Pope Benedict says condoms are not the solution to Aids - they make it worse

Run_to_da_hills

The Pope has come under renewed criticism after saying that condoms are not the solution to Africa's HIV epidemic.

Pope Benedict XVI made the controversial remarks as he started a seven-day tour of the continent on Tuesday.

An estimated 22 million people in Africa have HIV, the virus that leads to Aids. Three quarters of all Aids deaths in 2007 were in sub-Saharan Africa.

"You can't resolve it [Aids] with the distribution of condoms," the pope said. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

It is the first time that Benedict has addressed the issues of condom use. Pope John Paul II, his predecessor, often said that sexual abstinence - not condoms - was the best way to prevent the spread of the disease

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5923927.ece

John_Mc

A Disgusting and totally irresponsible attitude for such an influential organisation to have! :mad:

jhegarty

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

"On the contrary, it increases the problem."

I can understand him making moral judgements on the use of condoms, but saying it would make the problem worse is just plain silly.

Owen

I repspect the Church's stance on Condoms - I don't agree with it in any sense, but I do respect it. It's their belief system and all that, but then he comes out with this :

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

"You can't resolve it [Aids] with the distribution of condoms," the pope said. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

Now that's just pulling a pseudo-fact from under his Mitre. You can indeed resolve the spread of Aids through the distribution of condoms, and the education of the people. Religious abstinence will not work - it certainly doesn't work in the western world.

santing

Interesting, as a non-Catholic I don't agree (or respect) the Catholic practice on condoms... however, I do agree with the Pope saying that giving out free condoms makes matter worse.
The only real way of stopping aids is turning back to the Biblical teaching of mariage as the only allowed/safe place to enjoy sex.
Condoms are not 100% safe for stopping unwanted pregnancies, so they are even less safe for stopping AIDS.

jhegarty

santing wrote: »

Interesting, as a non-Catholic I don't agree (or respect) the Catholic practice on condoms... however, I do agree with the Pope saying that giving out free condoms makes matter worse.
The only real way of stopping aids is turning back to the Biblical teaching of mariage as the only allowed/safe place to enjoy sex.
Condoms are not 100% safe for stopping unwanted pregnancies, so they are even less safe for stopping AIDS.

But you have to accept that people will sin. None of us are perfect. What is said is just denying what's happening in real world.

People sin , but they should still deserve protection from this terrible illness.

You tell people not to drink drive and speed, but you still put airbags and seatbelts in cars.

santing

jhegarty wrote: »

But you have to accept that people will sin. ... You tell people not to drink drive and speed, but you still put airbags and seatbelts in cars.

I like the analogy... but handing out free condoms is like saying that it is OK to drink and drive and speed because all cars are fitted with airbags and seatbelts.

prinz

John_Mc wrote: »

A Disgusting and totally irresponsible attitude for such an influential organisation to have! :mad:

What a random thing to say. The GAA is an influential organisation - should they now tell GAA players to play a hurling match using ice-hockey rules? No. The Church has rules, put up or shut up.

On the point that Benny made, he's dead right. Of course it makes the problem worse, anyone can see that. The only sure fire way to combat AIDS is through abstaining from sex. Which, funnily enough is one of the solutions proposed by the same Church. Distributing condoms in an effort to fight AIDS is like telling kids not to play with fire and giving them a safety lighter instead of matches.

prinz

jhegarty wrote: »

People sin , but they should still deserve protection from this terrible illness.

Here's the ultimate protection - don't have sex. Problem solved. In a continent that's over populated, rife with famine and disease you'd think they'd be a bit quicker to adopt that solution.

mickoneill30

prinz wrote: »

On the point that Benny made, he's dead right. Of course it makes the problem worse, anyone can see that.

How has it made the problem worse? If anyone can see that then you can explain it easily.

mickoneill30

prinz wrote: »

What a random thing to say. The GAA is an influential organisation - should they now tell GAA players to play a hurling match using ice-hockey rules? No. The Church has rules, put up or shut up.

Of course the Church has rules and if you want to be a member of it you follow the rules like we all do in Ireland :rolleyes:. Either most people in Ireland are abstaining or they're using some kind of contraception.

However to come out with crap saying that using condoms increases AIDS is not following the rules. It's propaganda.

Splendour

santing wrote: »

Interesting, as a non-Catholic I don't agree (or respect) the Catholic practice on condoms... however, I do agree with the Pope saying that giving out free condoms makes matter worse.
The only real way of stopping aids is turning back to the Biblical teaching of mariage as the only allowed/safe place to enjoy sex.
Condoms are not 100% safe for stopping unwanted pregnancies, so they are even less safe for stopping AIDS.

I don't agree with the Catholic stance on the use of condoms either but the Pope is being true to the teaching of the church.
However, even if the Pope could change the ruling,I don't think giving out free condoms would make it worse within the confines of a marriage. There are plenty of women who have no choice about sleeping with their husbands who have gone astray and are possibly bringing the HIV virus back to the marriage bed.

28064212

prinz wrote: »

In a continent that's over populated, rife with famine and disease you'd think they'd be a bit quicker to adopt that solution.

Because of course all the villagers in Western Tanzania have looked up the UN statistics on the internet and realise that it's the only responsible thing they can do :rolleyes:. In many of the Catholic regions, priests and missionarys would be a villages only real link to the outside world. And what are they telling them? "Condoms aren't effective against AIDS. They make the problem worse". Anyone who can't see what's wrong with that picture needs a 2 by 4 upside the head

aoibhebree

santing wrote: »

Interesting, as a non-Catholic I don't agree (or respect) the Catholic practice on condoms... however, I do agree with the Pope saying that giving out free condoms makes matter worse.
The only real way of stopping aids is turning back to the Biblical teaching of mariage as the only allowed/safe place to enjoy sex.

Yes, theoretically if everyone abstained from sex outside of marriage, AIDS would be less prevalent, however that is completely unenforceable! It's just unrealistic to pretend otherwise.

santing wrote: »

Condoms are not 100% safe for stopping unwanted pregnancies, so they are even less safe for stopping AIDS.
At least provision of condoms is a real, measurable solution. It might not be ideal, but it works.

Even if condoms only work in preventing STDs 90% of the time, it's still more effective than unprotected sex.

AtomicHorror

santing wrote: »

I like the analogy... but handing out free condoms is like saying that it is OK to drink and drive and speed because all cars are fitted with airbags and seatbelts.

No... it's nothing of the sort. It is entirely possible to hand out free condoms whilst telling people that promiscuity is a sin. At any rate, this is not the issue at hand. Nobody is suggesting that the church should be directly involved in such an initiative. We're suggesting that they tell the truth. Condoms massively reduce the incidence of HIV transmission, even when increased promiscuity is taken into account. The pope is wrong, to put it simply. Demonstrably so.

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

I like the analogy... but handing out free condoms is like saying that it is OK to drink and drive and speed because all cars are fitted with airbags and seatbelts.

But saying it is not ok to have sex doesn't do anything.

Saying it is not ok to have sex doesn't stop people having sex. Saying that people should only have sex in specific arrangements, such as a marriage, doesn't stop people having sex outside of these specific arrangements.

People tend not to care if someone else thinks it is or isn't ok for them to have sex.

So the question becomes whether people simply want to lecture other people on the best way they think there is to have sex, advice that is largely ignored anyway, or do they want to help people avoid catching HIV?

It is like saying that the best way to stop skiing accidents (in the news) is to tell people not to go skiiing and then saying that we should not provide helmets to people who do want to go skiing because that is like saying it is OK for them to go skiing, and we are trying to tell them it isn't, it is dangerous and you might die.

The people who want to go skiing don't care that you think it is a bad idea. But with no helmets available they will do it without a helmet, and when some of the crash and smash their heads against a tree those who are against skiing altogether will simply say "Ha, told you it was dangerous but you didn't listen" ignoring that they would have been fine with a helmet on.

prinz

28064212 wrote: »

Because of course all the villagers in Western Tanzania have looked up the UN statistics on the internet and realise that it's the only responsible thing they can do :rolleyes:. In many of the Catholic regions, priests and missionarys would be a villages only real link to the outside world. And what are they telling them? "Condoms aren't effective against AIDS. They make the problem worse". Anyone who can't see what's wrong with that picture needs a 2 by 4 upside the head

Given that the precise purpose of contraception is to allow people to have sex without having to worry about the conesquences of their actions, then of course people will engage in sexual activity much quicker and without the neccessary forethought as without. There has been a direct correlation shown in all societies between the availability of contraception and the amount of sexual partners, unplanned pregnancies etc. So giving people a condom as some sort of "get out of jail" card so they can do what they like is ridiculous.


And if these Catholics missionaries are their only contact with the outside world and these people take their word as 'gospel', they presumably would see the benefits of celibacy and sex within a faithful marriage - thereby containing AIDS. Like I said problem solved.

AtomicHorror

prinz wrote: »

Given that the precise purpose of contraception is to allow people to have sex without having to worry about the conesquences of their actions, then of course people will engage in sexual activity much quicker and without the neccessary forethought as without. There has been a direct correlation shown in all societies between the availability of contraception and the amount of sexual partners, unplanned pregnancies etc. So giving people a condom as some sort of "get out of jail" card so they can do what they like is ridiculous.

It's plausible that condom availability might well correlate with greater promiscuity, though correlation and causation are not the same thing. For example, greater condom availability could also be a result of greater demand as caused by greater promiscuity already present. In that case (assuming demand was responded to promptly with supply) condom availability would correlate with promiscuity without being a cause of it. The reality is likely to be more complex than either case, assuming the correlation exists.

Care to show us some evidence to support your claims?

prinz wrote: »

And if these Catholics missionaries are their only contact with the outside world and these people take their word as 'gospel', they presumably would see the benefits of celibacy and sex within a faithful marriage - thereby containing AIDS. Like I said problem solved.

How wonderfully naive. What happens if one member of a marriage is a good monogamous Christian and the other secretly is not? The good Christian is at risk. Populations are complex. Widespread condom usage also protects those who do not use them.

prinz

AtomicHorror wrote: »

How wonderfully naive. What happens if one member of a marriage is a good monogamous Christian and the other secretly is not? .

If they both were, there wouldnt be a problem. I.E. teaching people Christianity as a way of living is preferable to giving them condoms. As the leader of the Catholic Church, therefore he is quite right.

AtomicHorror

prinz wrote: »

If they both were, there wouldnt be a problem.

That is not reality prinz. And is beside the point. The assertion about condoms is demonstrably false and is being used as a dishonest attempt to enforce a moral code.

And what about the assertions you've made. Do you have evidence for us?

Phototoxin

Here's the ultimate protection - don't have sex. Problem solved. In a continent that's over populated, rife with famine and disease you'd think they'd be a bit quicker to adopt that solution.

culturally that's practically unacceptable

Of course the Church has rules and if you want to be a member of it you follow the rules like we all do in Ireland . Either most people in Ireland are abstaining or they're using some kind of contraception.

However to come out with crap saying that using condoms increases AIDS is not following the rules. It's propaganda

it DOES though. Again reseach (I will have to get the references again) in south asia shows that if you saturate a country with condoms it increases HIV and STI's. Also giving them away makes people see them as worthless. You have to make people PAY for them like in the northern european countries! And also re: Ireland : ROFLMAOLOL!1!!one!!1!

Condoms massively reduce the incidence of HIV transmission, even when increased promiscuity is taken into account. The pope is wrong, to put it simply. Demonstrably so.

Yes but say the chance of getting aids is 1% and it goes up by 1% every time you sleep with a different partner and that the condom reduces the initial chance to .5% If you have more partners then you still have more chance of getting the disease. This is what he is trying to (HORRIBLY INARTICULALTYL I MIGHT ADD! STUPID POPE!! *STABS POPE*) Condosm themselves may reduce the chance (not eliminate it) of getting an STI but they encourage more promiscous behaviour.
Bottom line a lot less people would have aids if everyone just stayed with 1 partner.

If they both were, there wouldnt be a problem. I.E. teaching people Christianity as a way of living is preferable to giving them condoms. As the leader of the Catholic Church, therefore he is quite right.

Of course he is. He's the pope. He's right because the books which he says is right tells us that he is right.

That is not reality prinz. And is beside the point. The assertion about condoms is demonstrably false and is being used as a dishonest attempt to enforce a moral code.

Time and time again history has shown us that people and religons are quite willing to lie if it gets their agenda accros regarledless of their motovation for that agenda. So regardless of weatehr no condoms is because they want more catholic kids or weather it is actually to stop aids or whatever, the fact that they are being diliberatly misleading speaks volumes.

Aoifey!

I know the pope cannot really go against the church by promoting condoms, but the statement he made just makes no sense! In no way could condoms make it worse!

mickoneill30

Phototoxin wrote: »

Again reseach (I will have to get the references again) in south asia shows that if you saturate a country with condoms it increases HIV and STI's.

When you get that research let us know. We'll wait.

Phototoxin wrote: »

Yes but say the chance of getting aids is 1% and it goes up by 1% every time you sleep with a different partner and that the condom reduces the initial chance to .5%

Plucking numbers randomly from the air there.

As to the rest of your post. It's a little hard to read.

prinz

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That is not reality prinz. And is beside the point. The assertion about condoms is demonstrably false and is being used as a dishonest attempt to enforce a moral code.

And what about the assertions you've made. Do you have evidence for us?

Be glad to supply links at a later hour. Not exactly in the position to be researching at the moment.

youcrazyjesus!

I'm fine with him believing the use of condoms is wrong, that's fine. But expanding that to say using them compounds the problem is, for a start, not factual. It's quite dangerous and irresponsible to say such a thing and it will result in the horrific deaths of men, women and childre. He is deluded if he believes it. It's an encouragement to the African Catholic hierarchy to run around telling people (and this isn't too far or a stretch from what the Pope himself says) that condoms are completely ineffectual or perhaps even dangerous. This is what will compound the AIDS problem. If spreading unsubstantiated rumours which contradicts established science with a resulting public health risk isn't a crime then it should be, a very serious one.

I feel the former-Hitlerjugend should disclose his empirical evidence or his medical training that would allow him to make such a statement. If he doesn't have any he should stay quiet on something he's not qualified to talk on.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/robert-fisk/robert-fisk-pope-will-demean-other-religions-to-prove-christianityrsquos-lsquosuperiorityrsquo-14208500.html

He says he suspects he is a "very nasty piece of work". I agree.

Fanny Cradock

AtomicHorror wrote: »

No... it's nothing of the sort. It is entirely possible to hand out free condoms whilst telling people that promiscuity is a sin. At any rate, this is not the issue at hand. Nobody is suggesting that the church should be directly involved in such an initiative. We're suggesting that they tell the truth. Condoms massively reduce the incidence of HIV transmission, even when increased promiscuity is taken into account. The pope is wrong, to put it simply. Demonstrably so.

Can you provide evidence? While I certainly wouldn't support the RCC on this matter, I'm left wondering why the RCC would ignoring the facts if they are so demonstrably true. Crackpot theories aside, of course.

Fanny Cradock

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

I'm fine with him believing the use of condoms is wrong, that's fine. But expanding that to say using them compounds the problem is, for a start, not factual. It's quite dangerous and irresponsible to say such a thing and it will result in the horrific deaths of men, women and childre. He is deluded if he believes it. It's an encouragement to the African Catholic hierarchy to run around telling people (and this isn't too far or a stretch from what the Pope himself says) that condoms are completely ineffectual or perhaps even dangerous. This is what will compound the AIDS problem. If spreading unsubstantiated rumours which contradicts established science with a resulting public health risk isn't a crime then it should be, a very serious one.

I feel the former-Nazi should disclose his empirical evidence or his medical training that would allow him to make such a statement. If he doesn't have any he should stay quiet on something he's not qualified to talk on.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/robert-fisk/robert-fisk-pope-will-demean-other-religions-to-prove-christianityrsquos-lsquosuperiorityrsquo-14208500.html

He says he suspects he is a "very nasty piece of work". I agree.

Your post contains some unacceptable allegations. Yellow card for you.

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Can you provide evidence? While I certainly wouldn't support the RCC on this matter, I'm left wondering why the RCC would ignoring the facts if they are so demonstrably true. Crackpot theories aside, of course.

I'll certainly see if I can dig up a decent review or meta-analysis on the matter! Was waiting to see if anyone would try to give me a dose of my own medicine with that one

prinz

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

I'm fine with him believing the use of condoms is wrong, that's fine. But expanding that to say using them compounds the problem is, for a start, not factual. It's quite dangerous and irresponsible to say such a thing and it will result in the horrific deaths of men, women and childre. He is deluded if he believes it. It's an encouragement to the African Catholic hierarchy to run around telling people (and this isn't too far or a stretch from what the Pope himself says) that condoms are completely ineffectual or perhaps even dangerous. This is what will compound the AIDS problem. If spreading unsubstantiated rumours which contradicts established science with a resulting public health risk isn't a crime then it should be, a very serious one.

I feel the former-Nazi should disclose his empirical evidence or his medical training that would allow him to make such a statement. If he doesn't have any he should stay quiet on something he's not qualified to talk on.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/robert-fisk/robert-fisk-pope-will-demean-other-religions-to-prove-christianityrsquos-lsquosuperiorityrsquo-14208500.html

He says he suspects he is a "very nasty piece of work". I agree.

Any evidence or medical training of your own? I don't see the jump from him saying it isn't a solution, to condoms being dangerous Obviously one of Jim Henson's finest.

youcrazyjesus!

prinz wrote: »

Any evidence or medical training of your own? I don't see the jump from him saying it isn't a solution, to condoms being dangerous Obviously one of Jim Henson's finest.

No, read what I wrote. It's very clear.

I have no medical training but I do have the ability to read what medical organisations, you know, trained professionals, have to say on the matter.

youcrazyjesus!

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Can you provide evidence? While I certainly wouldn't support the RCC on this matter, I'm left wondering why the RCC would ignoring the facts if they are so demonstrably true. Crackpot theories aside, of course.

You've given the answer in your last sentence.

prinz

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

It's an encouragement to the African Catholic hierarchy to run around telling people (and this isn't too far or a stretch from what the Pope himself says) that condoms are completely ineffectual or perhaps even dangerous.

you're point being... maybe you should stop stretching what he said and start reading.

