Pope 'distorting condom science'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7967173.stm

i have no idea what to say about this other than WTF!

What do you expect from an office created almost 1900 years ago by the roman church at its inception so that the teachings of Jesus could be twisted and perverted to control the people? The pope has to serve as an agent of 'Do what the letter of the law says because it says it' otherwise people might realize that the teachings of Christ are shockingly easy and in no way require you to blind yourself or follow the authority of anyone other than god.

If a bunch of poor people in Africa have to die so the Catholic church can continue to manipulate good hearted members into the new mellenia then so be it.

Errwhat?
Pope Benedict's point was that abstinence is the single most effective way to prevent the transmission of STD's, which is absolutely correct. Since when were condoms safer than abstinence?

Quote :

But the London-based Lancet said the Pope had "publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on this issue".

It said the male latex condom was the single most efficient way to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV/Aids.

HA! They whine so much about him saying false statements, but he didn't, at all. Condoms are NOT a cure for HIV/Aids. Sure, they HELP, but everything he said was 100% accurate. Yes, they can make it safer, because they make people THINK they are automatically safe for using one, so they don't use caution. Yes, abstinace is the only fool-proof way to prevent, and eventually eliminate these diseases, just as the pope had said. if fact, it would seem that this news publication is, in fact, the oine who is wrong and mistating remarks. They suck.

It's not a point of abstinence being safer than condoms, it's the point that the Pope said that distributing condoms would only make the situation worse and help spread the AIDS virus even more, which is provably false. Just like all the abstinence only sex education programs around America that teach condoms aren't even worth using, which only teaches children that if they have sex, there's no point in using condoms, because they don't do anything anyways. It doesn't teach the people who are taught this not to have sex, it teaches them not to bother using condoms while doing so.

That is the paper's problem with the Pope's statement.

lol You tell the country where men are known to have second wives, cheat, and rape women (not that it doesn't happen here, but being that Africa has more poor villages it may be more common)to be abstinent. I'm real sure that will work. REALLY sure. It might work on the more religious people in more developed areas but Africa is only developed in so many places and I'm not sure too many of them practice the same religion. They'd probably look at the Pope and brush him off then go off to their orgy or one night stand without a second thought.

Rock wrote:

Errwhat?
Pope Benedict's point was that abstinence is the single most effective way to prevent the transmission of STD's, which is absolutely correct. Since when were condoms safer than abstinence?

Since most people won't be abstinent. Rock condoms do help slow the progression of HIV and contrary to what the pope is saying you are NEVER going to get such a large group of people to 'choose abstinence'. This is not a gullible little group of ninth graders that just saw some big pep-rally style show intended to brainwash them into thinking 'Abstinence is cool'. Unfortunately only a small amount of people past that age are going to fall for something so juvenile relative to the massive number of people who will keep on having sex without condoms and will potentially be promiscuous or even if not just do it without knowing they could pass it to a new wife/husband who does not know they have it.

That is the problem Rock, the pope is giving some extreme hardliner view that would never have sat well with Jesus and then expecting it to be seen as 'the only moral choice' because apparently living by the letter of SOME purity laws while totally ignoring others is far better than coming up with effective solutions to the problems of today's society. Its all a masturbatory exercise in futility. Lets bomb the abortion clinics rather than working with planned parenthood to try and map out things potential mothers can do to keep the children or even offering the possibility of adoption. Lets call for just abstinence in Africa totally ignoring human nature just so later we can claim to have promoted 'the right thing' even though many of the other purity laws are thrown at the wayside.

I respect Catholics alot, I think that many normal Catholics are some of the most devout people you will ever meet. But between the silly and needless rules the romans cooked up and leadership which is obviously only concerned about how others view them rather than doing the right thing, I have to say the actual Catholic church as an entity needs to pull out of dogma that is provably false and join the rest of the 21st century, or at least the 18th.

Mysteria Kiito wrote:

lol You tell the country where men are known to have second wives, cheat, and rape women (not that it doesn't happen here, but being that Africa has more poor villages it may be more common)to be abstinent. I'm real sure that will work. REALLY sure. It might work on the more religious people in more developed areas but Africa is only developed in so many places and I'm not sure too many of them practice the same religion. They'd probably look at the Pope and brush him off then go off to their orgy or one night stand without a second thought.

Kitto that sounds like racism or poor understanding.

Rape is actualy higher in countries with english as their first language maybe this is because of how its reported in english nations or possibly the culture.

As for second wives i cant think of any other group other than mormans & muslims that condone that.

The only reason africa is still devolping is because of usa and the former soviet union using it as a fighting ground during the cold war, the americans would put a guy in power who would then be over thrown by soviet gorrillas and the cycle contuies to this day along with genocide and famine.

