valuable such as life (both innocent and not) of the cause is great enough.

Yes, and by that position, it says that the taking of life is not nessecarily evil. As is intentionally directly hampering the creative aspect of intimacy...

My point was just that there's not even a moral dilemma in the first place unless you accept certain religious positions. There's more than one way of looking at the issue, and I think that if we cast it as a certain dilemma, we lose sight of this.

But those religious positions exist, and if you ignore that the people you are complainging about hold those positions and see that dilemma, you lose sight just as much...

I mainly wanted to get that out there in case the discussion narrowed to Catholic doctrine alone.

But that is what this is about, no? You all don't like Catholic doctrine, and think the Pope is messed up for holding to it.

I meant the moral duties of the head of an NGO delivering aid and services to people in need. Basically, what are the moral duties that go along with being an NGO in general? Are the Church's religious duties in conflict with them?

The Pope's moral duties start with the spiritual, then go to the physical. I don't think anyone has a moral duty to actively involve themselves in things they consider evil.

But that's not his only role. He's also a head of state and the leader of an aid organization. These sort of roles have duties as well, and I don't think it's absurd at all to ask that an NGO supposedly helping a people not actively harm them at the same time.

But it is his primary one. Everything else the Church does flows from it being the Church. I'm sure you'll disagree, but the Pope is not actively harming anyone. He would be if he counseled sin in the face of adversity...

 

[challupa]

The Pope knows that abstinence is less effective, but an evil, artificial birth control, cannot be justified by an ends, less people with HIV/AIDS... All in all, I think you are twisting what the Pope says mightily here, he is offering the only doctrinally acceptable solution to the issue... His ends aren't the furtherance of doctrine, but the saving of lives, and souls...

So how is it a sin to help save lives and prevent suffering and dying? Where does it say that sex without procreation is a sin?

 

[Stellify]

But it is his primary one. Everything else the Church does flows from it being the Church. I'm sure you'll disagree, but the Pope is not actively harming anyone. He would be if he counseled sin in the face of adversity...

Excuse me for jumping in here

But, don't you consider the lies that the Church is spreading about condoms (ie: they don't work at all, they're laced with the virus, etc) to be harmful?

I'm not talking about condoning their use (counseling sin), but simply not lying about their uses or benefits. If nothing else, I think it should be ok to say something like "don't use condoms, abstain from sex" and leave it at that. Then their benefits and uses don't really even have to be discussed.


..and maybe it's just me...but it really bothers me that a religious organization who is supposed to teach people how to lead good, moral lives has members that are so blatantly lying to their congregations.....Having a difference of opinion is one thing...lying about condoms like that? It's kind of disturbing that people who seem so willing to be immoral are the ones trying to save souls :cover:

 

[Mister Emu]

I specifically said that the man who said those things, a bishop in mozambique I believe was said, was far out of line... Yes, that is completely wrong...

 

[Mister Emu]

So how is it a sin to help save lives and prevent suffering and dying? Where does it say that sex without procreation is a sin?

The ends aren't wrong, the means are... according to the Pope/Vatican/Catholic Church...

Human Vitae... it was quoted earlier...

 

[Storm]

I actually understand the Catholic/ Papal stance here. It's idealism, plain and simple, and part of me respects them for encouraging it.

However. When dealing with tragedies like the AIDS epidemic, idealism fails; pragmatism is needed. Failure to actually address the problem with realistic solutions is moral failure.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Bad ends would be intending to do evil... of course not...

Or unwittingly doing evil.

Maybe the food shortage problem wasn't so thought out, but it would end HIV/AIDS... my point is, that you wouldn't accept those means to come to those ends...

But "the ends" are the sum total effects of a course of action. Addressing one small part of a problem without acknowledging its larger context and the total effect of your actions isn't pragmatism; it's myopia.

The Pope knows that abstinence is less effective, but an evil, artificial birth control, cannot be justified by an ends, less people with HIV/AIDS... All in all, I think you are twisting what the Pope says mightily here, he is offering the only doctrinally acceptable solution to the issue... His ends aren't the furtherance of doctrine, but the saving of lives, and souls...

I disagree. If the Pope truly has the "Keys to the Kingdom", if he really does have the power to "bind and loose", then he can save those souls without prohibiting condoms.

Both, if the provider finds it evil, he does not provide, if the society finds it evil, they do not accept...

But to the society, it's effectively a package deal, isn't it? What would the Church's response be if a country said, "thanks, Catholic Church, we'll pass on the doctrine, but please continue with the charitable services that our government doesn't have the resources to provide itself"?

So you are saying that organizations should provide services they find evil? That isn't going to work...

I'm saying that organizations shouldn't use their position as service providers to further their agendas... other than the agenda of helping people in need.

Yes, and by that position, it says that the taking of life is not nessecarily evil. As is intentionally directly hampering the creative aspect of intimacy...

