Why would he have to say feel free to use condoms and have lots of sex? He could just say that condoms help fight the spread of sexually transmitted diseases including AIDS and that the church doesn't see anything wrong with using them, and leave the rest of their views as is.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Agreed. There seems to be this belief that saying the Catholic Church permits condom usage equates to them also encouraging more sexual activity.Originally Posted by Macy
The message can simply be - "Less sex please, as that is the safest of all, but condoms when you do."
Interesting article here:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...breaking37.htm
The Lancet, a respectable medical journal, has called for Il Papa to retract his statement that condoms exacerbate the problem, claiming he's distorted the science on the matter to fit his agenda.
You can't spell failure without FAI
And another one here:
Harvard Aids expert says Pope "correct" on condoms and spread of HIV
At a guess, I'd say the matter is a lot closer than some people think.
It's interesting that the Pope is criticised for "distorting science" when he didn't make any reference to science whatsoever. His enunciation emphasised the human aspect, saying that, as per Bill's quote earlier, if the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help each other, the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms. The Pope's message is therefore one that is more based on the emphasis he puts on a potential solution, the starting point, the bedrock, the catalyst and driver, what must be right for any varied solution to work - edit: ie, behavioural change - the necessary antecedent to any solution.....claiming he's distorted the science on the matter to fit his agenda.
If the journal is going to criticise on the basis of distorting arguments, should it not ensure it isn't distorting arguments itself? But whatever way, the continuing focus on condoms is disappointing. I suppose it's a medical journal rather than a regulatory or governance journal so in their defence they are likely to focus on that aspect. But in general I think there's been far too much made of the reference to condoms.
A public health crisis of this nature that goes so deep into cultural, political and structural problems will obviously require a nuanced, wide-ranging policy mix. I think the Church has shown a little leadership in fulfilling its role as the moral dimension of that mix. Maybe it's time to stop shooting the easy target?
Last edited by kingdom hoop; 27/03/2009 at 7:48 PM.
Hmmm ...I'd have rathered an article that didn't come from the hand of a religious affairs correspondent as there's an amount smoke and mirrors in Bess Twiston-Davies article.
She says Edward C. Green reckons the key is in the reduction of concurrency. Fair enough. Less partners and monogamy is an effective measure. Fine.
Then, she gives two full sentences to the head of the UNs Aids Prevention Unit who rubbishes Greens claims that Condoms "could" (Greens word -no data to back up) exacerbate the probem.
Then, she claims a Dr. Helen Epstein "backed Mr. Greens theory" when -if she was being less circumspect would've said something more like "backed Mr. Greens theory to a point".
She agrees with him about the need to reduce concurrency, as I believe most sensible people do. But she then illustrates exactly why condoms are a huge piece of the jigsaw when she says condoms are used in casual relationships and with prostitutes but, assumably, not in these prolific concurrent relationships which provide what she describes as a superhighway for HIV infection. She then expresses a wish that the RC church would change it's ban on condoms.
" I wish to God that someone would be able to block out the voices in my head for five minutes, the voices that scream, over and over again: "Why do they come to me to die?"
I think the most shocking thing about the qoute is that the pope comes accross as a much less ultra right wing nutter than previously thought.
As well as that how much do people pay any attention to the catholic churches policy on condoms? we were a supposedly ultra catholic country ourselves for years but ignored it. why do we feel its any different in africa? maybe its an income thing?
Anyone any stats for the amount of Catholics in Africa? Particularly sub-saharan Africa. Without any basis, I'd imagne it would be a low enough percentage
54,321 sold - wws will never die - ***
---
New blog if anyone's interested - http://loihistory.wordpress.com/
LOI section on balls.ie - http://balls.ie/league-of-ireland/
According to Time magazine - Africa 155m in 2007, up from 125m in 2002. Wikipedia has total population at about 1 billion.
Because Catholic organisations are in there supposedly educating and treating the population. And I've no doubt they do great work, however, the one's that follow strict Church guidelines don't introduce condoms into the equation when educating people how to prevent the spread of AIDS. It's an education and access thing.
It took decades for condoms to be accepted here, even by the Government, as a way of preventing sti's. It's that recent, that I remember the arguing over it, and the cuffufal when Virgin Megastore started selling them over the counter, and on the counter. (Or maybe that just makes me old!)
Last edited by Macy; 30/03/2009 at 2:11 PM.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Showed it on Reeling in the Years the other night. Cops going into Virgin Megastore on Ashton Quay giving the shop assistants the hairy eyeball and probably asking in strong Bruree accents "where dye tink ye are? Amsterdam?"
Not the sixties, the seventies or the eighties but the year of our lord nineteen hundred and ninety one.
" I wish to God that someone would be able to block out the voices in my head for five minutes, the voices that scream, over and over again: "Why do they come to me to die?"
I was in Carlow RTC in 1989/90 and there was a machine installed in the SU, it caused mayhem with the local Jesus brigade, also I remember going to see James in the National Stadium probably 1991 when they were chucking out free Condoms because there was still a problem getting them anywhere that wasn't a chemist.
Shocked, appalled, horrified and frankly disgusted at this behaviour. Down with this sort of thing.
I mean ...James? ffs.
" I wish to God that someone would be able to block out the voices in my head for five minutes, the voices that scream, over and over again: "Why do they come to me to die?"
Hey man they were cool in 1991Honest Guv
...one good song (Come Home) released two years earlier. Their big hit 'Sit Down' regularily battles it out with Billy Joels 'We Didn't start the Fire', both Sheryl Crowes AND Hearts' 'All I wanna Do' and Bon Jovis entire back catalogue for the coveted title of 'Lionels Most Despised Record Ever'.Hey man they were cool in 1991
...and their singer Tim whatsisface (last seen playing Jesus in JC superstar ....just to steer back toward topic) is some ****.
" I wish to God that someone would be able to block out the voices in my head for five minutes, the voices that scream, over and over again: "Why do they come to me to die?"
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks