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

AtomicHorror

postcynical wrote: »

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

A little uncalled-for.

postcynical wrote: »

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.

And so the semantic debate begins. That piece of Italian means "on the contrary, it (condom usage) risks increasing the problem". He isn't specifically claiming that this is established or scientifically supported, but he's still making an assertion that has no basis in fact. Given that what the Pope says is taken as fact by Catholics and given that many will not see the distinction between the Pope speculating and the Pope making a specific claim, it is irresponsible for him to make assertions (be they weasel-worded or not) that are not backed up with good evidence.

postcynical wrote: »

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.

By that logic, you sitting behind your own keyboard have no right to defend the Church in this matter. A good thing your logic is false, or none of us could hold opinions outside of our immediate experience and this forum would be silent.

postcynical wrote: »

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.

Or a relevant one. We're concerned with the Pope's words.

postcynical wrote: »

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.

Straw man. Nobody here is advocating condoms alone as a solution to the HIV epidemic.

postcynical wrote: »

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.

His claim is that widespread availability and use of condoms may increase the HIV problem in Africa. Simple as. This is either true or false.

postcynical wrote: »

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.

They are entitled to that belief, however they are not entitled to use misinformation about AIDS as an incentive towards that agenda.

postcynical wrote: »

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.

Failing to advocate the use of condoms and denying their capacity to reduce the rate of HIV infections are not the same thing. The Pope is attempting (perhaps in mere ignorance) to use a scare tactic to bolster the argument you are making.

Fanny Cradock

Has anybody got any evidence about the effects that the prevalence of contraception has of the incidences of HIV infection?

AtomicHorror

prinz wrote: »

What exactly did he 'make up' ?
Condoms/Contraception encourages sex = increased likelihood of AIDS spreading.

Sex increases the risk of HIV transmission. Condoms reduce the rate of HIV transmission (on a case per case basis). If condoms also increase the rate of sexual promiscuity, it does not automatically follow that condoms overall increase the rate of HIV infections unless the increase in promiscuity rates is sufficient to push the infection rate to above that in a condom-free population. If we very roughly do the maths on this it might illustrate better:

x = % absolute risk of HIV transmission during a sexual act
y = % absolute risk of HIV transmission during a sexual act using a condom
z = fold promiscuity rate (ie 1=normal rate, 2 = 2x the normal rate)

For a population of non condom users, the risk of HIV infection (R1) is something like:

R1 = z(x)

For a population of condom users, the risk (R2) is:

R2 = z(y)

So, in order for your claim above to be true we need to find the value for z that makes R2 greater than or equal to R1 and then find out if condoms actually increase the rate of promiscuity to that degree. We can estimate x to be about 5% and y to be about 1% (Weller SC, Davis-Beaty K, 2002).

Which means that for R1 = R2, we'd need z = 5. This means that the rate of promiscuity for condom users would need to be 5 times that of non-condom users in order to get equal rates of HIV transmission. In order for condoms to be more risky, the promiscuity increase would need to be greater than 5 times higher.

As I said, this is all very rough indeed (I haven't properly defined promiscuity or separated it properly from the rate of sexual encounters and also the x and y values are for sexual encounters in couples where 1 partner has HIV), but you get the idea. I'll confess that I don't know how much condom usage increases promiscuity in a population, though I'd imagine it varies wildly depending on many factors. But can you show me evidence from any population at all that condoms in themselves cause the rate of sexual promiscuity to increase five fold or greater?

prinz wrote: »

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

Maybe it does, but the question is whether it increases it enough to nullify the protective effects of the contraception itself.

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Has anybody got any evidence about the effects that the prevalence of contraception has of the incidences of HIV infection?

Condoms reduce the incidence by 80% (from about 5% to 1%). The source on that is a Cochrane Library meta-analysis which I linked in the previous post.

Fanny Cradock

I'm really puzzled by the Pope's suggestion that condoms are part of the problem when the evidence presented here suggests otherwise. I would love to know if he is basing this on something other the RCC doctrine.

Rev Hellfire

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm really puzzled by the Pope's suggestion that condoms are part of the problem when the evidence presented here suggests otherwise.

If only the pope read the A&A and Christianity forums on boards.ie, the wealth of scientific and theological expertise he is missing out on must be one the great injustices of the world.

I blame Dades, PDN and fanny, thee should be doing more to promote it to his holiness !

Fanny Cradock

Yeah, I'll have a word in his ear when I see him next in Lapellos.

AtomicHorror

So, because I can't find data on how condoms influence promiscuity, I checked about for some figures on how condom advocacy programmes influence the overall rate of HIV infection. I'll try to post more later, but here's what I've found so far:

Decreasing incidence of HIV and sexually transmitted diseases in young Thai men: evidence for success of the HIV/AIDS control and prevention program

This study examined rates of HIV infection in male soldiers as a program called "100% condom" was introduced in Thailand. The aim of the program was to promote condom usage in sex workers and the public with the aim of getting to 100% condom usage in commercial sexual encounters. The program achieved a peak of 90% condom usage. The rate of HIV infections was reduced by roughly 75%.

A similar study in Zaire (abstract here) showed a reduction in HIV transmission rates of about 60%. The effect of condoms alone in this study is harder to determine since the reduction reflects a combination of condom promotion as well as general STD screening and treatment.

Rev Hellfire

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The effect of condoms alone in this study is harder to determine since the reduction reflects a combination of condom promotion as well as general STD screening and treatment.

You'd imagine that two would always be intrinsically linked. While the availability of condoms may be an issue, you'd imagine that the willingness of people to use them would be more of a one. Lets face it here in Ireland where they are for all intensive purposes available on demand there still can be a reluctance in some quarters to use them.
As always it comes down to education education.

AtomicHorror

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

You'd imagine that two would always be intrinsically linked. While the availability of condoms may be an issue, you'd imagine that the willingness of people to use them would be more of a one. Lets face it here in Ireland where they are for all intensive purposes available on demand there still can be a reluctance in some quarters to use them.
As always it comes down to education education.

Yes- very much so. As well as good information on their efficacy in protecting against STDs. 80% protection reflects general use without accounting for "correct use". So the education thing will boost that 80% to more like 90%. And knowledge of the still-present (albeit smaller) risk will help people recognise the importance of a responsible sex life including STD testing.

homer911

Interesting blog on the subject from Christianity Today

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2009/03/why_the_pope_is.html

AtomicHorror

homer911 wrote: »

Interesting blog on the subject from Christianity Today

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2009/03/why_the_pope_is.html

Wow. There's a lot wrong with that guy's thinking. Let's take his main points:

Timothy C. Morgan wrote:

1. People who have lots of sex with lots of partners do not use condoms consistently every single time.

This is not a flaw in condoms or condom advocacy programs themselves. The use of condoms at all in this situation will still reduce the transmission rates of HIV in each single case involving one HIV positive partner by 80%, and advocacy programs and greater access will increase condom usage and thus further reduce that rate.

Timothy C. Morgan wrote:

2. The use of condoms creates a false sense of security for people who are most at risk of getting or transmitting HIV.

Again, this is not a flaw in condom use itself. Part of the solution is full education on how well condoms work to prevent HIV. Education removes the false sense of security and replaces it with an appropriately cautious one.

Timothy C. Morgan wrote:

3. As the rate of HIV infection grows in a general population, it spreads much more quickly than condoms can be distributed.

Assuming this is true, how is that a justification for not promoting condom use or distribution? If the rate of HIV transmission is higher than the rate of condom distribution then the overall transmission rate will certainly continue to grow, however it will grow more slowly if condoms are used.

Timothy C. Morgan wrote:

4. Programs to distribute condoms for free to all parties are continually subject to political, religious, ethnic, and cultural barriers that blunt their effectiveness.

This is, once again, nothing to do with condoms themselves. If the Pope were calling for reforms to condom distribution programs to remove these barriers, then he might have a point. But that is not what he is saying at all.

Timothy C. Morgan wrote:

5. Government-supported efforts to promote condom use have the result (intentional or unintentional) of also promoting extra- or pre-marital sexual relations, also putting a population at risk of other sexually transmitted diseases.

Citation needed, as Wikipedia would say. The figures I've shown on this thread show that Government sponsored condom advocacy programs reduce HIV infection rates.

Phototoxin

Yes- very much so. As well as good information on their efficacy in protecting against STDs. 80% protection reflects general use without accounting for "correct use". So the education thing will boost that 80% to more like 90%. And knowledge of the still-present (albeit smaller) risk will help people recognise the importance of a responsible sex life including STD testing.

Its more like 99% theroetical protection but 85% in actual use from a study I read yonks ago.

postcynical

AtomicHorror wrote: »

A little uncalled-for.

It needed saying. Elements of the media attributed ridiculous claims to the Pope around Christmas time that gays were a greater threat than environmental damage. It turns out that this wasn't what he had said, but the damage was done.

And so the semantic debate begins. That piece of Italian means "on the contrary, it (condom usage) risks increasing the problem". He isn't specifically claiming that this is established or scientifically supported, but he's still making an assertion that has no basis in fact.

He is not making a strong assertion at all, as you can clearly see. He is merely warning that the situation might not be as clearcut and as simple as some commentators think it is. I've read some of your posts on biology and you are well aware of this phenomenon. It was not my intention to introduce an argument in semantics.

Given that what the Pope says is taken as fact by Catholics and given that many will not see the distinction between the Pope speculating and the Pope making a specific claim, it is irresponsible for him to make assertions (be they weasel-worded or not) that are not backed up with good evidence.

What the Pope says is taken with the same healthy skepticism and respect that's due to any learned person speaking in their area of expertise.

For a theologian to make a claim that follows from a considered and holistic philosophy is not irresponsible, even if the conclusion is unpopular. No more than it would be irresponsible for a good scientist to make a deduction based on a model rather than to make a generalisation based on evidence. There's a whole thread on one such deduction here.

By that logic, you sitting behind your own keyboard have no right to defend the Church in this matter. A good thing your logic is false, or none of us could hold opinions outside of our immediate experience and this forum would be silent.

I said "People who pontificate from their keyboards without giving any practical solutions are out of line if they indulge in church-bashing on this issue."
You're reading my post a bit too quickly, or "my logic" has eluded you. I have no gripe with people arguing about the effects this pronouncement might have on African health, on the methods of fighting aids, on the wisdom of the Church's stance or the Pope's fidelity to that stance. What is out of line IMO though is to attack gratuitously the Church and her work in Africa, even if her teaching is wrong on this issue. Challenge the church's stance on this issue, but don't deny the good work that is done by this same church, by people inspired by Christ.

Straw man. Nobody here is advocating condoms alone as a solution to the HIV epidemic.

With respect, this is not a straw man but rather the crux of the issue. The Pope has outlined a clear solution to the HIV epidemic, which is inspired by people following Biblical guidelines. You already know the argument and it may well be impractical.

However, what's the alternative proposal to which you allude? What are the complementary procedures that are being advocated in conjunction with condoms as a solution to the HIV epidemic? Are they mutually consistent? Are they practical? Or are they an ad-hoc patchwork of measures to limit the damage while we wait for an affordable cure? I'm not prejudging the proposals, only highlighting that the Pope has identified one method of overcoming this epidemic, which coincides with the Church's mission to build God's kingdom in Africa (and elsewhere on Earth).

His claim is that widespread availability and use of condoms may increase the HIV problem in Africa. Simple as. This is either true or false.

It is patently true that widespread availability and use of condoms may increase the HIV problem in Africa. Similarly they may not. You don't have the answers and neither do I. The key point is that it is worth investigating as I think you attempt in a subsequent post to this.

They are entitled to that belief, however they are not entitled to use misinformation about AIDS as an incentive towards that agenda.

Agreed. That would be sinful.

Failing to advocate the use of condoms and denying their capacity to reduce the rate of HIV infections are not the same thing. The Pope is attempting (perhaps in mere ignorance) to use a scare tactic to bolster the argument you are making.

I am not sure if he even denied their capacity to reduce the rate of HIV infections in individual cases. He is claiming that the usage of condoms in general may be counterproductive. You accuse me of making an argument; I am making the argument that the situation might not be as clearcut as some commentators might think. It merits proper investigation to find the best way to overcome this epidemic, if the simplest solution is unwanted.

The only facts so far ascertained are: The Catholic Church considers condom usage immoral; The Pope reiterates this; Condoms have not been proven an effective method to counteract the spread of HIV in Africa; The Pope fails to endorse their usage and warns us that despite popular belief their widespread use (or misuse) may actually be counterproductive. I don't see why the Pope should be attacked for his consistent stance, except perhaps for some mischievous materialist agenda.

postcynical

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Which means that for R1 = R2, we'd need z = 5. This means that the rate of promiscuity for condom users would need to be 5 times that of non-condom users in order to get equal rates of HIV transmission. In order for condoms to be more risky, the promiscuity increase would need to be greater than 5 times higher.
[..]

But can you show me evidence from any population at all that condoms in themselves cause the rate of sexual promiscuity to increase five fold or greater?

From a practical point of view, these are exactly the kinds of questions that should be explored.

Here's an idea that might be interesting and could give us a ball park figure based on Irish experiences. Take a typical sexually active single male, who is not fussy about condom use. Suppose he has N sexual encounters. His preference is for 'au naturel' but if his partner insists he's happy to use a condom. Suppose x of his encounters are 'au naturel' and y of them are with a condom. (Sorry about using x and y in a different sense to your post.) Then your rate of increased promiscuity due to availability of condoms would be estimated at z= y/x.

I'm pretty sure such males exist:pac: I'd also bet that z>5 for Ireland.

AtomicHorror

postcynical wrote: »

I'm pretty sure such males exist:pac: I'd also bet that z>5 for Ireland.

Well, unless the value is 5 times greater in condom users than in non-condom users then it makes no difference!

Spotted a mistake in my formulae above. I use the same z for the two different R calculations which means they can't be different. Oops! What I said still stands, for condoms to make the problem worse they'd have to encourage 5x promiscuity.

lynsalot

So i'm not sinning by having sex with my husband without using condoms - but a priest molesting and raping a school boy is what exactly... hiv risk or no hiv risk

this latest publication from the church just proves what an antecrated set of beliefs are being used in a society that no longer believes them. When are the church going to learn?

Fanny Cradock

Now why exactly do you feel the need to bring up child molestation in this case? Actually, don't answer that, just keep it on topic.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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.

I'd imagine that the church has evolved itself into a cul-de-sac.

Traditionally, it's been against contraception since contraception prevents kids from being born and authoritarian religions like catholicism seem to thrive best when transmitted from parents to kids (free-wheeling evangelical protestantism is the opposite and seems to thrive best when transmitted within generations, rather than across them).

Hence, it's maneuvered itself into a messy position. On the one hand, for political reasons, it can't reverse it's anti-contraception message -- it's been banging on about this for many, many years and would lose a lot of face if it reversed its position. While on the other hand, the evidence that their message is causing more people to die than would otherwise be the case is overwhelming, so the Vatican chooses to discredit or more simply, just ignore the evidence.

At the root of it all, I suspect, is Ratzinger's belief that, as pope, he is sincerely promulgating the sexual policy of the creator of the universe (a weird enough idea in itself). And added to the political concerns above, one must also add a substantial dose of Vatican Group Think which makes it unlikely that he's going to find it possible to give any serious thought to the possibility that he's wrong, or be encouraged to do so by anybody.

So, I can't imagine that his position is going to change very much, regardless of the number of people who contract AIDS because they believe that using condoms is "immoral".

AtomicHorror

postcynical wrote: »

It needed saying. Elements of the media attributed ridiculous claims to the Pope around Christmas time that gays were a greater threat than environmental damage. It turns out that this wasn't what he had said, but the damage was done.

That's not the issue under discussion here. The Pope has made a false assertion. The media treatment of that is irrelevant to that point.

postcynical wrote: »

He is not making a strong assertion at all, as you can clearly see. He is merely warning that the situation might not be as clearcut and as simple as some commentators think it is.

The commentators are not the issue. The people on the ground trying to stop the HIV epidemic in Africa are fully aware of the subtleties of this situation. He's casting doubt on the role that condoms play in preventing the spread of HIV. Let me be clear. There's absolutely no call for such doubt based on the available evidence. His comment, weak or strong, is unjustified and irresponsible. Given the magnitude of the problem under discussion, the lives that hang in the balance, even uncertain statements can do considerable damage. Given by a figure of such authority, that effect is greatly magnified.

Weak assertion or strong is not the issue here. Correct or incorrect, justified or unjustified. Those are the issues.

postcynical wrote: »

What the Pope says is taken with the same healthy skepticism and respect that's due to any learned person speaking in their area of expertise.

Total nonsense. The Pope's word is not taken with scepticism by devout Catholics. His area of expertise is not virology.

postcynical wrote: »

For a theologian to make a claim that follows from a considered and holistic philosophy is not irresponsible, even if the conclusion is unpopular.

When empirical evidence to the contrary exists and is publicly available, it is irresponsible to make such claims to the public without new and compelling evidence. When the potential damage in the event of being wrong is significant, with that evidence so readily available and so strong, it is irresponsible.

postcynical wrote: »

No more than it would be irresponsible for a good scientist to make a deduction based on a model rather than to make a generalisation based on evidence. There's a whole thread on one such deduction here.

Scientists who present unfounded, untested or refuted hypotheses to the public as fact get duly roasted. When those hypotheses relate to public health, they lose their jobs and their reputations are damaged. When lives hang in the balance, they are rightly vilified.

postcynical wrote: »

With respect, this is not a straw man but rather the crux of the issue. The Pope has outlined a clear solution to the HIV epidemic, which is inspired by people following Biblical guidelines. You already know the argument and it may well be impractical.

You implied that the alternative being presented is condom advocacy alone. It is not. That is misrepresenting the position of those who advocate greater access to condoms and promotion of their use.

postcynical wrote: »

However, what's the alternative proposal to which you allude? What are the complementary procedures that are being advocated in conjunction with condoms as a solution to the HIV epidemic? Are they mutually consistent? Are they practical? Or are they an ad-hoc patchwork of measures to limit the damage while we wait for an affordable cure?

Of course programmes to combat AIDS must approach the problem along many avenues. Preventative medical, prophylactic medical, educational, political, cultural. But suppose for a moment they are ad hoc or impractical. Does this lessen the protective effect of condoms? Does the lack of an educational framework for them to work in conjunction with make them an active part of the problem?

Let me put it this way. Imagine there's an outbreak of some bacterial meningitis spread merely by kissing. Would increasing awareness and access to antibiotics be "part of the problem" if the supporting framework were not in place? Or would this merely make the antibiotics less effective than we desire? At worst we could call the antibiotics "useless" in this case, surely. Though through no fault of their own. But part of the problem? Even if some then say that the availability of antibiotics makes people feel secure to kiss more, does that make the antibiotics themselves the problem? Should we condemn antibiotics or does it make more sense to focus on that framework?

postcynical wrote: »

I'm not prejudging the proposals, only highlighting that the Pope has identified one method of overcoming this epidemic, which coincides with the Church's mission to build God's kingdom in Africa (and elsewhere on Earth).

Highlighting positives would be no issue. The Pope has also decided to once again undermine a proven preventative.

postcynical wrote: »

It is patently true that widespread availability and use of condoms may increase the HIV problem in Africa. Similarly they may not. You don't have the answers and neither do I. The key point is that it is worth investigating as I think you attempt in a subsequent post to this.

It has already been demonstrated in Zaire that this is untrue. And in Uganda. They're both in Africa. How many times do we need to re-test the hypothesis before we ditch it? Every country in Africa? The Pope might as well have said "The MMR vaccine may cause autism". Sure there's a possibility, however there are also two dozen peer-reviewed studies refuting it as well as many lives at stake. At least the MMR scare won't kill millions.

postcynical wrote: »

The Pope fails to endorse their usage and warns us that despite popular belief their widespread use (or misuse) may actually be counterproductive. I don't see why the Pope should be attacked for his consistent stance, except perhaps for some mischievous materialist agenda.

Or because the scientific evidence refutes his position and people are dying because the believe him? Materialist agenda? Take it to the Conspiracy Theories forum.

postcynical

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Well, unless the value is 5 times greater in condom users than in non-condom users then it makes no difference!

Well in the scenario I described, if a sexually active single male who prefers unprotected sex counts his conquests and the number of incidents of condom-protected sex is five times higher than the number of instances of condom-free sex then this would give some kind of estimate. Under these circumstances the protected sex would not have occured in the absence of condoms.

AtomicHorror

postcynical wrote: »

Well in the scenario I described, if a sexually active single male who prefers unprotected sex counts his conquests and the number of incidents of condom-protected sex is five times higher than the number of instances of condom-free sex then this would give some kind of estimate.

What would it give an estimate of exactly? Only the proportion of protected and unprotected sexual encounters that a guy just like this guy would have if condoms were available. What do we learn from that? Not much.

postcynical wrote: »

Under these circumstances the protected sex would not have occured in the absence of condoms.

Why not? That assumes that the guy would not have had any unprotected sex to compensate for his inability to have protected sex. How can you be certain that this would indeed be true based on a single case with no negative controls? In the absence of condoms, perhaps this fellow would have 20% more unprotected sexual encounters. We need only a small increase in unprotected encounters to pass out the risk of protected sex. We have nothing, no hypothetical entirely unprotected copy of this guy, to compare to. Even if we did, it would still just be a comparison of one person, not of people in general.

That's why we use large study groups with groups that use condoms and those that don't. That's the only way to test your claim here. The single case is just meaningless.

postcynical

This reply will get long so I'll be selective.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Total nonsense. The Pope's word is not taken with scepticism by devout Catholics. His area of expertise is not virology.

It's fair to say that he is trusted by devout Catholics, as a reputable scientist would have some initial trust from her peers but both are open to question from their audience. Here is one issue which highlights this fact; Many Catholics don't agree with the church's stance on contraception.

As you can read from the interview to which I linked, he was not speaking on virology but on church matters. He did not pretend to be an authority on virology and his interest in the problems of Africa go beyond the mere prevalance rate of HIV, although he identified this as the most pressing issue.

Scientists who present unfounded, untested or refuted hypotheses to the public as fact get duly roasted. When those hypotheses relate to public health, they lose their jobs and their reputations are damaged. When lives hang in the balance, they are rightly vilified.

And rightly so. We might have to revert to semantics again though if you think the Pope presented any assertion about condoms as fact in the speech above.

You implied that the alternative being presented is condom advocacy alone. It is not. That is misrepresenting the position of those who advocate greater access to condoms and promotion of their use.

I don't mean to misrepresent anyone's position. The alternative position is often some version of Christianity-lite (encourage the practice of faithful monogamy like in the Bible but without the supernatural reasons for so doing) combined with sex education (condoms included) and expensive medicines. Personally I see this as an expensive bandaid as it has no sustainable impact unless a miracle cheap cure comes about. Very few people are willing to go out to the remote communities to preach this lifestyle change to the high risk populations. Certainly not on a voluntary basis the way Christians often responded.

Of course programmes to combat AIDS must approach the problem along many avenues. Preventative medical, prophylactic medical, educational, political, cultural. But suppose for a moment they are ad hoc or impractical. Does this lessen the protective effect of condoms? Does the lack of an educational framework for them to work in conjunction with make them an active part of the problem?

It can be. Many practicing educators and medics are Christians. The status quo solution would see these people promoting a practice which goes against some of their beliefs.