There's a difference to condoms compounding the problem, and condoms not being the solution to same problem. Condoms do not solve the AIDS crisis, as long as people with AIDS will have sex then theres always the chance of them spreading and continuing the disease - condom or not.

So can anyone who is questioning the Pope here demonstrate how condoms solve the AIDS problem??

mickoneill30

prinz wrote: »

So can anyone who is questioning the Pope here demonstrate how condoms solve the AIDS problem??

Nope. Nobody here is saying that condoms can solve the AIDS problem.

To quote a previous post

prinz wrote: »

maybe you should stop stretching what he said and start reading.

youcrazyjesus!

prinz wrote: »

you're point being... maybe you should stop stretching what he said and start reading.

There's a difference to condoms compounding the problem, and condoms not being the solution to same problem. Condoms do not solve the AIDS crisis, as long as people with AIDS will have sex then theres always the chance of them spreading and continuing the disease - condom or not.

So can anyone who is questioning the Pope here demonstrate how condoms solve the AIDS problem??

That's all waffle to me. I've no idea what you're saying or what part of my post you believe is incorrect.

Fanny Cradock

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

You've given the answer in your last sentence.

I am warning you to cut it out.

Gazza22

One the reason's why i turned my back on the church, the completely irresponsible crap that is constantly streaming from their blinded minds.

The moronic Catholic church needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century or just die off, hopefully the latter.

youcrazyjesus!

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I am warning you to cut it out.

Sorry, what are you warning me about exactly?

Please explain.

prinz

Gazza22 wrote: »

One the reason's why i turned my back on the church, the completely irresponsible crap that is constantly streaming from their blinded minds.

The moronic Catholic church needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century or just die off, hopefully the latter.

It's a religion. Not a fashion statement to go with the flow... What next - make Gordon Gekko a saint.., abolish marriage,.........

The only irresponsible action is handing out condoms instead of actually trying to solve the problem.

prinz

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Nope. Nobody here is saying that condoms can solve the AIDS problem.

To quote a previous post

.........so you just don't agree that they can't solve it .......... That's a great help. Unlike you the Pope doesn't have the benefit of sitting on the fence and equivocating (sp?)

youcrazyjesus!

prinz wrote: »

The only irresponsible action is handing out condoms instead of actually trying to solve the problem.

How is handing out condoms and to people who would otherwise be having unprotected sex with soon to be infected partners irresponsible? They're going to be having sex. It's called human nature for crying out loud. Nobody, not 1 person will say "ooh look, a condom, let's have more sex". Condoms don't cause sexual activity. How did AIDS become so prevalent in the first place? Through people using condoms?

He said "condoms increase the problem".

Can you please explain how this is, citing sources and examples?

The Pope's comments (this is not his 1st pronouncement on condoms) lead to situations like this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7014335.stm


Nobody in their right mind would say condoms are the only answer and nobody is saying it. But they are a very useful tool, particularly with certain demographics. Everybody, including doctors, would agree that abstinence is the best tool, being faithful to one partner the second best, thirdly is condoms. It's called the ABC approach. But to go from that to saying condoms increase the problem is incredibly irresponsible. Particularly when it's based on dogma and unscientific theology and not science or academic studies.

This is like saying 2+2 = 4. It's just basic common sense so simple a child could understand it, but that's sadly lacking here and with the Ratzinger.

mickoneill30

prinz wrote: »

.........so you just don't agree that they can't solve it .......... That's a great help. Unlike you the Pope doesn't have the benefit of sitting on the fence and equivocating (sp?)

What are you on about? You asked us to

"demonstrate how condoms solve the AIDS problem??"

Nobody here says that condoms solve the AIDS problem. They're one tiny defence against AIDS but nobody at all says they're going to solve AIDS.

I'm sorry if I don't know what can solve the AIDS problem but it's not sitting on the fence if I don't know that. Unlike the pope I don't have the benefit of making stuff up and announcing it to the world.

You can do all the faces you want but you're the one trying to assert that people are saying stuff they didn't.

It was the pope that said that the use of condoms "increases the problem". That's what we're talking about here. Not a cure for AIDS.

Gazza22

prinz wrote: »

It's a religion. Not a fashion statement to go with the flow... What next - make Gordon Gekko a saint.., abolish marriage,.........

The only irresponsible action is handing out condoms instead of actually trying to solve the problem.

I'm quite aware it's not a fashion statement. Full of little retorts in this thread prinz

It's a religion that is still stuck in the dark ages.

