Catholic Church policy on AIDS in Africa

[brianw82]

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0318/pope.html

Does anyone actually believe anything this archaic institution says anymore? How completely out of touch can they be?

[Lionel Ritchie]

Ratzy: "Solution lies in a 'spiritual and human awakening' "

What's it Homer'd say? ... "Yeah ...good luck with that!"

[eamo1]

YAWN:Here we go again with the church bashing,give it a rest lads!!!!

[Dodge]

YAWN:Here we go again with the church bashing,give it a rest lads!!!!

If the Pope stops claiming that condoms don't help stop the spread of aids, I'd imagine most criticism on the subject would stop

As it is, he deserves absolutely every bit of the "bashing"

[Lionel Ritchie]

YAWN:Here we go again with the church bashing,give it a rest lads!!!!

Eamo -just for a hoot -go find me three threads here on foot.ie where there's what you consider church bashing going on.

If former South African president Taabo Mbeki deserves a kicking for repeated public announcements that garlic will protect you from Aids (or was it cure it?) then I reckon the leader of one of the biggest religions on the planet can be fair game for at very least a size eleven loafer up the hole for this particular feat (no pun) in evidence denial and downright King Canutism.

[Shilts]

I reckon garlic could protect you from AIDS, because if you're reeking of it your chances of getting some action are very little
As for Pope Benny 16 and the rest of the virgin squad, what can they know possibly know about anything to do with sex. It would be like Trappatoni telling Kidney who to pick for Saturday - Crazy. But everybody has their own opinion, and the free will to disregard other persons rubbish opinions.

[eamo1]

I can think of 2 other threads where "church bashing" went on,one was where i started a thread about Richard Dawkins attending Mass another was from last year aswell (i think) talking about the first Lisbon vote.i couldnt be bothered looking for the threads but im sure someone else will.
My general point being that church bashing DOES AND HAS EXISTED on this forum and on others too.In one arguement i remember one of your church bashing brigade did admit that too much church bashing goes in general.I remember in one thread i requested it be closed by the MOD as it was ridiculous the abuse myself and others were getting.I commented that if the same level of abuse was given out to Muslums the thread would have been closed-i got no reply from the MOD about that comment,i wonder why!!!

[osarusan]

My general point being that church bashing DOES AND HAS EXISTED on this forum and on others too.

Eamo, do you agree with the comments the pope has made regarding contraception and the spread of AIDS?

[Bald Student]

In college a girl in my class did a project on the benefits of bicycle helmets. She found that you're more likely to suffer an injury wearing one since whatever benefits the helmets bring is more than canceled out by an increase in risk taking by helmeted cyclists and the drivers around them.

[brianw82]

Why was my thread title changed?

If the Pope, as the spiritual leader of the Catholic Church, derides the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS, then he is essentially supporting the spread of AIDS.

@ eamo1. Religion is bashed because so much of it goes against basic common sense. One religion is just as ridiculous as the other as far as I'm concerned.

[crc]

I'm no fan of the Catholic Church; it's position on condoms and AIDS sure as hell isn't pragmatic, but it is at least logically consistant.
In the first place the Church forbids adultery and /or sex outside of marriage. If you're willing disregard this rule, I reckon you're free to use as many rubbers as you like.

[jebus]

I've never had any beef with organised religion, even to the point I've defended them against complete egotistical idiots like Richard Dawkins (a man who has a point, but is so loathsome that you just want to disagree with him) but the Ctaholic Church are a disgrace in their views on such things as contraception and homosexuality

Anyone who says otherwise is a complete moron tbf

[brianw82]

I'm no fan of the Catholic Church; it's position on condoms and AIDS sure as hell isn't pragmatic, but it is at least logically consistant.
In the first place the Church forbids adultery and /or sex outside of marriage. If you're willing disregard this rule, I reckon you're free to use as many rubbers as you like.

Doesn't it forbid their use at all times? Even within marriage?

[Lionel Ritchie]

I can think of 2 other threads where "church bashing" went on,one was where i started a thread about Richard Dawkins attending Mass another was from last year aswell (i think) talking about the first Lisbon vote.i couldnt be bothered looking for the threads but im sure someone else will.

Eamo, with respect, despite the fact there was pre-existing thread on Dawkins God Delusion which strikes me as suitable for your post, you felt the need the start a new thread which you titled "Dawkins is seen at Mass-what a turnaround". The title on it's own dragged a coat-trail that Dawkin had seen the light and signed up to catholicism. The content and the source ...some catholic publication or other -were demonstrable garbage and even some who find Dawkin odious put you squarely back in your box.

I think Richard Prior put it best while impersonating an incredulous chinese restaurant owner dealing with a complaint ..."but YOU ordered s**t!"

I commented that if the same level of abuse was given out to Muslums the thread would have been closed-i got no reply from the MOD about that comment,i wonder why!!!

My favourite persecuted-Christian retort ...sure aren't we great that there's no threat of violence from us when we feel affronted.