Let me put it this way. Imagine there's an outbreak of some bacterial meningitis spread merely by kissing. Would increasing awareness and access to antibiotics be "part of the problem" if the supporting framework were not in place? Or would this merely make the antibiotics less effective than we desire? At worst we could call the antibiotics "useless" in this case, surely. Though through no fault of their own. But part of the problem? Even if some then say that the availability of antibiotics makes people feel secure to kiss more, does that make the antibiotics themselves the problem? Should we condemn antibiotics or does it make more sense to focus on that framework?

I understand your argument perfectly. It is not a direct analogy. The problem here is that the promotion of condoms is seen to undermine the Christian demand for faithful monogamous permanent relationships. There are two conflicting messages. An analogy in your situation would be if the "doctor" was simultaneously recommending homeopathic cures and modern antibacteria, which independently might have their merits but combined might undermine each other.

It has already been demonstrated in Zaire that this is untrue. And in Uganda. They're both in Africa. How many times do we need to re-test the hypothesis before we ditch it? Every country in Africa? The Pope might as well have said "The MMR vaccine may cause autism". Sure there's a possibility, however there are also two dozen peer-reviewed studies refuting it as well as many lives at stake. At least the MMR scare won't kill millions.

If it has been proven then I would expect some compromise statement from the Pope. I still remain to be convinced though that preaching ideal Christian love and encouraging the widespread usage of condoms are not contradictory.

Or because the scientific evidence refutes his position and people are dying because the believe him? Materialist agenda? Take it to the Conspiracy Theories forum.

No interest in CTs. Just wondering who benefits, that's all. However, the melodramatics about dying children do not stand up to the obvious point that if communities followed the Pope's teachings on condoms, why would they not follow Christ's teachings on appropriate carnal intimacy? The Pope is only preaching to his flock. Or speaking to the media in this case.

Run_to_da_hills

in an unprecedented move the Vatican has now backtracked over Pope's condom stance.

It is very rare for the Vatican to go back on the word of any pontiff as we are all led to believe that the Pope is inflammable.

This is more embarrassing for the Catholic Church than Fina Fail's decision to backtrack over the pensioners medical card issue in the last budget. :pac:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5934912.ece

Gazza22

Interesting, they back tracked pretty quickly too.

postcynical wrote: »

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

Don't always believe what you read on the Vatican website then postcynical. That version was a piece of material from the original interview that the Vatican cronie's edited for this so-called intelligent man.... :rolleyes:

Nodin

robindch wrote: »

I'd imagine that the church has evolved itself into a cul-de-sac.

Traditionally, it's been against contraception since contraception prevents kids from being born and authoritarian religions like catholicism seem to thrive best when transmitted from parents to kids (free-wheeling evangelical protestantism is the opposite and seems to thrive best when transmitted within generations, rather than across them).

Hence, it's maneuvered itself into a messy position. On the one hand, for political reasons, it can't reverse it's anti-contraception message -- it's been banging on about this for many, many years and would lose a lot of face if it reversed its position. While on the other hand, the evidence that their message is causing more people to die than would otherwise be the case is overwhelming, so the Vatican chooses to discredit or more simply, just ignore the evidence.

At the root of it all, I suspect, is Ratzinger's belief that, as pope, he is sincerely promulgating the sexual policy of the creator of the universe (a weird enough idea in itself). And added to the political concerns above, one must also add a substantial dose of Vatican Group Think which makes it unlikely that he's going to find it possible to give any serious thought to the possibility that he's wrong, or be encouraged to do so by anybody.

So, I can't imagine that his position is going to change very much, regardless of the number of people who contract AIDS because they believe that using condoms is "immoral".

In fairness they nearly dropped the ban in Vatican II except the Pope of the day vetoed it, so the idea that its somehow writ in stone for them is a bit of a myth.

However it is true to say that theres no way in hell its going to be dropped soon. The majority of high level church officials were appointed by JP II and he made sure they read from much the same hymn sheet as himself.

kelly1

Good article here in the Guardian.

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

Good article here in the Guardian.

Good article. I think I pretty much agree with it all.

AtomicHorror

postcynical wrote: »

We might have to revert to semantics again though if you think the Pope presented any assertion about condoms as fact in the speech above.

Well apparently the quote you provided is inaccurate. Italian reporters present at the time say the exact quote was:

Pope wrote:

Non si può superare questo dramma con la distribuzione di preservativi, che al contrario aumentano il problema.

Which means: This is a drama which cannot be overcome with the distribution of condoms, on the contrary they increase the problem.

No talk of "risk" there. A flat statement, and one which is demonstrably false.

postcynical wrote: »

I don't mean to misrepresent anyone's position. The alternative position is often some version of Christianity-lite (encourage the practice of faithful monogamy like in the Bible but without the supernatural reasons for so doing) combined with sex education (condoms included) and expensive medicines. Personally I see this as an expensive bandaid as it has no sustainable impact unless a miracle cheap cure comes about. Very few people are willing to go out to the remote communities to preach this lifestyle change to the high risk populations. Certainly not on a voluntary basis the way Christians often responded.

If that's true then it's an issue that needs to be addressed and has nothing to do with condoms beyond them being a part of the overall solution.

postcynical wrote: »

AtomicHorror wrote:

Does the lack of an educational framework for them to work in conjunction with make them an active part of the problem?

It can be. Many practicing educators and medics are Christians. The status quo solution would see these people promoting a practice which goes against some of their beliefs.

Again though, if condoms work then what this means is that the problem is the framework, or the Christians involved.

postcynical wrote: »

I understand your argument perfectly. It is not a direct analogy. The problem here is that the promotion of condoms is seen to undermine the Christian demand for faithful monogamous permanent relationships. There are two conflicting messages.

Yes they are. It would be another matter for the Pope to say "distributing condoms doesn't help to build a culture in which Christian ideals are upheld". That would be true. It's another matter to claim that condoms don't protect against AIDS. It's a scare tactic designed to enforce those Christian ideals as if they mattered more than lives.

postcynical wrote: »

An analogy in your situation would be if the "doctor" was simultaneously recommending homeopathic cures and modern antibacteria, which independently might have their merits but combined might undermine each other.