A creative act that would likely result in the needless suffering and early death of an additional parent and the child that results from that intimacy.

I've read Humanae Vitae; I know that the justification for the Church's prohibition on contraception is based on what it infers about the intent of the designer of the human race. Do you really think that this intent includes countless people dying of AIDS when it could be easily avoided?

But those religious positions exist, and if you ignore that the people you are complainging about hold those positions and see that dilemma, you lose sight just as much...

I agree they exist, but they're not the whole story.

But that is what this is about, no? You all don't like Catholic doctrine, and think the Pope is messed up for holding to it.

Maybe I should re-phrase: there are two contexts here. One is the context within the Catholic framework that assumes one set of things. The other is the secular context outside that framework where these assumptions aren't necessarily taken as given. Both are important here.

The Pope's moral duties start with the spiritual, then go to the physical. I don't think anyone has a moral duty to actively involve themselves in things they consider evil.

I don't think I asked for that. Personally, the best I think I could hope for is that the Pope just choose not to speak out on the issue. That's not exactly "active".

In any case, just because a person considers one set of duties to be higher than another doesn't absolve them of that other set. Say you were pulled over for speeding and explained to the cop that you were rushing your child to school because he or she was late. Do you think the cop would say, "Oh! Your duty as a parent supercedes your duty as a citizen! You're free to go"?

But it is his primary one. Everything else the Church does flows from it being the Church. I'm sure you'll disagree, but the Pope is not actively harming anyone. He would be if he counseled sin in the face of adversity...

Of course I disagree. He's counseling people in a course of action that will have harm. It will cost real human lives; that is harm, regardless of one's theological position. He apparently thinks that this is counterbalanced by the avoidance of spiritual harm so that it nets out positive, but that doesn't mean there's no harm associated with it at all.

 

[Stellify]

I specifically said that the man who said those things, a bishop in mozambique I believe was said, was far out of line... Yes, that is completely wrong...

Ah, I'm sorry. My mistake

Do you think it would be wrong for the church to educate people on the uses of condoms (without condoning their use)?
ie: Condoms can help prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, but you should just abstain from sex instead.

I'm really curious about what you think, I feel weird asking because this kinda stuff tends to be such a touchy subject

 

[Mister Emu]

No problem...

I think education is as key as anything... people learning exactly how HIV/AIDS spreads and doesn't... The Catholic Church, if it is teaching sexual education, should say how condoms work, but that the Church rejects them and calls Catholics to abstinence...

As an aside, does anyone have an account with the Lancet? There is an older article(2000) that I wanted to read, it seems to support the Pope's reasoning(from the introduction) and I wanted to get an opinion of it, and if its fundamentals are sound enough to carry over to now...

 

[Stellify]

No problem...

I think education is as key as anything... people learning exactly how HIV/AIDS spreads and doesn't... The Catholic Church, if it is teaching sexual education, should say how condoms work, but that the Church rejects them and calls Catholics to abstinence...

As an aside, does anyone have an account with the Lancet? There is an older article(2000) that I wanted to read, it seems to support the Pope's reasoning(from the introduction) and I wanted to get an opinion of it, and if its fundamentals are sound enough to carry over to now...

Cool, thanks That seemed like it would be the best idea to me, personally, but...I'm also not Christian/RC, so I wasn't sure if that kind of idea would be acceptable

 

[gnostic]

Just how many of these Africans would actually abstinence?

If they had the disease, they would not abstinence until they are bedridden. So nil. No African males would abstinence. Even if no women are willing to have sex, they would be force to (rape), because the statistics in rape is astronomical.

Meanwhile they would spread the disease even further. That the stupid logic of the Vatican. They rather see the spread of the HIV and AIDs by saying that people should forgo the condoms altogether. That's the sort of papal logic.

Why done the bl#@dy Pope and Vatican go mind their own business. If they want to save soul, then why don't they bl#@dy well go out there and attend the HIV/AIDs victims themselves instead of sitting in bl@#dy palace, living in life of luxury.

Bunch of useless religious as@h#@#@!!!!

 

[emiliano]

But as we have seen, the "sin" of non procreative sex is not Biblical, it is by Church decree. A decree which, like others before it, may be rescinded by the Pope and the RCC.

You are moving the goalpost, the article that the OP directed us to reads says“The Vatican encourages sexual abstinence to fight the spread of disease. Nothing is said about contraception, so I am afraid that you have no idea, to make it simpler this is to discuss the Pope's statement “the church is in the forefront of the battle against AIDS in Africa” the thing here is to determinate what is the better strategy: hand them condoms and encourage promiscuity and sexual lust or demand abstinence, as I said the leader of the Church that have as its mission the Salvation of souls cannot get involved in such an unloving act, this weights heavily on the mind of Christian “For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? “ which elegantly answer the suggestion that the Church should chance its tenets in order to become popular.