Catholic Cardinal Pushes for Condoms

[Nohome]

Thank you Vern, for providing the link. The story read much different without your intermittent editorial. In context, the story doesn’t say condoms don’t work, it says they must be used in order to work.

The AIDS problem is like a three legged bar stool; abstinence, fidelity and condoms. Remove any one of the legs and the stool falls over. Uganda has had measurable success using all three. Recent attempts to cut condoms out of the equation are having disaterous results.

Nohome

 

[vern_humphrey]

Gotta use them for them to work. Same with pushing abstainance. Nobody is listening.

But there’s one big difference between pushing abstinance and pushing condoms. If you’re partially successful with abstinence, you have some success and things are a little bit better.

If you’re partially successful with condoms (that is, people sometimes use them) but the net result is to encourare promiscuity (as this real-world example shows) you have a disaster.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Thank you Vern, for providing the link. The story read much different without your intermittent editorial. In context, the story doesn’t say condoms don’t work, it says they must be used in order to work.

Pardon me, Nohome, but I didn’t “edit” the story. The story is too long for the limits of this forum, and I posted excerpts – without changing a word in those excerpts.

And the story – despite some condom apologists’ obligatory comments – shows what I’ve been saying all along. Encouraging condom use encourages the users to have illicit sex.

And it makes a second point I’ve stressed – the excuse that “condoms work when used properly” ignores that illicit sex, alcohol, drugs and so on all go together. Perfect performance cannot be expected from people engaged in orgies.

The AIDS problem is like a three legged bar stool; abstinence, fidelity and condoms. Remove any one of the legs and the stool falls over. Uganda has had measurable success using all three. Recent attempts to cut condoms out of the equation are having disaterous results.

Nohome

Actually, this story shows that one leg – condoms – cut the fidelity and abstinance legs off the stool. As I had been saying would happen.

 

[Holly3278]

I hope he is disciplined for his comments. Condoms are wrong no matter what!

 

[Nohome]

Pardon me, Nohome, but I didn’t “edit” the story. The story is too long for the limits of this forum, and I posted excerpts – without changing a word in those excerpts.

I didn’t say you did an “edit” of the story. I said you did an intermittent “editorial”.

edit = prepare for publication
editorial = to give one’s opinion on a topical issue

I think you know the difference.

Nohome

 

[Nohome]

Actually, this story shows that one leg – condoms – cut the fidelity and abstinance legs off the stool. As I had been saying would happen.

Here’s the latest from Uganda:

Data on both HIV prevalence and incidence show rising trends since 2000, which is attributed to increased sexual risk behaviour, condom shortage and the widely debated ‘ABC’ policy which has shifted the focus from condom use to abstinence and faithfulness.

Gee Vern, I didn’t “edit” this either!

Though ABC stands for abstinence, being faithful and condom use, Beatrice Were of ActionAid Uganda states that the ‘ABC’ policy has now become a policy that emphasises abstinence and fidelity over condom use. “The ‘C’ part is now mainly silent,” she said. This policy has dangerously tilted Uganda’s previously balanced approach, which had proved successful.

Could condoms gasp actually be part of the solution?

en.epochtimes.com/news/7-2-20/51930.html

Nohome

 

[vern_humphrey]

Here’s the latest from Uganda:

Kinda like your editorializing in the post I’m quoting?

How is it an offense for me to do what you do?

Could condoms gasp actually be part of the solution?

en.epochtimes.com/news/7-2-20/51930.html

Nohome

I think the evidence is clear that condoms are part of the problem. Encouraging people to use condoms and promoting them as “safe sex” (or even “safer sex”) encourages the behavior that spreads AIDS.

From your own cite:

Data on both HIV prevalence and incidence show rising trends since 2000, which is attributed to** increased sexual risk behaviour**, condom shortage and the widely debated ‘ABC’ policy which has shifted the focus from condom use to abstinence and faithfulness.

Promoting condoms, advertising them as “safe sex” (or even “safer sex”) results in “increased sexual risk behavior.”