The major religion in Africa is the catholic church because they sent all them missionary's there, Africa also has the largest population of regular church goers any where in the world, yes that even includes the bible belt in America.

As far as the Catholic Church as a whole, from the second Vatican, the official stance of the church on sex is: Choose abstinence if you can, but if you do become sexually active, use a condom and or birth control, whether you are married or not. I think that was defined either by John Paul II or the one before him who got assassinated for his progressive beliefs. The current Pope Benedict is very conservative, and so he does support the old ways, and is anti-progressive. The church itself has it's own politics system. So it is like Democrats vs Republicans or Labor vs Tories. Pope Benedict would be just like Bush for abstinence only programs for schools. That isn't the best way, but he is not representing his constituency accurately.
Although from what the article quoted him saying, it did really sound like he was saying that the only true way to know you won't catch or spread AIDs for sure is to not have sex, which is true. I don't remember him ever say "if you are having sex, don't use a condom", but I think that the news people just assumed that is what he meant, and is sticking words in his mouth.

But its that refusal to be 'progressive' as one might put it that is causing the problems.

I would think that if they are giving up sex after some pope in the late 1000s I think it was decided sex was bad for them priests would realize that god HATES Politics. Jesus had conflict with the religious leaders of his day for acting the way the catholic church does now. They over complicate and confuse and abuse the word for the sake of advancing themselves and making them look good. This kind of behavior is what caused the huge chunk of swearing Jesus spewed forth in the first place. Here's a little hint. WHEN YOUR BEHAVIOR MATCHES THAT OF PEOPLE WHO CAUSED THE SON OF GOD TO GO ON A DENNIS LEERY RANT YOUR DOING IT WRONG!

Faith should be beyond politics, Faith should be simple and pure. By pushing some conservative agenda and not solving the problem and helping others this new pope is only following in the path of the original catholic leaders who were simply pawns of the state, only without a specific state anymore.

Its just wrong on every level.

beckoneko wrote:

As far as the Catholic Church as a whole, from the second Vatican, the official stance of the church on sex is: Choose abstinence if you can, but if you do become sexually active, use a condom and or birth control, whether you are married or not. I think that was defined either by John Paul II or the one before him who got assassinated for his progressive beliefs. The current Pope Benedict is very conservative, and so he does support the old ways, and is anti-progressive. The church itself has it's own politics system. So it is like Democrats vs Republicans or Labor vs Tories. Pope Benedict would be just like Bush for abstinence only programs for schools. That isn't the best way, but he is not representing his constituency accurately.
Although from what the article quoted him saying, it did really sound like he was saying that the only true way to know you won't catch or spread AIDs for sure is to not have sex, which is true. I don't remember him ever say "if you are having sex, don't use a condom", but I think that the news people just assumed that is what he meant, and is sticking words in his mouth.

It's true that he didn't say "if you are having sex, don't use a condom."

He said:

Quote :

Speaking during his first visit to Africa, the Pope said HIV/Aids was "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem".

Basically, he said that by distributing condoms and teaching people to use them, you are potentially increasing the spread of AIDS, ignoring scientific evidence that shows that the education and use of condoms has helped slow the spread.

He then went on to clarify that by teaching the use of condoms, you are encouraging the promiscuous behavior that leads to the spread of the disease. This is also untrue, as any program that I have ever heard of that teaches condom use also teaches that abstinence is the only 100% guarantee that you will not get an STD, but that if you are going to have sex anyways, a condom will keep you protected over 90% of the time. At no point do they say that if you use a condom, you can have all the sex you want with no consequences.

Either way, his stance is flawed and ignorant of the facts, and the paper rightly called him out on it.

PoohBear wrote:

Mysteria Kiito wrote:

lol You tell the country where men are known to have second wives, cheat, and rape women (not that it doesn't happen here, but being that Africa has more poor villages it may be more common)to be abstinent. I'm real sure that will work. REALLY sure. It might work on the more religious people in more developed areas but Africa is only developed in so many places and I'm not sure too many of them practice the same religion. They'd probably look at the Pope and brush him off then go off to their orgy or one night stand without a second thought.

Kitto that sounds like racism or poor understanding.

Rape is actualy higher in countries with english as their first language maybe this is because of how its reported in english nations or possibly the culture.

As for second wives i cant think of any other group other than mormans & muslims that condone that.

The only reason africa is still devolping is because of usa and the former soviet union using it as a fighting ground during the cold war, the americans would put a guy in power who would then be over thrown by soviet gorrillas and the cycle contuies to this day along with genocide and famine.

The major religion in Africa is the catholic church because they sent all them missionary's there, Africa also has the largest population of regular church goers any where in the world, yes that even includes the bible belt in America.

Poor understanding more likely. I don't know much about Africa but from what I have heard they will rape the wife of a man to get him back for something he did wrong to him in much smaller communities. I also heard about the whole second wife thing when I heard about how they circumcise their own women over there. >.< OUCH! Men get me irritated as a whole. I don't care what race they are. They all think with their penis.

Bulllllllshit...

When the Pope makes a public statement, apparently it is inevitably seen as a desire to change public policy. Faith, however, is an individual decision, and when not speaking ex cathedra, as in this case, by Catholic doctrine every such word from the Pope is considered a matter of council. I hardly see how counseling people that condoms are less secure than abstinence is in any way a 'distortion of the facts', or 'ignoring reality'.
On to what seems to be a claim that properly informed sex with condoms is safer than abstinence. The Pope was correct in that giving people who are concerned about contracting STD's a box of condoms will most likely increase their sexual activity, by however small a margin. And given that HIV spreads at an exponential rate, it doesn't even matter that the key 'problem' of which he spoke was the lack of sexual prudence which allows STD's to spread and not the STD's themselves. Furthermore, one of the key words you missed out in the quote-mined sentence was "can", in this case synonymous with "may". Certainly not the same as "will" or "does". The insertion of that term should make it more than clear that the main point of the sentence was that condom use is not a perfect solution. And even if this was not correct, it's just as unrealistic to expect that everyone will listen to the other safety advice and guidelines given along with condoms as that they will all stop having illegitimate sex, so it's a moot point, anyways.

Quote :

Since most people won't be abstinent. Rock condoms do help slow the progression of HIV and contrary to what the pope is saying you are NEVER going to get such a large group of people to 'choose abstinence'. This is not a gullible little group of ninth graders that just saw some big pep-rally style show intended to brainwash them into thinking 'Abstinence is cool'. Unfortunately only a small amount of people past that age are going to fall for something so juvenile relative to the massive number of people who will keep on having sex without condoms and will potentially be promiscuous or even if not just do it without knowing they could pass it to a new wife/husband who does not know they have it.

That is the problem Rock, the pope is giving some extreme hardliner view that would never have sat well with Jesus and then expecting it to be seen as 'the only moral choice' because apparently living by the letter of SOME purity laws while totally ignoring others is far better than coming up with effective solutions to the problems of today's society. Its all a masturbatory exercise in futility. Lets bomb the abortion clinics rather than working with planned parenthood to try and map out things potential mothers can do to keep the children or even offering the possibility of adoption. Lets call for just abstinence in Africa totally ignoring human nature just so later we can claim to have promoted 'the right thing' even though many of the other purity laws are thrown at the wayside.

I respect Catholics alot, I think that many normal Catholics are some of the most devout people you will ever meet. But between the silly and needless rules the romans cooked up and leadership which is obviously only concerned about how others view them rather than doing the right thing, I have to say the actual Catholic church as an entity needs to pull out of dogma that is provably false and join the rest of the 21st century, or at least the 18th.

Forge, you'd think that the Pope has withdrawn the distribution of condoms in Africa in favor of telling them all to be abstinent. He hasn't. He's simply said that abstinence works better than condoms:
"The Pope said "the traditional teaching of the Church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids"."
-you will surely not disagree that it indeed is...
"The BBC's David Willey in Rome says the Church's view is that encouraging people to use condoms only minimises the effects of behaviour that in itself damages lives."
-you will surely not disagree that it indeed does.

The argument, if you'll look at it, is therefore idiotic to the highest degree:
"But the London-based Lancet said the Pope had "publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on this issue".

It said the male latex condom was the single most efficient way to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV/Aids."

We all know that abstinence is, in fact, the single most effective way to reduce the transmission of HIV. I dare somebody to contradict me on this point...

But really, what I find funniest about your post is the notion that the Catholic Church's doctrine is largely concerned with public opinion. It is the same concern for public appeal responsible for the Anglican Church's being the first to retract thier hard-liner stances on birth control in 1930, and for nearly all denominations except the Catholic Church's following them shortly after. If the Vatican were looking to raise their public image, don't you think it'd make a lot more sense to go with the rest of the crowd? Do you know how much schooling Catholic clergy go through? They don't just give an influential speaker a bible and tell him to go preach, you know.

Quote :

As a general rule, education lasts between five and six years, depending on the national Programme of Priestly Formation.[8] Most frequently in the United States, priests must have a four year university degree (which is usually in philosophy) plus an additional four to five years of graduate-level seminary formation in theology. In Scotland, there is a mandatory year of preparation before entering seminary for a year dedicated to spiritual formation followed by several years of study. In Europe, Australasia and North America seminarians usually graduate with a Master of Divinity or a Master of Theology degree, a four year professional degree (as opposed to a Master of Arts which is an academic degree). At least four years are to be in theological studies at the major seminary.[9]

So, I find it hard to believe that all Catholic authorities are simply ignorant or misled in Biblical matters. The other option is that they are deliberately misleading the masses for their own ends, but as a general rule I don't pay much attention to conspiracy theories.

Oh, and many African countries are primarily English-speaking. Just saying.

Rock, if they were not ignorant of biblical matters they would not BE CATHOLIC! They would realize that Hell was either integrated, like many other things, when the Jews flurted with Zoroastrianism or more likely when the Roman Catholic church was first formed and Christianity was stretched over the big boiling pot of faiths the Romans already had. They would realize that it was the behaviors of the religious leaders of his time Jesus condemned and thus NOT choose to follow an obviously political path that he expressly spoke out again. They would realize that the point of faith is not ritual but intent, that God does not want us to give up but rather to understand. They would stop over complicating and mis interpriting the bible and simply accept it for what it is flaws and all. Face it Rock, Catholic leaders are the absolute LAST people on earth you need to talk to if you want to know how to follow in the way of Christ.


The pope is hardlining to look conservative, to preserve an identity because apparently that identity is more important than genuinely helping people. Its easy to see what he is saying, he is saying that teaching condom use is bad because a few passages way back in the old testimate say masturbation is wrong and even though its ok to ignore the whole pork thing based on what was obviously a plant verse stuck in to make sure dietary restrictions did not hurt church growth they never bothered to point out that sex in and of itself is not wrong.

Sorry rock, but the pope is the absolute last person on earth to speak with any authority as to how to lead a christian life.

Rock wrote:

Bulllllllshit...

When the Pope makes a public statement, apparently it is inevitably seen as a desire to change public policy. Faith, however, is an individual decision, and when not speaking ex cathedra, as in this case, by Catholic doctrine every such word from the Pope is considered a matter of council. I hardly see how counseling people that condoms are less secure than abstinence is in any way a 'distortion of the facts', or 'ignoring reality'.

That's irrelevant considering a) the programs that distribute the condoms likely also counsel that abstinence is more secure than condoms and b) he publicly criticized the distribution of condoms.

Quote :

On to what seems to be a claim that properly informed sex with condoms is safer than abstinence.

A claim that was never made. The claim was that condom use is the single most effective way to reduce the sexual transmission of AIDS. Will abstinence stop the spread of AIDS? With the exception of blood transfusions and other ways of getting it, yes. Will the majority of a large group of people who are already sexually active willingly stop having sex? No. Will a much larger percentage of those people who are already sexually active and spreading the disease be more willing to start using condoms than give up sex all together? Yes. Will teaching both abstinence and condoms be even more effective than teaching one or the other? Yes. Is this already what's happening? I'd bet money it is.

Quote :

The Pope was correct in that giving people who are concerned about contracting STD's a box of condoms will most likely increase their sexual activity, by however small a margin. And given that HIV spreads at an exponential rate, it doesn't even matter that the key 'problem' of which he spoke was the lack of sexual prudence which allows STD's to spread and not the STD's themselves. Furthermore, one of the key words you missed out in the quote-mined sentence was "can", in this case synonymous with "may". Certainly not the same as "will" or "does". The insertion of that term should make it more than clear that the main point of the sentence was that condom use is not a perfect solution.

No, it's not, but abstinence is even less of a perfect solution, because it would require everyone to stop having sex. Also, even the word "can" is untrue and misleading. Teaching the use of condoms cannot make the problem worse unless 100% of the condoms given out are defective and when they give them out, they only say "here you go, have all the sex you want" without educating about how HIV spreads, risks of sexual practices, and the teaching that despite the effectiveness of condoms, abstinence is still the only 100% effective way to prevent sexual disease, which I have absolutely no reason to believe is the case.

Quote :

And even if this was not correct, it's just as unrealistic to expect that everyone will listen to the other safety advice and guidelines given along with condoms as that they will all stop having illegitimate sex, so it's a moot point, anyways.

No, it's not, because more people will listen to ways to practice safe sex and actually practice them than will stop having illegitimate sex.

Quote :

Forge, you'd think that the Pope has withdrawn the distribution of condoms in Africa in favor of telling them all to be abstinent. He hasn't. He's simply said that abstinence works better than condoms:
"The Pope said "the traditional teaching of the Church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids"."
-you will surely not disagree that it indeed is...

The Pope also said "the "cruel epidemic" should be tackled through abstinence and fidelity rather than condom use." and "HIV/Aids was "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem"."

And yet, you argue that he's not advocating that the distribution of condoms in Africa stop? You'd think that the Pope, or the Catholic Church for that matter, were the ones personally handing out condoms. They're not.