"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane headed to Yaounde. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

What a ridiculous thing to say? Nobody is suggesting that "handing out condoms" is going to solve the AIDS epidemic in Africa but allow people to have the choice to protect themselves - people are still going to have sex regardless to the fact condoms are available or not. Condoms will help slow down the rate of infection.

It's the Catholic church's idiotic views that has allowed some African people to not take care of their sexual health and has allowed vicious rumour's such as "condoms give you AIDS" to spread throughout communities.

prinz

mickoneill30 wrote: »

I'm sorry if I don't know what can solve the AIDS problem but it's not sitting on the fence if I don't know that. Unlike the pope I don't have the benefit of making stuff up and announcing it to the world.

What exactly did he 'make up' ?
Condoms/Contraception encourages sex = increased likelihood of AIDS spreading. If you argue that contraception doesn't encourage sexual activity - then all hope is lost.

The only 100% foolproof method to guard against AIDS is abstention. As promoted by the Catholic Church. Frankly if the choice was no sex, or sex with a condom in a country ravaged by AIDS, I'm enough of a human being to choose no sex.

Gazza22

What do they make up?

Steve Bradshaw, Panorama Report 2003 wrote:

The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.

The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.

A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms, despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are untrue.

The church's claims are revealed in a BBC1 Panorama programme, Sex and the Holy City, to be broadcast on Sunday. The president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, told the programme: "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom.

"These margins of uncertainty... should represent an obligation on the part of the health ministries and all these campaigns to act in the same way as they do with regard to cigarettes, which they state to be a danger."

The WHO has condemned the Vatican's views, saying: "These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million."

The organisation says "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%. There may be breakage or slippage of condoms - but not, the WHO says, holes through which the virus can pass .

Scientific research by a group including the US National Institutes of Health and the WHO found "intact condoms... are essentially impermeable to particles the size of STD pathogens including the smallest sexually transmitted virus... condoms provide a highly effective barrier to transmission of particles of similar size to those of the smallest STD viruses".

The Vatican's Cardinal Trujillo said: "They are wrong about that... this is an easily recognisable fact."

The church opposes any kind of contraception because it claims it breaks the link between sex and procreation - a position Pope John Paul II has fought to defend.

In Kenya - where an estimated 20% of people have HIV - the church condemns condoms for promoting promiscuity and repeats the claim about permeability. The archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Nzeki, said: "Aids... has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms."

Sex and the Holy City includes a Catholic nun advising her HIV-infected choirmaster against using condoms with his wife because "the virus can pass through".

In Lwak, near Lake Victoria, the director of an Aids testing centre says he cannot distribute condoms because of church opposition. Gordon Wambi told the programme: "Some priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids."

This is the kind of crap that i'm talking about, that the church keeps dishing out. It's not condoms that are aiding the spread of infectious disease's - it's ultimately the church. The church makes up their own "scientific" views on how condoms work and how STD's are spread.

prinz wrote: »

If you argue that contraception doesn't encourage sexual activity - then all hope is lost.

I think you are the one that is lost prinz, you and your church...

prinz wrote: »

The only 100% foolproof method to guard against AIDS is abstention. As promoted by the Catholic Church. Frankly if the choice was no sex, or sex with a condom in a country ravaged by AIDS, I'm enough of a human being to choose no sex.

Yes well the world isn't quite as black & white as that prinz. We are a race of humans not Catholic priests that abstain. We have a biological need to reproduce - people are going to have sex be it for children or pleasure. Supply them with condoms and allow them to have a chance.

mickoneill30

prinz wrote: »

If you argue that contraception doesn't encourage sexual activity - then all hope is lost.

Again with the making stuff up. I didn't argue that. Look if you want to type stuff that you can argue against then fire ahead. Just stop typing stuff as if that is what I or anybody else is arguing because it suits you.

prinz wrote: »

The only 100% foolproof method to guard against AIDS is abstention.

State the obvious. I agree with you there though. Of course if a doctor uses a dirty needle you can get it too. So maybe it's not 100%

prinz wrote: »

Frankly if the choice was no sex, or sex with a condom in a country ravaged by AIDS, I'm enough of a human being to choose no sex.

If you were living in Africa and had no hope of ever leaving then you'd be celibate for the rest of your life. That's not much of a life though.

prinz

Gazza22 wrote: »

What do they make up?



This is the kind of crap that i'm talking about, that the church keeps dishing out. It's not condoms that are aiding the spread of infectious disease's - it's ultimately the church. The church makes up their own "scientific" views on how condoms work and how STD's are spread.



I think you are the one that is lost prinz, you and your church...