Sure, if condoms are the proven medicine and the Pope's position is homeopathy, a practice with no evidence in support of it.

Look, I get your analogy here, but it doesn't work. The fact of the matter is that if a doctor could be shown that homeopathy works with good evidence, he'd happily recommend it alongside other treatments. Condoms have been shown to work, and dogma does not actually prevent the Pope from accepting that fact itself. He can still argue that they should not be used if we want to preserve Christian values. But apparently, he'd rather scare people.

postcynical wrote: »

If it has been proven then I would expect some compromise statement from the Pope.

It has been proven. You can read the studies yourself, I posted one of them on the previous page and I can get you a link to the other one. Don't hold your breath for that compromise statement.

postcynical wrote: »

I still remain to be convinced though that preaching ideal Christian love and encouraging the widespread usage of condoms are not contradictory.

That's not the issue at all. The Pope could easily say: "Condoms protect against AIDS and their widespread use would curb the AIDS epidemic, however we cannot support their use as we view contraception to be incompatible with the ideals of Christianity". That's probably the reality of their position and knowledge unless they are very ignorant of the evidence, but it's not a palatable statement and it does have the same impact on Christians in Africa who fear AIDS greatly.

postcynical wrote: »

No interest in CTs. Just wondering who benefits, that's all.

Condoms are not protected by patents, they can be manufactured by literally anyone. So the only possible big corporate beneficiary (if that's what your aiming at) is the rubber industry. Big Rubber. There's a an element of the New World Order nobody saw coming.

postcynical wrote: »

However, the melodramatics about dying children do not stand up to the obvious point that if communities followed the Pope's teachings on condoms, why would they not follow Christ's teachings on appropriate carnal intimacy?

It's not as simple as that at all. It's far easier to accept your irrational fears about a thing such as condoms than it is to resist your sex drive. Not everyone in a community follows the same rules. It won't always be clear who is following those rules and who isn't. Chinese whispers mean that people who don't care about the Pope avoid condoms for reasons they don't fully understand... there is prostitution, there is rape, there is patriarchy.

postcynical wrote: »

The Pope is only preaching to his flock. Or speaking to the media in this case.

He's a powerful authority figure who has either misspoken or told a lie. If the issue here really is how condoms are being presented to the people of Africa then let that be the issue. If the issue is their incompatibility with Christian ideal, then let that be the issue. But the effectiveness of condoms? Condoms themselves protect against AIDS and there's no evidence to suggest they increase promisuity. So the Pope's statement is crap.

AtomicHorror

kelly1 wrote: »

Good article here in the Guardian.

It is a good article which highlights one of the core problem with AIDS in Africa, that of cultural attitudes towards sex and behaviour. But the programmes in Uganda and Zaire which tackled that issue did so in combination with education and contraceptive use. The fact that the cultural modification needed is essential to the success of these programs is not an indictment of condoms, but of how other programs are being planned and run. The Catholic Church is happy to accept this evidence but not the evidence which shows the part played by condom availability.

So the programmes need three elements: Cultural change, education and contraception. The programmes that are failing are the ones which ignore that first point. And the Church's response is to blame condoms.

robindch

Seems the Vatican is backtracking somewhat over the comments that Ratzinger made while on his way to Cameroon.

In the initial version posted on the Vatican's website, Ratzinger is quoted as saying that condom use would "aggravate the problem", while later versions quote him as saying that condom use would "risk aggravating the problem". Reporters who were present at the briefing corroborated the earlier version with the recordings they made of it. Since the article first appeared, a couple of other minor edits also appeared, some of which were later reverted.

The full story on what edits were made to his comments is available here.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Seems the Vatican is backtracking somewhat over the comments that Ratzinger made while on his way to Cameroon.

In the initial version posted on the Vatican's website, Ratzinger is quoted as saying that condom use would "aggravate the problem", while later versions quote him as saying that condom use would "risk aggravating the problem". Reporters who were present at the briefing corroborated the earlier version with the recordings they made of it. Since the article first appeared, a couple of other minor edits also appeared, some of which were later reverted.

The full story on what edits were made to his comments is available here.

I don't see that a subsequent editing is necessarily newsworthy. The message remains the same - if not ever so slightly softened.

Gazza22

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't see that a subsequent editing is necessarily newsworthy. The message remains the same - if not ever so slightly softened.

Actually it is very newsworthy. The message is not the same as there is a sunstantial difference between Risk and Fact. What Mr. Ratzinger stated in his original remarks is complete unfounded nonsense. Nonsense that is putting peoples health and lives on the line.

JimiTime

Gazza22 wrote: »

Nonsense that is putting peoples health and lives on the line.

As someone who has never been to Africa, or seen the situation first hand, Is education and condoms the issue? Do they really not know how Aids is spread? Maybe someone who is learned in these things could give us an insight? PDN?? I don't know from where or who I heard it, but I recall it being said, that there are loads of folk with Aids who just don't care that they're spreading it, or that they are having children born with the disease. I've also heard stories about certain tribesmen 'drying out' the woman with talc for they prefer the sensation. This then leads to more bleeding, thus a higher risk of transmission. If these things are the factor, condoms IMO, are merely a drop in the bucket. TBH, almost insignificant. Yes it makes headlines to say 'Look at how evil the Pope is', but seriously, I think it does the disservice of taking away from the real issues. Things like, 'The RCC are causing the death of so many people in Africa due to their stance on Condoms' is a common sentance I hear. In the interest of balance and fairness, maybe one should also ask, 'How many have they saved from malnutriton? AND How many have taken on board the Christian message pertaining to morality and been saved from the disease.' I do think they could take a better view on condom use, but I don't think they're this murderous group that some would paint neither. The fact that they're there in the first place should give them some credit IMO, especially since I'm tip tapping on my laptop in my cosy central heated home.