Quote :

"The BBC's David Willey in Rome says the Church's view is that encouraging people to use condoms only minimises the effects of behaviour that in itself damages lives."
-you will surely not disagree that it indeed does.

Yep, it does only minimize the effect. So why stop something that helps the problem? Why limit yourself to only one avenue to combat such a serious problem?

Quote :

The argument, if you'll look at it, is therefore idiotic to the highest degree:
"But the London-based Lancet said the Pope had "publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on this issue".

It said the male latex condom was the single most efficient way to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV/Aids."

We all know that abstinence is, in fact, the single most effective way to reduce the transmission of HIV. I dare somebody to contradict me on this point...

Theoretically, yes, if everyone suddenly stopped having sex, you're correct, that would be the single most effective way to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV. But realistically, more people are going to use a condom while having sex than are going to stop having sex. Therefore, abstinence is not more effective than condoms.

Forgefire_McCain wrote:

Rock, if they were not ignorant of biblical matters they would not BE CATHOLIC! They would realize that Hell was either integrated, like many other things, when the Jews flurted with Zoroastrianism or more likely when the Roman Catholic church was first formed and Christianity was stretched over the big boiling pot of faiths the Romans already had. They would realize that it was the behaviors of the religious leaders of his time Jesus condemned and thus NOT choose to follow an obviously political path that he expressly spoke out again. They would realize that the point of faith is not ritual but intent, that God does not want us to give up but rather to understand. They would stop over complicating and mis interpriting the bible and simply accept it for what it is flaws and all. Face it Rock, Catholic leaders are the absolute LAST people on earth you need to talk to if you want to know how to follow in the way of Christ.


The pope is hardlining to look conservative, to preserve an identity because apparently that identity is more important than genuinely helping people. Its easy to see what he is saying, he is saying that teaching condom use is bad because a few passages way back in the old testimate say masturbation is wrong and even though its ok to ignore the whole pork thing based on what was obviously a plant verse stuck in to make sure dietary restrictions did not hurt church growth they never bothered to point out that sex in and of itself is not wrong.

Sorry rock, but the pope is the absolute last person on earth to speak with any authority as to how to lead a christian life.

That's all crap. Catholic leaders go through years of education and training for their jobs, they make a way of life of it. A Catholic clergyman can take any verse from the New Testament, and then relate it to a corresponding passage in the Old - that's what they do every Mass, instead of just deciding what political issue to talk on and relating it to some passage in the bible. That's why I choose to listen to them over some clown in a suit thumping a bible and screaming politics. Sure, it's nice to just be able to pick up a bible, decide what you like about it, and decide that the rest is fraud, misleading, or part of a giant conspiracy. But we all know that Christianity is not about doing whatever the hell you want. You, on the other hand, have what? A gut feeling that they're wrong? I have no convincing reason whatsoever to believe that you know better.
When you say, "Its easy to see what he is saying, he is saying that teaching condom use is bad because a few passages way back in the old testimate say masturbation is wrong...", it looks to me entirely like you're just trying to justify twisting the Pope's words and intents around to say what you want them to as a means to bash Catholicism. I understand that's what you've been raised to do, but resorting to such tactics is just sad, and you're trying too hard when this starts happening. Is it not possible that you, unlike certain radical English journalists, could possibly pass up what looks like an opportunity to do so? Because sometimes, it just doesn't work in a logical capacity.

InfamousI wrote:

That's irrelevant considering a) the programs that distribute the condoms likely also counsel that abstinence is more secure than condoms and b) he publicly criticized the distribution of condoms.

If suggesting that the distribution of condoms and spending money towards fighting HIV in Africa will not eradicate STD's is criticism, then I agree with you on your second point, but it's still moot.

InfamousI wrote:

A claim that was never made. The claim was that condom use is the single most effective way to reduce the sexual transmission of AIDS. Will abstinence stop the spread of AIDS? With the exception of blood transfusions and other ways of getting it, yes. Will the majority of a large group of people who are already sexually active willingly stop having sex? No. Will a much larger percentage of those people who are already sexually active and spreading the disease be more willing to start using condoms than give up sex all together? Yes. Will teaching both abstinence and condoms be even more effective than teaching one or the other? Yes. Is this already what's happening? I'd bet money it is.

The fact that most people will not choose abstinence does not change the fact that it is more effective in preventing the transmission of STD's than condom use. That simply means that, in most cases, it's not a possibility, and not that it's ineffective. And if this is what's already happening, you still have to explain what the Pope did differently that makes him such a horrible person.

