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

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

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."

Oh I understand that this won't torpedo papal infallibility at all- that's not what I'm getting at. It's about accountability. I mean that the mistake needs to be highlighted so that the misinformation does not spread further.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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?

Not quite what I'm saying. Both statements are false and need to be refuted (though the refutation is more or less the same), in the hopes that this gets through to people who have been misinformed.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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debate about the problem and all the solutions we are left debating a comment which, for all intense purposes, has been withdrawn.

The revised comment still says essentially the same thing to the devout Catholics and without the change being highlighted I rather doubt many people will notice. How many people know that the original comment has been withdrawn? It's like when a tabloid newspaper carries a headline like "MURDERER" with someone's photo and is then forced to retract it the next week... in a tiny box on page 6. The comment is out there now and must still be dealt with.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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

I'll happily concede that point, a poor choice of words on my part.

postcynical

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.

Sorry I've only a brief moment here so won't resume our earlier argument. There's not much left to disagree with. I want to pick on this little gem though because it's a common misunderstanding.

The Pope is not some superhuman. He is human and fallible. What Catholics believe (and this is controversial amongst other Christians) is that the Catholic Church is inspired by Christ and that the Pope as the successor of Peter has the authority to speak on behalf of the whole inspired Church. As such, if the Pope speaks in this capacity on matters of dogma, he cannot be errant as it is the spirit speaking indirectly. Sorry if I've rushed that.

Papal infallibility was used only once in history, in relation to Catholic doctrine on the Assumption of Mary. Again controversial amongst nonCatholics. On other issues, the church and the Pope, as a human being, is just as fallible as the rest of us. Note also that even the humanae vitae (sp?) and rules on married clergy etc. are not taught as Catholic dogma, but as I understand it, as the best current understanding we have of God's law. Just as in science where a theory is not authoritatively proven, but is considered a decent and thoughtful work which might be open to correction.

*edit: Sorry just noticed your response above.

AtomicHorror

postcynical wrote: »

*edit: Sorry just noticed your response above.

No worries I assumed this was the case since it would otherwise mean that any tiny mistake make would screw up infallibility. I used the world fallible because one of the sources I'd read also used it- neither of us really should have!

Gazza22

JimiTime wrote: »

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 totally agree with you as regards to the good that has been/is currently being done in Africa as well as throughout the world by Christian organisations. I understand that there are many factors coming into play when one analyses the crisis in Africa, condoms are simply not the answer alone but if they were freely available and people didn't fear using them perhaps a percentage of those vulnerable would find them a valuable aid and ultimately protect them in normal circumstances.

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?

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.

I also believe that education is just as valuable to the African people as contraception and an equal balance needs to be reached, it is only when i hear comments being proclaimed by the Vatican that are frankly not true, i become worried.

The sad fact, as AtomicHorror has touched on, is that many African communites take the word of the Pope really to heart, his messages affect their lives drastically and while his original comment was withdrawn - i can make a fairly safe assumption that the revised message won't reach as many people as it should. That's why i dwelled on the 'substantial difference' but that's all i have to say on the matter now as what's been said, has been said and there's no point dwelling on the it any further. Yeah hopefully some good does come of the situation, perhaps over time.

ding_dong

Whatever your opinion is the undeniable fact is that


No sex = no aids.


As a Christian I have no problem with sex outside of marriage, but one must be conscious of the consequences if done harmfully.

The result is africa.


Without sounding brutal, but aids could be erradicated in a generation or so if people just didn't **** around with them (no pun intended).

AtomicHorror

ding_dong wrote: »

Whatever your opinion is the undeniable fact is that


No sex = no aids.


As a Christian I have no problem with sex outside of marriage, but one must be conscious of the consequences if done harmfully.

The result is africa.


Without sounding brutal, but aids could be erradicated in a generation or so if people just didn't **** around with them (no pun intended).

Sure, but no more so than getting everyone to use condoms correctly 100% of the time, this is not a practical solution but an idealistic one. The answer lies in a combination of tactics and dismissing any tactic that works is not going to help.

Benincasa

To be honest the AIDS in Africa/condoms debate is tiresome.

Somebody may already have made this argument (I haven't read all of the pages...) but in all likelihood they haven't because people tend to forget this most basic thing.

The Church suggests that we preserve sex for marriage and that we remain faithful in marriage. it also suggests that we don't use condoms.

To argue that the pope is putting people's lives at risk you have to believe that somebody who ignores the the first piece of Church teaching above by sleeping around is suddenly going to listen to the Pope and not use a condom just because the pope says so. Look, either people follow the Church or they don't. It's inconceivable that somebody who ignores the Church on the issue of sex itself would then not use a condom because they want to follow the Church.

There's nothing more to be said really

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Condoms massively reduce the incidence of HIV transmission,

Thats a question of fact and I do have qualms with the Catholic policy on Condoms

I heard an African on Newstalk take a different view and she said that aspects of the Catholic policy were worthwhile and she wouldnt like to see them stopped.

Maybe if the Catholic Groups were the only charities out there but in practice what happens is they work with other groups.

AtomicHorror

Benincasa wrote: »

The Church suggests that we preserve sex for marriage and that we remain faithful in marriage. it also suggests that we don't use condoms.

To argue that the pope is putting people's lives at risk you have to believe that somebody who ignores the the first piece of Church teaching above by sleeping around is suddenly going to listen to the Pope and not use a condom just because the pope says so. Look, either people follow the Church or they don't. It's inconceivable that somebody who ignores the Church on the issue of sex itself would then not use a condom because they want to follow the Church.

Read back through the thread for plenty of reasons why that's a pointlessly simplistic argument. You can be the best Catholic in the world and still get AIDS from your husband. The worst thing is, you can even know he's got it and in a sufficiently patriarchal society (like say almost everywhere in rural Africa) your Catholic ideals will require that you stay faithful to the jerk, never use a condom, get AIDS from him and give birth to a bunch of kids who also have AIDS.

Real life is not simple, which is why real solutions have to be complex.

Benincasa wrote: »

To be honest the AIDS in Africa/condoms debate is tiresome.

Based on your argument above I'm surprised at the implication that this is something you've really thought about, let alone debated rigorously enough to get tired of.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

Thats a question of fact and I do have qualms with the Catholic policy on Condoms

I heard an African on Newstalk take a different view and she said that aspects of the Catholic policy were worthwhile and she wouldnt like to see them stopped.

I won't dispute that, few would. I don't even mind them being anti-condoms per se. My issue is with using lies to push that agenda. If they need to rely on such tactics to make their case about condoms then it suggests their case is not a strong one.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I won't dispute that, few would. I don't even mind them being anti-condoms per se. My issue is with using lies to push that agenda. If they need to rely on such tactics to make their case about condoms then it suggests their case is not a strong one.

Onan gets cited for lots of things from masturbation to farming.

But you do get cultural values on stuff like monogamy and maybe that sleeping with a virgin will cure Aids and lots of African Governments deny the Aids crisis so its got a politics all its own.

In context there is a morality objective behind it sort of like the "if you dont have sex you wont get pregnant" arguments.

The message is geared for the observant Catholics and the Church isnt soley foccused on sex ed issues.

CDfm muses - Pope Consults AH on Easter Messagewhich reads - The sexual practices of Atheists and other Non Catholics causes the spread of the HIV virus the risk of which is lessened by using condoms which you can get from the Protestant misson or the UN down the road...if you lay down with dogs you get up with fleas **.:D:D


In practice we are told it does happen something like that according to what Ive read but -of course - who knows what people take from the message qualitatively.

**(AH I know you love Allegorical so I slipped that in Gratuitously)

Phototoxin

CDFm I think I read that in response to the criticsm the vatican has noted that only 30% of non muslim africans are Catholic. So it only applies to a 'limited audience' (..there fore don't give us stick about it)
Which I think is silly as we know that the RCC would like to be the only religon

CDfm

Phototoxin wrote: »

CDFm I think I read that in response to the criticsm the vatican has noted that only 30% of non muslim africans are Catholic. So it only applies to a 'limited audience' (..there fore don't give us stick about it)
Which I think is silly as we know that the RCC would like to be the only religon

Hey - I do think the message is irresponsible- so I am putting it in context.

The Church Message is a moral one -fine & I am Catholic.

In practice -it is not the only message and despite what we may think there are other agencies working in Africa then the Catholic Church.I am not trying to minimize its approach - just saying the issue is not soo polarised.

I am saying the church preaches on morality and there are others who deal with health issues and prevention measures to stop people being physically wreckless and catching aids.There are other beliefs that need to be tackled too.

Benincasa

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Read back through the thread for plenty of reasons why that's a pointlessly simplistic argument. You can be the best Catholic in the world and still get AIDS from your husband. The worst thing is, you can even know he's got it and in a sufficiently patriarchal society (like say almost everywhere in rural Africa) your Catholic ideals will require that you stay faithful to the jerk, never use a condom, get AIDS from him and give birth to a bunch of kids who also have AIDS.

Real life is not simple, which is why real solutions have to be complex.



Based on your argument above I'm surprised at the implication that this is something you've really thought about, let alone debated rigorously enough to get tired of.

Ok, let's deal with your argument.

In the first instance, following the Church's teaching substantially reduces chances of HIV transmission. That is beyond dispute.

However, faithful Catholics can still get HIV as you say. This happens in two ways. One is via infected blood; this has nothing to do with condoms so is not relevant for the debate.

The second is by having a spouse who is not a faithful Catholic nor a faithful spouse. If the other spouse doesn't know about the unfaithfulness the condom issue doesn't arise as they suspect nothing.

So, what about the (presumably relatively very rare) case you mention of a woman whose husband has HIV? Well, the Church's position is also clear in this case. Somebody suffering from HIV should not have sex with anyone else unless that person is also infected. Thus, the woman in your example should not have intercourse with her husband.

That's because sex has two purposes, procreative and loving. The loving aspect is crucial in all of this and it is simply not a loving act to place one's spouse at risk of HIV infection.

Would a condom reduce the risk? Yes, it would, but it wouldn't eliminate it. There are plenty of kids running around today who were conceived because of burst condoms, and it's a lot harder to get pregnant than to get an STI.

Would you sleep with somebody who had HIV, even with a condom? I certainly wouldn't, and if you answer that you would, you are putting an awful lot of faith in a piece of latex and your ability to use it properly.

You also maintain that such a woman is obliged to be faithful to her husband. Yes, she is, but that doesn't mean sleeping with him not does it even mean living with him. It is perfectly acceptable in Catholic teaching for such a woman to leave her husband.

If, in the patriarchial society you describe, a HIV infected husband insisted on sleeping with his wife, he is in effect raping her. It is not a loving act, it is an act of oppression. Now, do you really think that such a brute cares one bit what his wife's opinion is about wearing condoms? It is unlikely he will pay much attention whether she desires condom usage or not.

In relation to the Pope's wider point, condoms do encourage the spread of HIV by fostering a social norm that enourages promiscuity and also by creating a false sense of security about the effectiveness of condoms.

Contrary to your belief, I have thought long and debated hard on this topic. But I dare say that Edward Green, head of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies has thought longer than anyone else on this website about it. His conclusion based on years of research? ‘We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates, which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working.”

AtomicHorror

Benincasa wrote: »

Ok, let's deal with your argument.

In the first instance, following the Church's teaching substantially reduces chances of HIV transmission. That is beyond dispute.

However, faithful Catholics can still get HIV as you say. This happens in two ways. One is via infected blood; this has nothing to do with condoms so is not relevant for the debate.

The second is by having a spouse who is not a faithful Catholic nor a faithful spouse. If the other spouse doesn't know about the unfaithfulness the condom issue doesn't arise as they suspect nothing.

We've discussed this already. You have a point, but it's still far too simplistic. The opinion of the Pope does not only impact on Catholics, nor are all parts of that opinion equally heeded. The practical will often impact more strongly than the moral. The word spreads widely, to the point that there will be non-Catholics shunning condoms "because they make AIDS worse" without knowing where that view even came from. That's the power of a spiritual leader and authority figure. He can certainly make a moral argument, but this other practical argument will prey on the fears of many people, some of whom care nothing for Catholic morals nor the opinion of the Pope.

Benincasa wrote: »

So, what about the (presumably relatively very rare) case you mention of a woman whose husband has HIV?

What are you on? 1 in 16 people has HIV in sub-Saharan Africa. This isn't rare by any estimation. How many of those are married men?