Mickeroo

JimiTime wrote: »

As someone who has never been to Africa, or seen the situation first hand, Is education and condoms the issue? Do they really not know how Aids is spread? Maybe someone who is learned in these things could give us an insight? PDN?? I don't know from where or who I heard it, but I recall it being said, that there are loads of folk with Aids who just don't care that they're spreading it, or that they are having children born with the disease. I've also heard stories about certain tribesmen 'drying out' the woman with talc for they prefer the sensation. This then leads to more bleeding, thus a higher risk of transmission. If these things are the factor, condoms IMO, are merely a drop in the bucket. TBH, almost insignificant. Yes it makes headlines to say 'Look at how evil the Pope is', but seriously, I think it does the disservice of taking away from the real issues. Things like, 'The RCC are causing the death of so many people in Africa due to their stance on Condoms' is a common sentance I hear. In the interest of balance and fairness, maybe one should also ask, 'How many have they saved from malnutriton? AND How many have taken on board the Christian message pertaining to morality and been saved from the disease.' I do think they could take a better view on condom use, but I don't think they're this murderous group that some would paint neither. The fact that they're there in the first place should give them some credit IMO, especially since I'm tip tapping on my laptop in my cosy central heated home.

I'm no fan of the RCC as you well know, but i agree with you that they have done a lot of good out there. They should make condoms available though, its certainly not going to do any harm.

As for the whole people going around spreading aids and not caring, whoever said that sounds to be a wee bit racist eh? "Those uncivilised savages running around giving eachother aids...". The talc thing i can't comment on,It sounds unlikely but I do know some tribes carry out the whole "female circumcision" so it wouldn't surprise me.

Fanny Cradock

Gazza22 wrote: »

Actually it is very newsworthy. The message is not the same as there is a sunstantial difference between Risk and Fact. What Mr. Ratzinger stated in his original remarks is complete unfounded nonsense. Nonsense that is putting peoples health and lives on the line.

OK, you are raising two issues. Firstly, you are ignoring what the Pope is saying now for a pre-revisionist message that the RCC seemingly no longer stands by. If you believe that there is a 'substantial difference' between the two messages then why are you focusing on what is no longer being said?

Secondly, his stance on prophylactics aren't unfounded. Rather his stance seems slightly more nuanced than is first apparent. Condoms aren't a panacea and there is apparently some evidence to support this. Did you read the article in the Guardian?

For my part, I think that condoms should be used alongside education and the sway of Christianity in Africa. I also think that the Pope has demonstrated that he really needs to employ a new press officer because he has put his foot it once again.

Please God some good will come out of this.

philologos

kelly1 wrote: »

Good article here in the Guardian.

Indeed good article, and it makes perfect sense too.

Fanny Cradock

Mickeroo wrote: »

As for the whole people going around spreading aids and not caring, whoever said that sounds to be a wee bit racist eh? "Those uncivilised savages running around giving eachother aids...".

Not sure about savages.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/5094708.stm

Rare all the same.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

As someone who has never been to Africa, or seen the situation first hand, Is education and condoms the issue? Do they really not know how Aids is spread? Maybe someone who is learned in these things could give us an insight? PDN?? I don't know from where or who I heard it, but I recall it being said, that there are loads of folk with Aids who just don't care that they're spreading it, or that they are having children born with the disease. I've also heard stories about certain tribesmen 'drying out' the woman with talc for they prefer the sensation. This then leads to more bleeding, thus a higher risk of transmission. If these things are the factor, condoms IMO, are merely a drop in the bucket.

There is such a mixture of beliefs and practices in Africa that I never cease to be amazed at what comes up.

One of the main reasons for lack of condom use in Africa (as in Ireland or elsewhere) is abuse of alcohol. Drunk people do stupid things, including having unprotected sex.

There are strange superstitions as well. For example, in South Africa many people believe that having sex with a virgin can cure you of HIV/AIDS. Of course all it does is put the poor virgin at risk of infection.

I disagree very strongly with the Catholic Church's position on condoms, but I think it is grossly overstated by the zealots who just love an excuse to vent their ideological spleen against anything connected with God or religion. A Catholic who obeys their church's teaching will abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage and from condom use which, while not helping the overpopulation crisis, is hardly going to create an AIDS pandemic. There are certain cases where a devout Catholic woman will abstain from condom use and then contract HIV because her husband has been playing away from home - and these women, even if they are not that numerous, are IMHO the true victims of the Vatican's policy.

Rev Hellfire

PDN wrote: »

There are certain cases where a devout Catholic woman will abstain from condom use and then contract HIV because her husband has been playing away from home - and these women, even if they are not that numerous, are IMHO the true victims of the Vatican's policy.

What an odd thing to say, surely the fault lies with the cheating spouse.

PDN

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

What an odd thing to say, surely the fault lies with the cheating spouse.

Yes, but that does not absolve the Vatican from some responsibility in that they forbade the Catholic wife from protecting herself from her husband's sin. I would place that in the same category as Gandhi telling women they shouldn't resist rape since he would class that as violence.

Imagine if a religion forbade its members from wearing seat belts in cars. Wouldn't the religion bear some responsibility for the ensuing fatalities - even while acknowledging that the primary fault lies with whoever caused each individual accident?

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

There are certain cases where a devout Catholic woman will abstain from condom use and then contract HIV because her husband has been playing away from home - and these women, even if they are not that numerous, are IMHO the true victims of the Vatican's policy.

Even in this case, I don't think a condoms will help. Why? Because I think if they are married, and the husband doesn't have the love and loyalty to stay faithful, he'll probably have unprotected sex with his wife at times too. It could be said, 'well its better than nothing', and I'd agree, but I'm not sure if its going to stop poor women like this being victims.

I wish the RCC didn't have the stand they have on condoms in Africa, but at the same time, I don't know about the condomnation (sorry, I couldn't resist:o) they recieve being justified.

PDN, as someone who has been to part of the continent, have you witnessed any damage done as a direct result of the RCC?

JimiTime

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'm no fan of the RCC as you well know, but i agree with you that they have done a lot of good out there. They should make condoms available though, its certainly not going to do any harm.