InfamousI wrote:

No, it's not, but abstinence is even less of a perfect solution, because it would require everyone to stop having sex. Also, even the word "can" is untrue and misleading. Teaching the use of condoms cannot make the problem worse unless 100% of the condoms given out are defective and when they give them out, they only say "here you go, have all the sex you want" without educating about how HIV spreads, risks of sexual practices, and the teaching that despite the effectiveness of condoms, abstinence is still the only 100% effective way to prevent sexual disease, which I have absolutely no reason to believe is the case.

You'd think the Pope was trying to abstinate the people? Teaching people that condoms are not fail-safe cannot make the problem worse, either. You think every time an African man (or woman) picks up a free box of condoms, they give him the spiel? Even if that were the case, which it isn't, why is it a bad thing, then, when the Pope does it?

InfamousI wrote:

No, it's not, because more people will listen to ways to practice safe sex and actually practice them than will stop having illegitimate sex.

In Africa, there is no such thing as "safe sex", so it doesn't matter, anyway.

[quote="InfamousI"]
The Pope also said "the "cruel epidemic" should be tackled through abstinence and fidelity rather than condom use." and "HIV/Aids was "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem"."

The Pope also said this to the African people, not government leaders. I'd tell them the same thing if they came to me with concerns about contracting AIDS. I'm sure you would, too, so why is it such a horrible crime when the Pope does it?

InfamousI wrote:

And yet, you argue that he's not advocating that the distribution of condoms in Africa stop? You'd think that the Pope, or the Catholic Church for that matter, were the ones personally handing out condoms. They're not.

Actually, they are. Catholic missions and hospitals in Africa are a major distributor of condoms not only in Africa, but all over the world. And even if they weren't, neither are you, so I can't see this as valid criticism, anyway.

InfamousI wrote:

Yep, it does only minimize the effect. So why stop something that helps the problem? Why limit yourself to only one avenue to combat such a serious problem?

Right... why limit yourself to one avenue? Why not inform people of a safer option as well instead of just distributing condoms?

InfamousI wrote:

Theoretically, yes, if everyone suddenly stopped having sex, you're correct, that would be the single most effective way to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV. But realistically, more people are going to use a condom while having sex than are going to stop having sex. Therefore, abstinence is not more effective than condoms.

Yes, it is. Most people simply don't use it, and unfortunately likely never will.

Rock I'm going to put it simply. If you spend your life learning 2+2=Fish then no amount of training for math is going to make you right. I'm sure that you can come up with some interesting justifications for it, but 2+2 is never fish. You can say said fish is perhaps 4 inches long, or is the fourth kind discovered in blah or whatever. But their training is flawed at its core because its working off of false premises and years of misinformation, each generation building up more lies and needless rules and half truths. Perhaps most of them really think that the way you get into heaven is though constant ecumenical squabbling and bitching at each other, maybe they are so blinded by the mellenia of half-assed justifications that they genuinely can't see what is blindingly flashing in front of their faces. But the fact remains that the training they undertake is wrong. I don't care if you don't like it the facts are on my side with this one. You are ignoring the prime example of it too. The whole 'because some passages in the old testimate say its wrong' thing is not a justification, its simply an observation that they fail to understand the context of what they are reading and instead take everything at face value.

I'm sorry Rock but the entire higher structure of the catholic church is nothing more than 2000 years of lies, deceit and political maneuvering that only served as a flimsy unification point for much of Europe though the Crusade Era. They teach things that are wrong, often ignoring huge indicators as to such. They take pagan dogma that dates back to Zoroastiranism and apply it to Christianity in spite of the warnings against doing such, falling into the same trap that many of the later prophets of the old testimate did. They blatantly changed other things like moving the day of worship to Sunday, inserting some flimsy justification for pork and much more.

But as for the matter at hand, The pope IS saying that the ONLY method we should advocate is abstinence. That is a foolish and self righteous assessment. Its like with most other stances the church takes, its not about helping others or making considerations for how best to stop a problem, Its about this overcomplicated bullshittery that they feel they have to stick to in order to get into heaven. That is what Pissed Jesus off in his era and I don't know why it should be excusable now.

Frankly I would almost be tempted to agree with most of those old hard-liner adventists at this point and say outright that the office of the pope is the antichrist. If I didn't recognize Revelations as total and utter BS I probably would.

Rock wrote:

If suggesting that the distribution of condoms and spending money towards fighting HIV in Africa will not eradicate STD's is criticism, then I agree with you on your second point, but it's still moot.

No, flat out stating that the distribution of condoms can make the problem of the AIDS epidemic in Africa worse is both criticism of the program and a distortion of the facts.

Quote :

The fact that most people will not choose abstinence does not change the fact that it is more effective in preventing the transmission of STD's than condom use. That simply means that, in most cases, it's not a possibility, and not that it's ineffective. And if this is what's already happening, you still have to explain what the Pope did differently that makes him such a horrible person.