 

[Nohome]

How is it an offense for me to do what you do?

Non sequitur

From your own cite:

From your cite, cite:

Data on both HIV prevalence and incidence show rising trends since 2000, which is attributed to increased sexual risk behaviour, condom shortage and the widely debated ‘ABC’ policy which has shifted the focus from condom use to abstinence and faithfulness.

Promoting condoms, advertising them as “safe sex” (or even “safer sex”) results in “increased sexual risk behavior.”

Reference? Or is that your opinion?

Nohome

 

[vern_humphrey]

Non sequitur

If you’re going to keep using the lateral arabesque like this, you need to polish your technique.

From your cite, cite:

Data on both HIV prevalence and incidence show rising trends since 2000, which is attributed to increased sexual risk behaviour, condom shortage and the widely debated ‘ABC’ policy which has shifted the focus from condom use to abstinence and faithfulness.

Reference? Or is that your opinion?

Nohome

My position all along has been:

1. Promoting condoms promotes “increased sexual risk behavior.” Finding the very words in such a report is pretty solid confirmation.
2. The failure rate of condoms – which must include use while under the influence of drugs and alcohol – is such that those who engage in promiscuous sex will be exponsed, condoms or not condoms.

This report bears it out.

 

[big_main]

I get a little sick when I read this dicussion going on, and I pray that this doesn’t cause scandal to the faithful Catholics attempting to live in obedience to the Church’s teachings on sexual issues!

Even if condoms were 100% effective in stopping HIV, the Catholic Church would still be against them. It seems like most of the comments here are talking about efficacy, but that is beside the point. It seems like the following questions need to be answered in order to have a sane argument.

1. Is there objective Truth which is revealed through God’s various means (natural law, God’s Word, Tradition, etc…)?
2. If people are not following the rules given in the Truth does that change the Truth?
3. Many people have stated that very few Catholics in America are practicing NFP. Does this fact change the Truth?
4. Does the Catholic Church have the right to speak out on issues that she thinks has theological aspects? In this I include morals/ethics.
5. The Catholic Church teaches that the marital embrace is a sacrament. Do you think that the Church has the right to speak out the issue of sexual morality? (This pertains to statements like “this is a health issue so the Church should stay out of it”).
6. Do you believe that the marital embrace is a sacrament?
7. Do you agree that the two essential components of sex are unitive and procreative?
8. Can the essential components of a sacrament be broken? (I mean this like: can you baptize without water? Can you confirm without laying on hands?)
9. Is contraception ever morally permissible in a marriage that does ** not have a risk of sexual transmitted diseases**?
10. Is there any action where the ends directly justifies the means? By this I mean, this action is intrinsically wrong, and you do the action directly hoping that good results come about from it.
11. Does the principle of double effect ever apply to an action that is intrinsically evil?

 

[Nohome]

If you’re going to keep using the lateral arabesque like this, you need to polish your technique.

Hey, I learned this one from the master, who is you.

1. Promoting condoms promotes “increased sexual risk behavior.” Finding the very words in such a report is pretty solid confirmation.

The report lists high risk behavior as one of the causes of the spread of AIDS. Nowhere does it say increased sexual behavior IS THE RESULT of promoting condoms. That said, I do not disagree with you that high risk behavior spreads AIDS. I believe sex without condoms IS a high risk behavior.

1. The failure rate of condoms – which must include use while under the influence of drugs and alcohol – is such that those who engage in promiscuous sex will be exponsed, condoms or not condoms.

That’s like saying seat belts fail (they do) so why wear them? Just plain silly.

This report bears it out.

I question if you read the same one that did.

Nohome

 

[Nohome]

I pray that this doesn’t cause scandal to the faithful Catholics attempting to live in obedience to the Church’s teachings on sexual issues!

What, all 4% of them?

Keep in mind that only 17% of the world’s population is Catholic. AIDS is not a Catholic problem, it is a world-wide public health issue. The Church may teach as she wishes to her faithful, but it’s laws, truth and authority are just noise to the rest of the world.