Benincasa wrote: »

Well, the Church's position is also clear in this case. Somebody suffering from HIV should not have sex with anyone else unless that person is also infected. Thus, the woman in your example should not have intercourse with her husband.

Sure, but is that a realistic expectation? A marriage that cannot be dissolved- entirely sexless for perhaps 30-40 years? That sounds unlikely to me. Expecting it of millions of such couples is a joke.

That's because sex has two purposes, procreative and loving. The loving aspect is crucial in all of this and it is simply not a loving act to place one's spouse at risk of HIV infection.

Benincasa wrote: »

Would a condom reduce the risk? Yes, it would, but it wouldn't eliminate it. There are plenty of kids running around today who were conceived because of burst condoms, and it's a lot harder to get pregnant than to get an STI.

Who ever claimed condoms eliminate the risk? The would only in the same ideal world of 100% abstinence. With a condom, protection from HIV is 80% and from pregnancy is above 98%.

But get this. None of that is the point. The fact is that something that protects against HIV in 80% of cases simply cannot increase the HIV risk unless something else is going on.

Benincasa wrote: »

Would you sleep with somebody who had HIV, even with a condom? I certainly wouldn't, and if you answer that you would, you are putting an awful lot of faith in a piece of latex and your ability to use it properly.

How can I answer that question and what relevance does my answer have?

Benincasa wrote: »

You also maintain that such a woman is obliged to be faithful to her husband. Yes, she is, but that doesn't mean sleeping with him not does it even mean living with him. It is perfectly acceptable in Catholic teaching for such a woman to leave her husband.

Sure. And what is she supposed to do then? Remain chaste for the rest of her life. I have no doubt that will indeed work in some cases, but also no doubt that it will totally fail in most.

Benincasa wrote: »

If, in the patriarchial society you describe, a HIV infected husband insisted on sleeping with his wife, he is in effect raping her. It is not a loving act, it is an act of oppression. Now, do you really think that such a brute cares one bit what his wife's opinion is about wearing condoms? It is unlikely he will pay much attention whether she desires condom usage or not.

In the simple world where rape is always violent, brutal and thoughtless rather than ever being driven by confused feelings of love, guilt, shame or idealism then sure, the man won't care enough to use protection. That world is not the real world.

Benincasa wrote: »

In relation to the Pope's wider point, condoms do encourage the spread of HIV by fostering a social norm that enourages promiscuity and also by creating a false sense of security about the effectiveness of condoms.

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS TRUE? I keep asking and there seems to be none. For what you are saying to be true, condoms would have to increase promiscuity by an average of 5 times over the normal rate! That's huge! And that would put only condoms at a break-even HIV transmission rate by comparison to unprotected sex.

As for the false sense of security- that's what education is for! Effectiveness rates and proper use are an issue separate to condoms themselves. Not knowing about AIDS at all would create a false sense of security in sex in general- but we can't blame sex for that.

So what you're effectively saying is that condoms make the problem worse because of a lack of education and because of cultural attitudes towards condoms and sex. Right. So shouldn't you actually be saying that a lack of education makes the problem worse?

Benincasa wrote: »

Contrary to your belief, I have thought long and debated hard on this topic. But I dare say that Edward Green, head of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies has thought longer than anyone else on this website about it. His conclusion based on years of research? ‘We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates, which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working.”

#

So, how come the ABC programme (which included condom advocacy) in Uganda, and similar programmes in Kenya, and the country formerly known as Zaire (D.R. of Congo), showed clear reductions in the rates of HIV transmission? Nobody is disputing the fact that efforts to combat AIDS are in general struggling- but this is because all of the angles of attack are simply under-resourced and under-funded. Because they're falling foul of a lack of education and infrastructure, of an old mistrust of the west and of an ingrained culture. That's not the fault of condoms, nor medicines, nor education nor abstinence programmes in themselves. The strategy is incomplete, but condoms are absolutely a part of the solution.

Look, the thing is we've already been through this in this very thread. If you want to debate this further I think you need to read through it so we're not going in circles.

Phototoxin

I found this article... I here it has references too...