Do you know the difference between the theoretical application and the practical application of something? Say there were two cures for AIDS, one was 100% effective, but only 20% of people with AIDS were willing to undergo the procedure because the side effects of the cure were too much for others, the other was 90% effective, but 50% of people with AIDS were willing to undergo that procedure. Practically speaking, the method that is 90% effective effectively cured AIDS better than the 100% effective method because whereas the 100% effective method cured 20% of the people who have AIDS, the 90% effective method cured 45% of the people with AIDS. You see, no matter how effective something is, if people choose not to use it, it is not as effective as something people do choose to use. Therefore, the reverse of the logic stating that condoms are more effective at preventing the spread of AIDS than abstinence is that if the people using condoms now stopped using them, AIDS would spread faster than if the people who are abstaining from sex started having unprotected sex, because there are more people using condoms than there are abstaining from sex.

Quote :

You'd think the Pope was trying to abstinate the people? Teaching people that condoms are not fail-safe cannot make the problem worse, either. You think every time an African man (or woman) picks up a free box of condoms, they give him the spiel? Even if that were the case, which it isn't, why is it a bad thing, then, when the Pope does it?

Only, he went much further than teaching people that condoms are not fail-safe, he stated that by distributing condoms, they could potentially be increasing the spread of AIDS, in essence, that using condoms does more harm than good.

Quote :

In Africa, there is no such thing as "safe sex", so it doesn't matter, anyway.

What makes you say this?

Quote :

The Pope also said this to the African people, not government leaders. I'd tell them the same thing if they came to me with concerns about contracting AIDS. I'm sure you would, too, so why is it such a horrible crime when the Pope does it?

No, I would tell them that sex with random partners is ultimately unfulfilling and meaningless and the consequences can often outweigh the pleasure gained, but that if they do choose to have random, meaningless sex, that they should at least use a condom. I certainly wouldn't tell them that the use of condoms can only help fuel the spread of AIDS like the Pope did.

Quote :

Actually, they are. Catholic missions and hospitals in Africa are a major distributor of condoms not only in Africa, but all over the world. And even if they weren't, neither are you, so I can't see this as valid criticism, anyway.

Seems you're right, but it also seems that many of the Catholics distributing condoms also publicly criticized the Pope's statements...

Quote :

Right... why limit yourself to one avenue? Why not inform people of a safer option as well instead of just distributing condoms?

... What reason do you believe that all they're doing is distributing condoms and offering no education whatsoever? You honestly believe people are saying "here, have a condom!" without telling them the purpose of it or how to use it? The problem with your argument here is, it makes no logical sense and has no supporting evidence. The Pope, however, stated that distributing condoms can make matters worse, strongly suggesting the practice should be stopped, because why would he advocate the use of something that he believes will make the problem worse? He then went on to say that any kind of education on the matter should only focus on abstinence and fidelity, one avenue, and an impractical one at that, considering many women in Africa get AIDS from their husbands.

Quote :

Yes, it is. Most people simply don't use it, and unfortunately likely never will.

Once again, theoretically, yes, it is more effective than condoms. Practically, condoms have helped contain the spread of AIDS moreso than abstinence has.


And I leave you with another article on the matter:

AFRICA: Pope on Condoms – Out in the Cold

Strange... could have sworn I just made a post...

Rock wrote:

Strange... could have sworn I just made a post...

Odds are good you did. And if the laws of Forums hold true it was a rather large one in which you made many well-reasoned arguments towards your point holding up many details and siting specific examples.

Dunno where it would've went though, I certainly didn't do anything to it and I doubt Panky would have either.

One continuing trend in this thread is the belief that abstinence is actually 100% effective against the transmission of HIV. This is false. There are other ways of contracting HIV outside the boundaries of sexual intercourse, as LM touched down upon. Blood transfusions, sharing of needles and such. So no, Abstinence IS NOT 100% effective at preventing HIV.

Also. The original topic had to do with the Pope outright saying that condoms help fuel the spread of HIV. I think we should all agree that this is bullshit. I own a box of condoms, and my sexual desire is no greater, or lesser, than if I didn't have them.

I agree with LM on the point that even because abstinence is 100% proven to stop the sexual transmission of HIV, it is still less effective than condoms, which are 97% effective at stopping the sexual transmission of HIV, because more people will use condoms than choose abstinence.

I also agree with Forge on the subject of church corruption. That is for another topic, however.

Also. It is not difficult to figure out how a condom works. I've seen boxes with picture diagrams so simple a child could figure it out. I actually learned how to use a condom when I was 10. Testament to it's simplicity.
Honestly, abstinence fails as a concept because it is unrealistic. Nothing good comes from people being pressured to deny their primal instincts. And since people -won't- deny their primal instincts, it is much better to teach how to be -safer- about it.