Now, get them (the other 83%) to subject to the authority of the church and it’s a whole new ballgame. But for now, Rome appears to have trouble keeping even its Cardinals in line let alone the billion or so who call themselves Catholic.

Nohome

 

[vern_humphrey]

Hey, I learned this one from the master, who is you.

Actually, the point is you didn’t learn.

The report lists high risk behavior as one of the causes of the spread of AIDS. Nowhere does it say increased sexual behavior IS THE RESULT of promoting condoms. That said, I do not disagree with you that high risk behavior spreads AIDS. I believe sex without condoms IS a high risk behavior.

Yet it does acknowledge that increases sexual activity is new. Now, why is that?

That’s like saying seat belts fail (they do) so why wear them? Just plain silly.

Not at all.

Driving is not an inherently immoral act, and reckless driving and speeding remain illegal – and the police enforce that…

I question if you read the same one that did.

Now there I agree with you!

 

[Nohome]

Yet it does acknowledge that increases sexual activity is new.

O.K. then, try this one on for size (no pun intended).

HIV prevention interventions that include information on condoms do not inadvertently encourage an earlier sexual debut, more frequent sexual activity or more sexual partners, according to a meta-analysis of 174 studies published in the March edition of the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. The study also concludes that including information on condoms alongside motivational and behavioural components is more likely to have a positive effect on reducing frequency of sexual activity than interventions which do not include all three components.

aidsmap.com/en/news/34FE2167-2DE0-4B2A-B2D0-319230755C1E.asp

Suddenly the three legged stool makes a lot of sense.

Nohome

 

[Nohome]

Be sure to read this on too Vern!

Making condoms available in high schools does not increase sexual activity among students, but does raise their use by those already sexually active, a study of U.S. high schools has found.

abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s866400.htm

I’m sure you won’t let this get in the way of your opinions.

Nohome

 

[vern_humphrey]

Be sure to read this on too Vern!

abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s866400.htm

I’m sure you won’t let this get in the way of your opinions.

Nohome

I’ve read your cites (including the one in the previous post.) I stand by my assertion that promoting condoms encourages illicit sex. I’ve shown you a study of out-of-control AIDS in a nation that vigorously promoted condoms.

And I went to highschool myself, you know – there’s a lot more sex in highschools now than when I was a kid and birth control wasn’t available!!

 

[Nohome]

I stand by my assertion that promoting condoms encourages illicit sex.

Vern, you are a man of conviction. That much I’ll give you. Rome could use a few hundred million more like you.

I grow weary arguing with you as I am sure you do with me. I defer any further discussion unless a related news story of interest is released.

Peace and Gods blessings,

Nohome

All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

Simon and Garfunkel

 

[big_main]

Please identify which points you disagree with in post 408!

What, all 4% of them?

Ok, I don’t want to put words in your mouth. Can you go back to my post and say which point you disagree with? For me to consider this I would guess question 0, 1 or 2 you have issues with.

Keep in mind that only 17% of the world’s population is Catholic. AIDS is not a Catholic problem, it is a world-wide public health issue. The Church may teach as she wishes to her faithful, but it’s laws, truth and authority are just noise to the rest of the world.

Now, get them (the other 83%) to subject to the authority of the church and it’s a whole new ballgame.

Two points.

First, I see you claim this is a “public health issue.” If it were only this there would be no debate. The Church takes offense to contraception not on public heath grounds, but moral and ethical reasons.

Second, the Catholic Church does not impose rules. The rules are imposed by God and the Church tries to interpret them successfully. Other people acting immorally does not change God or His rules.

But for now, Rome appears to have trouble keeping even its Cardinals in line let alone the billion or so who call themselves Catholic.

This is a silly line of reasoning: The Church always asks us not to sin, yet people still keep doing it. Should the Church not profess the Truth?

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is a silly line of reasoning: The Church always asks us not to sin, yet people still keep doing it. Should the Church not profess the Truth?

Or to put it another way, that which is immoral remains immoral, no matter how many people wish it were not so.