In college a girl in my class did a project on the benefits of bicycle helmets. She found that you're more likely to suffer an injury wearing one since whatever benefits the helmets bring is more than canceled out by an increase in risk taking by helmeted cyclists and the drivers around them.

...did you just post in the wrong thread or are you insinuating a possible elevated level of risk of HIV contraction amongst those who use barrier contraceptives?

I'm no fan of the Catholic Church; it's position on condoms and AIDS sure as hell isn't pragmatic, but it is at least logically consistant.

I see what you're saying but ...and it's the big BUT, that goes back to errant biology informing errant theology. The seed is overvalued as the "source" of life. This goes right back to the whole story of Jesus' conception where his mam was basically seen as a vessel/incubator.

[kingdom hoop]

If the Pope stops claiming that condoms don't help stop the spread of aids, I'd imagine most criticism on the subject would stop

I know that's broadly how you could construe what the Pope said but I think you've twisted the argument a bit though Dodge. The Pope said the problem won't be overcome with condoms (I like to imagine he intended the pun the oul divil). Taken at its core and appreciating the head of a religion like Catholicism is naturally going to be extremely doctrinaire, I think the overriding point is that using condoms won't solve the problem, they might help to ameliorate the situation, but they won't solve the problem. Placing too much emphasis on condoms might, in the Pope's view, only serve to exacerbate the issue. And that's where Bald Student's little moral comes in. Condoms, like cycling helmets, are far from a panacea and should be seen as such.

Funnily enough the word "overriding" managed to sneak its way in there. I think that's where the Pope's point about spiritual awakening comes into play: that the spread of HIV is as much about wanton promiscuity than condoms.
Does the solution lie closer to: either people continuing to have multiple partners but using condoms; or to people being more selective in their sexual habits? And so, if anything, maybe there needs to be less sex; not more condoms? Or put another way, by encouraging condom-usage are we not encouraging the activity that gives rise to the spread of the disease? I think that's why the debate must run a little deeper into "spiritual awakening" and human behaviour than just bashing the Pope for his comments on condoms.


(Just to point out, I do not agree with the Pope's views. Obviously anyone with common sense or not bound by silly doctrine will realise condoms are at least part of the solution. For example, I think if you're pregnant and infected with HIV then your baby can also become infected. So in that case, the Church is egregiously guilty of ignoring reality - a couple who are both HIV-infected should be allowed have sex to their hearts' content without the worry of whether any potential offspring may also become infected.)

[pete]

Keep it on topic folks.

The only reason this is a news story (and thread) here is because the Pope made a statement on this issue.

[osarusan]

Does the solution lie closer to: either people continuing to have multiple partners but using condoms; or to people being more selective in their sexual habits?

Surely people can be more selective in their sexual habits while using condoms. You are portraying an "either-or" situation which need not be the case.

And so, if anything, maybe there needs to be less sex; not more condoms?

There can be both less sex and more condoms. Again, it is not an "either-or".

Or put another way, by encouraging condom-usage are we not encouraging the activity that gives rise to the spread of the disease?

I'm sure encouraging condom usage would mean there would be some who would have protected sex who would not have had unprotected sex.

I'm also sure there would be many many people who would have had unprotected sex who, with encouragement to use condoms, would now be able to have safer sex.

And I'd guess the the latter far, far outnumber the former.

Whether his word was "overcome" or not, for the Pope to refuse the role that condoms can play in HIV prevention alongside efforts to reduce levels of promiscuity and awareness (be they religious or secular) is a decision which should be criticised.

I'd imagine that a combination of condom usage and programs / education to promote monogamy, celibacy, or "spiritual awakening" would be more effective than either of those two approaches tried in isolation.

Surely saving lives is more important than trying to promote the favoured method of saving them?

[bennocelt]

i dont know but what would you expect a Pope to say on this issue? I dont agree with him but I do realise he is leader of the RC church and that his stance reflects his church

[Lionel Ritchie]

i dont know but what would you expect a Pope to say on this issue? I dont agree with him but I do realise he is leader of the RC church and that his stance reflects his church

I'm not sure it reflects his church at all Bennocelt. Maybe informs it, maybe reminds it of party policy. But his stance can and should change. Popes have changed their stance (dragged kicking and screaming usually) fundamentally on many issues in the past...the world being round, there being more than five continents, black people having souls.

Incidently, I don't think Africas HIV/AIDS problems are going to be solved the day a pontiff acknowledges the role barrier contraceptives have to play in preventing the spread of the disease. There are huge societal and cultural issues, and a diverse spread of them after that, which make tackling the disease on that continent an overwhelming task.

But his intervention is unhelpful and I wish he'd stick to what he knows and is most comfortable doing ...going over the books and dreaming up evidence that his predecessor should be made a saint.

[pete]

I dont agree with him but I do realise he is leader of the RC church and that his stance reflects his church

Don't you mean that as Leader his view is reflected in the Church? If he changed his stance the church would change.