In fact, a Harvard expert on AIDS prevention, Dr Edward C. Green, told MercatorNet bluntly: "the Pope is actually correct". Dr Green is no lightweight in the field of AIDS research. He is the author of five books and over 250 peer-reviewed articles -- and, he added, he is an agnostic, not a Catholic.
The not-enough-condoms explanation of the global HIV/AIDS epidemic is driven "not by evidence, but by ideology, stereotypes, and false assumptions," Dr Green wrote last year in the journal First Things. And myths kill: "they result in efforts that are at best ineffective and at worst harmful, while the AIDS epidemic continues to spread and exact a devastating toll in human lives".(1)
Experts with doubts
Dr Green is not a maverick voice. Similar views are being expressed in the world’s leading scientific journals. In an article in The Lancet, for instance, James Shelton, of the US Agency for International Development, stated flatly that one of the ten damaging myths about the fight against AIDS is that condoms are the answer. "Condoms alone have limited impact in generalised epidemics [as in Africa]," Shelton wrote.(2)
As long ago as 2004, an article in the journal Studies in Family Planning conceded that "no clear examples have emerged yet of a country that has turned back a generalized epidemic primarily by means of condom promotion". In fact, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS can actually rise with increased distribution of condoms. Take Cameroon, for instance, the country to which the Pope was flying when he made his notorious remarks. Between 1992 and 2001 condom sales there increased from 6 million to 15 million -- while HIV prevalence tripled, from 3 percent to 9 per cent.(3)
Benedict’s critics blithely assume that the solution is more condoms because AIDS in Soweto is like AIDS in San Francisco. It’s not. In the West, AIDS is confined to high-risk groups, like sex workers, homosexuals, and injecting drug users. Within these groups, studies do show that condoms are effective to some extent. But AIDS in Africa is a generalised, heterosexual epidemic which affects ordinary people.
For years, researchers have desperately sought to understand why AIDS there has been so devastating. Sub-Saharan Africa is most heavily affected region in the world. It accounts for 67 percent of all people living with HIV and for 72 percent of AIDS deaths in 2007.(4) But now the answer is crystal clear. The reason is the widespread practice of "multiple concurrent partnerships".

Fanny Cradock

Sorry AH, I got sidetracked and forgot about replying.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Not quite what I'm saying. Both statements are false and need to be refuted (though the refutation is more or less the same), in the hopes that this gets through to people who have been misinformed.

We seem to be 'singing from the same hymn sheet'. (Ugh, business speak!). But at the same time I have said that there appears to be a truth to his words. See Phototoxin post.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The revised comment still says essentially the same thing to the devout Catholics and without the change being highlighted I rather doubt many people will notice. How many people know that the original comment has been withdrawn? It's like when a tabloid newspaper carries a headline like "MURDERER" with someone's photo and is then forced to retract it the next week... in a tiny box on page 6. The comment is out there now and must still be dealt with.

Yes, but such tabloid tactics come at the cost of what the RCC is now saying. This may possibly undercut the argument that condoms are not a panacea.

Bless him, but because of his outrageous statement, people are actually talking about the issue. Maybe they people will begin to see that the solution to AIDS/ HIV will include organisations like the RCC.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I'm not against condoms but they really just dont seem to be working out all that well in Africa regarding HIV

Blacks are more prone to HIV than most other races, something to do with a gene that gives some protection against Malaria. Ie in Scandinavia rates of infection are extremely low. In washington DC 3% of the pop have HIV, whereas amongst black males its 7%

So whilst I think the popes message is unhelpful and stupid, condoms break and perhaps it would be better if more Africans went with the abstinence route.

AtomicHorror

Okay, so I've been asking for evidence and have been asked for it in return. My evidence is peer-reviewed primary papers and meta-analyses. No offence, but an opinion piece from a website doesn't really cut it. They have references, but did you follow up those references?

I do find it odd that in one case they cite the same source twice as different references... out of only 9 sources total that's a bit sloppy but probably an honest mistake.

Dr. Green's statements are certainly noteworthy, but the opinion of a scientist- irrespective of his standing- is not science and is not evidence. If his position on condoms is substantiated in a peer-reviewed research paper then please link it here. The article in which Green makes the assertions quoted by mercatornet.com was written for the journal First Things "whose purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society. " So, to be honest his position as an agnostic seems a little flaky to me. Mind you, that's probably true of most agnostics. At any rate, summary being his opinion isn't worth anything without data.