I agree and disagree. I do think that the RCC need to review their thoughts on condom use. I would not be so adamant that their introduction would do 'no harm'. Read the Guardian article for possible reasons why condoms can bring negative consaquences. The condoms themselves are not the issue.

As for the whole people going around spreading aids and not caring, whoever said that sounds to be a wee bit racist eh? "Those uncivilised savages running around giving eachother aids...".

Not really, if thats whats actually happening. Its nothing to do with race. Obviously their sexual practices are a problem, thats not racist, its merely stating a fact.

The talc thing i can't comment on,It sounds unlikely but I do know some tribes carry out the whole "female circumcision" so it wouldn't surprise me.

I'm almost positive I heard this from a Ghanaian I knew in London. He wasn't speaking of Ghana though, so maybe he was wrong.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

PDN, as someone who has been to part of the continent, have you witnessed any damage done as a direct result of the RCC?

No, I haven't. What I see is Catholic missions organisations going into rural areas where no-one else bothers to go and helping those who are suffering.

Like I say, I disagree with their policy on condoms, but I thank God that they're actually getting off their asses to help people in Africa, unlike most of those armchair critics who are howling condemnation at them.

Phototoxin

I agree and disagree. I do think that the RCC need to review their thoughts on condom use. I would not be so adamant that their introduction would do 'no harm'. Read the Guardian article for possible reasons why condoms can bring negative consaquences. The condoms themselves are not the issue.

Why does no one realise that they can't. Not without causing major schism. And they've just half arsedly welded itself with pro jew murder SSPX dude so I think they will just 'reaffirm' their beliefs. (whcih don't really change so its kida silly anyway) and it wont change for ages.

I think people wouldn't mind if priests were actually getting married. But it does seem odd to the unwashed masses that celibate men in the vatican are telling them what to do with their sex life.

One thing I would strongly disagree with is the RCC policy on suffering = good as it can unite one wiht christ. I think its rot but it woudlnt surprise me if it was another partial reason.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

There is such a mixture of beliefs and practices in Africa that I never cease to be amazed at what comes up.

One of the main reasons for lack of condom use in Africa (as in Ireland or elsewhere) is abuse of alcohol. Drunk people do stupid things, including having unprotected sex.

There are strange superstitions as well. For example, in South Africa many people believe that having sex with a virgin can cure you of HIV/AIDS. Of course all it does is put the poor virgin at risk of infection.

Which is where that need for education comes in. I gather that there's a lot of misinformation floating about, particularly in places like Zimbabwe.

PDN wrote: »

I disagree very strongly with the Catholic Church's position on condoms, but I think it is grossly overstated by the zealots who just love an excuse to vent their ideological spleen against anything connected with God or religion. A Catholic who obeys their church's teaching will abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage and from condom use which, while not helping the overpopulation crisis, is hardly going to create an AIDS pandemic. There are certain cases where a devout Catholic woman will abstain from condom use and then contract HIV because her husband has been playing away from home - and these women, even if they are not that numerous, are IMHO the true victims of the Vatican's policy.

Very well said. I tried to make that point earlier- AIDS doesn't care if your wife has been monogamous when you've been cheating. It doesn't care if she's a perfect Catholic who will never leave you despite your infidelity, that she'll never ask you to use protection even if she realises you have AIDS.

I think the exasperated and perhaps vitriolic responses reflect the the weight that the Pope's words carry in Africa. And how the words of such an authority will be abused by some and will carry through to those who don't otherwise follow Catholic ideals. Or to those who would use any excuse to dismiss condoms.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OK, you are raising two issues. Firstly, you are ignoring what the Pope is saying now for a pre-revisionist message that the RCC seemingly no longer stands by. If you believe that there is a 'substantial difference' between the two messages then why are you focusing on what is no longer being said?

Because the earlier version was the one that is now on everyone's lips including the people of Africa. Because the second version has not been so widely publicised, nor has the admission that the first version was a mistake. The news here should be as much about the fact that the Pope has admitted fallibility on this issue as it is about the falseness of both claims.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

No, I haven't. What I see is Catholic missions organisations going into rural areas where no-one else bothers to go and helping those who are suffering.

Like I say, I disagree with their policy on condoms, but I thank God that they're actually getting off their asses to help people in Africa, unlike most of those armchair critics who are howling condemnation at them.

To be fair, I don't think anyone is denying that the RCC are putting the work in. We're just confused as to the focus on condoms as a negative or potential negative element of efforts to fix the problem. If they can't justify promotion, does that mean they should be trying to undermine them?

Education about AIDS and condoms, education to change cultural attitudes and behaviour and availability of medicines and condoms are all essential parts of the solution. Take away some of these elements and the problem doesn't get solves, which is where we are now. But we don't see the Vatican warning darkly that education "could" make the problem worse.

PDN

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The news here should be as much about the fact that the Pope has admitted fallibility on this issue as it is about the falseness of both claims.

I understand that the idea of infallibility only extends to ex cathedra statements. I believe it was John XXIII who said something along the lines of: "I believe in papal infallibility - but won't catch this Pope making any infallible statements."

PDN

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The news here should be as much about the fact that the Pope has admitted fallibility on this issue as it is about the falseness of both claims.

I understand that the idea of infallibility only extends to ex cathedra statements. I believe it was John XXIII who said something along the lines of: "I believe in papal infallibility - but you won't catch this Pope making any infallible statements."

Fanny Cradock

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Because the earlier version was the one that is now on everyone's lips including the people of Africa. Because the second version has not been so widely publicised, nor has the admission that the first version was a mistake. The news here should be as much about the fact that the Pope has admitted fallibility on this issue as it is about the falseness of both claims.

You are effectively saying that we should not be talking about what the RCC is currently saying because it is not widely discussed. It would seem that such an attitude is part of the problem, no?

This becomes more relevant if you are of the opinion that there is some truth in his words rather than him spouting dangerous nonsense. So instead of having the debate about the problem and all the solutions we are left debating a comment which, for all intense purposes, has been withdrawn.

As for papal infallibility, you would have to talk to a Catholic about that.