I do agree that the argument on Catholicism and organized religion in general is something for another time, but the point remains the same Rock. Having a Stepmother who worked for planned parenthood in college I can tell you for a fact that any person who will distribute free condoms will tell you flat out that abstinence is safer. Nobody is going to say that in practice abstinence is safer.What they are saying is that no matter the risks people are going to have sex anyways, be it because they don't realize they have it or their partner has it, or more likely because they don't give a damn. Those people are more likely to us a condom and still do it as opposed to simply accepting abstinence. What the pope was saying has a total and utter disconnection with how reality works. His mentality sadly is that of 'well if you give people condoms you will promote them to have more sex and thus spread HIV faster. This would be a fine argument if we simply ignored the fact that people want to have sex and have done so regardless of risks throughout the centuries. Its the exact same 'people are violent because of videogames' style argument Jack Thompson kept spewing. And you know what? its self serving and self righteous. its spiritual and political masturbation, saying that its bad and we should only promote abstinence absolves him of any guilt or sin in the matter. And thats the problem with the Catholic church in general, absolution. Its not about doing the right thing because its right and makes your life better as well as the lives of others, its doing the right thing so that one can be absolved of their sins in spite of what Jesus has said. Now that is not saying there are not good Catholics out there, but the whole reason the pope is saying this, the reason so many of these false traditions are still in place is because it lets the people who promote them feel that they are in the right. By saying this the pope has once again said to the world that "this is the churches stance on the matter and no matter how bad the problem gets or what happens with what people decide the church cannot be held responsible." he had played pilot and shifted the blame away from himself rather than accepting a solution that is more effective. He denounces the option that would be more effective under real world conditions to throw out an over-simplified idealization so that he can continue to pretend hes blameless.

You just said that every person distributing condoms is likely to tell you that abstinence is better. Are they also being unrealistic, or just preaching their hard-liner stances? The Pope is, after all, the head of a Church that is a very prominent distributor of condoms in Africa. Your entire argument is based off of a lone sentence in the Pope's entire speech which not only goes against what he's actually done but isn't even the same in every article that jumps on it. You don't even know the context of the quote - for all you know, the 'problem' of which he spoke may have been promiscuous sexual behavior which leads to infection rather than the virus itself. I don't know that this is the case, but I don't act as if I know that it isn't, either. And, once again, I defy you to tell me where he said that we should only promote abstinence. Because his actions suggest that he promotes both.
Tprime, non-sexual transmission of HIV is so small as to be insignificant for the purposes of this debate. Also, practicing 'safe sex' runs deeper than knowing how to use a condom, but also when. Your sexual desire may be no greater than if you had no condoms, but I'm quite sure that your restraint is less, and that situations in which you will make use of them, odds are good or at least better that you wouldn't without.
Honestly, if abstinence is so unrealistic, why do those distributing condoms, as you say, endorse it? Because it is more effective when employed. Because most people don't properly employ it doesn't change this fact.

I'll get to reconstructing my previous post later, probably not for a couple of days...

"The Pope had said the "cruel epidemic" should be tackled through abstinence and fidelity rather than condom use."

Not "in addition to" Rock, not "along with," not "on top of," "rather than" which is synonymous with "instead of," or "as opposed to," or even "not." The quote in which he said that condoms could even make the problem worse was also talking directly about the AIDS epidemic, that or the Vatican didn't care to point out that the quote was out of context, but instead, tried to clarify the context, that though he was talking about the AIDS virus, he believes that condom use could make its spread worse by promoting promiscuous behavior. Either way, his speech was definitely about the AIDS epidemic and not about sexual promiscuity, so when he mentions "the problem" it can only be assumed to be in reference to AIDS.

Also assuming the quote is out of context, then apparently not many people around the world can read or understand context, from news papers, to world leaders, to Catholic organizations that support the distribution of condoms, because all of them seem to believe that the Pope did, in fact, state that he believes the distribution and use of condoms should be stopped in favor of teaching abstinence and fidelity because condom use could make the AIDS epidemic worse.

You are the only one defending him by claiming that he was taken out of context. You'd think at the very least that the Vatican would be on your side and be even quicker to point out that he does, in fact, support the distribution and use of condoms, if that was the case.

As for non-sexual transmission of AIDS not being a major factor, in 2003, a study concluded that only 30% of people who contracted AIDS in Africa did so through sexual contact, and blamed unsafe medical practices, such as reusing dirty needles as being the major contributor to the spread of AIDS. I'm not sure if that issue has since been rectified, but I highly doubt that Africa's medical practices have been brought up to the level of First World Nations, where such a thing is indeed a non-factor, so I wouldn't be so quick to outright dismiss it.