The example of Cameroon is interesting, though not all that clear. I gather that this is, at best, data from an observational study- which is about as weak as clinical data can get. It raises questions certainly. Does the correlation between condom sales and HIV transmission rates represent condoms causing promiscuity? Or do both the condom sales and the HIV rates represent the outcome of increasing promiscuity caused by some other influence?

I can't answer this because the study that your article cites can't be fully accessed online. The abstract doesn't mention Cameroon at all. And, most interestingly, the conclusions in the abstract actually recommend greater condom promotion. Abstract is here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15067787?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

In an article in The Lancet, for instance, James Shelton, of the US Agency for International Development, stated flatly that one of the ten damaging myths about the fight against AIDS is that condoms are the answer. "Condoms alone have limited impact in generalised epidemics [as in Africa]," Shelton wrote.(2)

This doesn't support the Pope's claim or that of Dr. Green. It supports the position that the condom advocates hold, which is that no one strategy alone can work, regardless of how hard we push it. This is not in dispute here.

The rest of the evidence cited (excepting the Cameroon data) is in line with that. Condoms alone cannot fix the problem. We know this. Despite what this article says, there are several proven examples of condom advocacy, combined with other strategies, bringing down HIV transmission rates.

The article does not really make its case, and few of the sources they cite in their defence actually support their position, on the contrary the general opinion seems to be that condoms must form a part of a larger multifaceted strategy on AIDS.

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Sorry AH, I got sidetracked and forgot about replying.

We seem to be 'singing from the same hymn sheet'. (Ugh, business speak!). But at the same time I have said that there appears to be a truth to his words. See Phototoxin post.

I don't think that's clear at all. Phototoxin's article sure is "referenc-y" but it is an opinion piece. And when one looks closely at those references, they're also either opinion pieces, letters to editors or weak observational studies. This is the kind of "evidence" that backs up anti-vaxxers, creationists and health advice charlatans.

I'd expect the leader of the world's largest religion to dig deeper. His position is evidentially unfounded. Let him make is moral arguments, but if that isn't enough to sway his flock then that's too bad.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, but such tabloid tactics come at the cost of what the RCC is now saying. This may possibly undercut the argument that condoms are not a panacea.

I think you misunderstood me. I was accusing the Vatican of using such a tactic. The shock initial statement, followed by a clarification/retraction in small print. That first statement will carry far and wide, so it's appropriate for us to attack it. I'll bet that a decade from now there'll still be people paraphrasing that Pope's words to justify ditching the condom. Things like this can't be unsaid.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Bless him, but because of his outrageous statement, people are actually talking about the issue. Maybe they people will begin to see that the solution to AIDS/ HIV will include organisations like the RCC.

I'd say the RCC has a huge part to play, but if anything I think that making scientifically untenable pronouncements puts cooperative efforts at risk.

kelly1

2 good articles on the view of Pope Benedict and Cameroonian Catholics:

http://zenit.org/article-25511?l=english
http://zenit.org/article-25485?l=english

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I don't think that's clear at all. Phototoxin's article sure is "referenc-y" but it is an opinion piece. And when one looks closely at those references, they're also either opinion pieces, letters to editors or weak observational studies. This is the kind of "evidence" that backs up anti-vaxxers, creationists and health advice charlatans.

I'd expect the leader of the world's largest religion to dig deeper. His position is evidentially unfounded.

I'd say the RCC has a huge part to play, but if anything I think that making scientifically untenable pronouncements puts cooperative efforts at risk.

AH - I blame the Western Media:rolleyes:

Really - if the Pope condemned condoms in Ireland you would laugh. I wonder if people are making too much of this.

Im Catholic and do see that his moral arguments on promiscuity are fairly on the level. I think the condom argument was fairly ignored here 20 years ago -so if you are a promiscous Camaroonian - its hardly going to bother you.

The Catholics dont have exclusivity on Aid to africa. Who else does and do they distribute condoms. How far has the condom message penetrated africa( bad pun but the subject deserves one)

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

if the Pope condemned condoms in Ireland you would laugh. I wonder if people are making too much of this.

I presume you don't use condoms yourself?