Yes well the world isn't quite as black & white as that prinz. We are a race of humans not Catholic priests that abstain. We have a biological need to reproduce - people are going to have sex be it for children or pleasure. Supply them with condoms and allow them to have a chance.

(a) I'm not catholic (b) I have had sex in the past, and I thank god i sdidnt catch anything or knock anyone up but have made up my mind to remain celibate until I marry having watched friends go through the pain of visits to clinics for checks, pregnancy scares etc, you know what its not worth a one night stand, or cheating or whatever (c) i can sleep at night knowing im not going to take the chance of getting AIDS just because i was depserate to get the leg over, I am not subect to my animal instincts. It's called will power.

The Pope isnt going to promote contraception. There is no reason why he should. And given that scientific studies have shown that generally speaking the more prevalent contraception use is, the more prevalent are STDs STIs unplanned pregnancies, then he is quite within his right to say what he said.

youcrazyjesus!

prinz wrote: »

What exactly did he 'make up' ?

That condoms increase the AIDS problem. This is not based in reality or science.

Condoms/Contraception encourages sex = increased likelihood of AIDS spreading.

Having sexual urges and genitalia, ie being a human being, causes sex, not condoms.

If you argue that contraception doesn't encourage sexual activity - then all hope is lost.

If you argue that using a medical device that is scientifically proven to prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases increases the problem of sexually transmitted diseases then all hope is lost. It's pure illogic. Condoms are a useful tool. Changing people's behaviours, changing culture is a completely separate issue which every group, yes even though I despise them the Catholic Church are included, has a right to be involved in. But when somebody goes from that to contradicting science and making wildly irresponsible statements that have absolutely no basis in reality, which then results in increased transmission rates and behaviour like that of the African Bishop in the BBC link above, then it becomes a very serious problem. In my opinion it's a very serious criminal offence.

The only 100% foolproof method to guard against AIDS is abstention.

Nobody on planet earth disagrees with this statement.

As promoted by the Catholic Church.

And promoted by 100% of AIDS activists and medical people as the number one prevention tool. The Catholic Church is not special on this front. Where they differ is in recognising reality; that 100% of people won't abstain from having sex. If they did human beings would become extinct. So these people also say that if you can't or won't abstain, you should stay faithful to one partner AND you should use a condom no matter who you're having sex with.

Frankly if the choice was no sex, or sex with a condom in a country ravaged by AIDS, I'm enough of a human being to choose no sex.

You don't live there. It's not your society. People are uneducated in many of these countries and, sadly, interventions like described above in the BBC article and statements like the Pope has made will do absolutely nothing to educate people. In fact it will further confuse the issues and create more illness and misery. If your name is Ratzinger, this is preferable as long as obscure religious doctrine is observed. To the rest of us it is not acceptable.

mickoneill30

[QUOTE=prinz;59460831And given that scientific studies have shown that generally speaking the more prevalent contraception use is, the more prevalent are STDs STIs unplanned pregnancies, then he is quite within his right to say what he said.[/QUOTE]

Hang on there a second. The more prevalent contraception is the more unplanned pregnancies there are. It's my turn to be confused.

Can you link to these scientific studies? I can't find them with Google but I'm probably looking in the wrong places, but as you've already seen them it should be handy enough to link to.

youcrazyjesus!

prinz wrote: »

And given that scientific studies have shown that generally speaking the more prevalent contraception use is, the more prevalent are STDs STIs unplanned pregnancies, then he is quite within his right to say what he said.

Think for a second. That's like saying home alarm system sales cause violent crime.

Gazza22

prinz wrote: »

(a) I'm not catholic (b) I have had sex in the past, and I thank god i sdidnt catch anything or knock anyone up but have made up my mind to remain celibate until I marry having watched friends go through the pain of visits to clinics for checks, pregnancy scares etc, you know what its not worth a one night stand, or cheating or whatever (c) i can sleep at night knowing im not going to take the chance of getting AIDS just because i was depserate to get the leg over, I am not subect to my animal instincts. It's called will power.

The Pope isnt going to promote contraception. There is no reason why he should. And given that scientific studies have shown that generally speaking the more prevalent contraception use is, the more prevalent are STDs STIs unplanned pregnancies, then he is quite within his right to say what he said.

tbh that "you and your church" was hastily written, i apologise for that as i made an unfounded assumption there.

Gazza22 wrote:

Yes well the world isn't quite as black & white as that prinz. We are a race of humans not Catholic priests that abstain. We have a biological need to reproduce - people are going to have sex be it for children or pleasure. Supply them with condoms and allow them to have a chance.

There was no need to give your personal experience on this, i wasn't aiming it at you personally. It was in response to your remark that if you were in an infectious environment, you would choose to abstain rather than have sex with a condom. I merely said things are not that simple - we do have a biological need to reproduce i.e have sex be it with a condom or not.

No i disagree the church, pope or anyone for that matter should not be allowed to say what he said when there is a epidemic at hand and uneducated people are looking to him as a leader. So it's better to not have condoms? I'm sorry i fail to see the logic in that. Condoms allow a chance of protection.

Those studies were propably performed by another one of his crackpot Cardinal's who don't know what they are talking about, openly challenging an organisation like the WHO who actually know what they are talking about.

Can you reference these studies please? If not, stop using them in your arguments.

postcynical

Never trust a fool to report on what an intelligent man was saying...

I checked on the vatican website and found this:
http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/23556.php?index=23556&lang=en

part of an interview wrote:

Domanda: Santità, tra i molti mali che travagliano l’Africa, vi è anche e in particolare quello della diffusione dell’Aids. La posizione della Chiesa cattolica sul modo di lottare contro di esso viene spesso considerata non realistica e non efficace. Lei affronterà questo tema, durante il viaggio? Très Saint Père, Vous serait-il possible de répondre en français à cette question?
Papa: Io direi il contrario: penso che la realtà più efficiente, più presente sul fronte della lotta contro l’Aids sia proprio la Chiesa cattolica, con i suoi movimenti, con le sue diverse realtà. Penso alla Comunità di Sant’Egidio che fa tanto, visibilmente e anche invisibilmente, per la lotta contro l’Aids, ai Camilliani, a tutte le Suore che sono a disposizione dei malati … Direi che non si può superare questo problema dell’Aids solo con slogan pubblicitari. Se non c’è l’anima, se gli africani non si aiutano, non si può risolvere il flagello con la distribuzione di preservativi: al contrario, il rischio è di aumentare il problema. La soluzione può trovarsi solo in un duplice impegno: il primo, una umanizzazione della sessualità, cioè un rinnovo spirituale e umano che porti con sé un nuovo modo di comportarsi l’uno con l’altro, e secondo, una vera amicizia anche e soprattutto per le persone sofferenti, la disponibilità, anche con sacrifici, con rinunce personali, ad essere con i sofferenti. E questi sono i fattori che aiutano e che portano visibili progressi. Perciò, direi questa nostra duplice forza di rinnovare l’uomo interiormente, di dare forza spirituale e umana per un comportamento giusto nei confronti del proprio corpo e di quello dell’altro, e questa capacità di soffrire con i sofferenti, di rimanere presente nelle situazioni di prova. Mi sembra che questa sia la giusta risposta, e la Chiesa fa questo e così offre un contributo grandissimo ed importante. Ringraziamo tutti coloro che lo fanno.

Firstly, the Pope says "al contrario, il rischio è di aumentare il problema." which suggests that he is not saying that the usage of condoms is scientifically proven to increase the prevalance of aids.

Secondly, the Catholic church is active on the gound in Africa doing something about this awful affliction. People who pontificate from their keyboards without giving any practical solutions are out of line if they indulge in church-bashing on this issue.

Thirdly, the condoms are not free. They are paid for. Some "donations to charity to fight aids" are much encouraged by condom manufacturers. This is not a major point though.

Fourthly, the Pope actually offers a vision for an Aids-free Africa, with certain communities taking responsibility to reform their practices, rather than the band-aid vision where African males copulate responsibly via their free rubber sheaths.

Fifthly, the Pope is, as usual, thinking at a deeper level to where his critics are challenging him. He is addressing the problem in a broad manner. In the particular instance where a husband has Aids, it is a fact that Catholic nurses and doctors train the husband to use a condom. The justification being that it is the best of a bad situation. However the Pope sees a vision where these bad situations do not arise.

Sixthly, although we in the first world may see it as impractical and ungratifying (for now!), Christ's ideal of human love, as promoted tirelessly by the Pope, is compromised by the commodification of people and their sexualities. Instead of our sexuality being a glorious and holy gift from God, it can be debased in the world and trivialised, for a pleasure, granted, but an unfulfilling pleasure. Rightly or wrongly, the Church views condoms as a barrier to true intimacy and as a means to cheapening the person's sexuality. And hence cheapening their personhood. Hence cheapening their self-respect and their respect for others. And hence undermining the capacity for Christ's ideal of love to flourish in a person. And hence undermining the Pope's very message. That's one reason why he should not advocate the use of condoms. Even if Christians do not condemn the usage of condoms, I don't know of many Christians who see them as ideal.

Bear in mind that we are all called to holiness, that we are all children of God and that a duty of Christian leaders is to bring us all to holiness. The Pope actually cares about African people, possibly more so than the sellers of condoms to these "charities".