Pope claims condoms could make African Aids crisis worse

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Isn’t this racist ot bigoted? Sexual morality is not applicable to third world people? They must have condoms? Wouldn’t the Pope be guilty of bigotry if he preached one message to Africa and another message on the pulpit?

I think the MSM is indulging in race or class discrimination by attacking the teaching only in concern to Africa as if poor third world people are animals who cannot be shown how to live properly.

I was wondering when someone would comment on this. How is the attitude of liberal, pro contraception people in regards to Africa’s poor people any different than early American’s attitude about African slaves. Both regard them as too stupid and animalistic to learn or control their actions. Therefore they believe that liberal policies and condoms and abortion are the only way to SAVE these people.

How arrogant! How inhuman!

The African people just need to be taught, same as any other human being. To give them false hope with a condom is totally wrong and immoral…even if one takes out morality.

Where the Church is strong in Africa, there is a definite drop in unsafe behavior…and I do not mean because of condoms. People are taught about their dignity and worth in God’s eyes. They are taught that they are loved, that they have purpose and value…which is the absolute truth.

Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime. It applies to morality in Africa…for the complete benefit of society as a whole…and for the individuals.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

I have listened to some of the papal visit to Africa on EWTN. And I saw clips of Pope John Paul II’s visit also to Africa a number of years ago.

The African people are so wonderful. Catholics and people all over the world could learn much from them about God’s true Presence in our lives. The lives of many of the African people are extremely difficult. Most Americans could not survive what is to many Africans just the way of their world. They are not much for taking their Catholic Faith for granted. And they know what it means to truly love Jesus.

We could learn much from them.

 

[PRmerger]

The whole thing seems set up. Everybody KNOWS this is where Catholics stand on the contraception issue. Seems rather convient if you ask me that things just “happened” to blow up at the present moment.

But what if the Holy Father did not look at this as a contraception issue, but as a disease prevention issue? Would it then be possible for the Church to advocate use of condoms in order to prevent disease, while the contraceptive effect of condoms was secondary?

Take the use of the Pill for medical reasons. The Church has no objection to its use for endometriosis, as long as the primary reason for using the Pill is not for its contraceptive properties.

 

[TMC]

I don’t have a problem with the Pope speaking out against condom use, or with him directing Catholic agencies not to distribute condoms. I do have a problem with him saying that condoms would make the Aids crisis worse. The problem is that it is not true, and that by saying it the Pope reduces the moral and intellectual authority of the Church’s teaching.

The Church is against birth control for purely theological and moral reasons. But in recent years the Church has started giving all kinds of other, mostly pseudo-scientific, reasons for its position on birth control. When people hear the Church turn to these worldly explanations, they figure that 1) the moral argument must be weak or the Church wouldn’t be appealing to these other reasons, and 2) maybe the Church isn’t really that sure of its own moral teaching. Whats worse, the pseudo-scientific explanation is contradicted by all the evidence. So now people think, 1) they have no good moral argument or they wouldn’t be dragging this scientific argument to the table, and 2) the scientific argument is bunk, so how bad must the moral one be?

Sadly, the next time the Church speaks out on an issue, the listener remembers that these were the people with the bad science on condoms, and naturally devalues whatever point the Church is making.

Why does the Church feel the need to turn to these pseudo-scientific arguments? No one is out there trying to “prove” other points of faith with science. If it turned out that condoms were great for you, would the Church change its mind on their morality? If not, why even bring it up?

 

[Contarini]

Sandie suffers from what I call the Planned Parenthood delusion: that human beings approach sex rationally. I am reminded of a story a teacher told me, about being responsible for a a few hundred junior high students who had to spend the night sleeping on the floor of a gym. They had to keep the lights on because otherwise the four supervising adults could never get any sleep. As it was, they had to make rounds keeping the boys out of the girls’ sleeping bags. “It was like herding bunny rabbits.”

Why is it that sophisticates are so naive about human nature?

If the sexual impulse is really so irresistible, then it seems to me that it is the Catholic position that is naive. The pro-condom position assumes exactly what you assume–that people are like rabbits and have sex mindlessly and unstoppably.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Fox news is not considered main stream media because they give equally conservative and liberals a chance to speak on their news shows…where as the others are simply totally biased liberal.

That’s just plain silly. Fox has a very strong and obvious bias. CNN is much more truly “fair and balanced.” Even NPR compares favorably to Fox.

And Fox is clearly “mainstream” these days. Fox likes to claim that it isn’t so that it can pose as the underdog, which is a patently cynical and dishonest move.

Edwin

 

[KathleenElsie]

But what if the Holy Father did not look at this as a contraception issue, but as a disease prevention issue? Would it then be possible for the Church to advocate use of condoms in order to prevent disease, while the contraceptive effect of condoms was secondary?

Take the use of the Pill for medical reasons. The Church has no objection to its use for endometriosis, as long as the primary reason for using the Pill is not for its contraceptive properties.

According to the Holy Catholic Church and its teaching you can not approve an intrinsic evil to get a good outcome. You may not do a wrong to get a right outcome.

 

[PRmerger]

According to the Holy Catholic Church and its teaching you can not approve an intrinsic evil to get a good outcome. You may not do a wrong to get a right outcome.

How would this apply then to use of the Pill for medical reasons? If this is allowed, then why can’t condoms be allowed for medical reasons as well?

 

[cathgal]

How would this apply then to use of the Pill for medical reasons? If this is allowed, then why can’t condoms be allowed for medical reasons as well?

If one must use the pill for medical reasons, then one must abstain from sex while on it.

 

[PRmerger]

If one must use the pill for medical reasons, then one must abstain from sex while on it.

I know I’ve heard some people say this, but can you give me a source for where this is a Catholic teaching? (I’m not doubting you–just want to see for myself.) Thanks!

Oh–and I think I heard that one must only abstain during what would be the fertile period. Not for the entire time one is on the Pill. Egads!!

 

[Fran65]

How would this apply then to use of the Pill for medical reasons? If this is allowed, then why can’t condoms be allowed for medical reasons as well?

Impeccable logic.

Person A takes the pill to control her endometriosis. She becomes infertile. Sexual relations are not therefore open to life.

Person B uses a condom to prevent becoming infected with HIV. Conception is prevented. Sexual relations are not therefore open to life.

I don’t see the difference, but then there are so many things in this world and Church that don’t make sense.

The only thing I’m certain of is God’s compassion, wisdom and willingness to give us His grace. Yes, I know my protestant upbringing is showing…yadda, yadda, yadda…

God Bless

 

[Fran65]

If one must use the pill for medical reasons, then one must abstain from sex while on it.

Cite your sources, because I know that you are wrong.

The encyclical, Humanae Vitae states the following:

"15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19) "

Nowhere does it state that there is any abstenance from sex required.

Life is hard enough for many without adding to people’s burdens with disinformation.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Cite your sources, because I know that you are wrong.

The encyclical, Humanae Vitae states the following:

"15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19) " If you will notice it says to cure bodily diseases. Condoms do not cure anything.

Nowhere does it state that there is any abstenance from sex required.

Life is hard enough for many without adding to people’s burdens with disinformation.

Life is hard enough when disinformation on the safety of the use of condoms is exaggerated and people believe they are truly safe when having sex.*** The use of condoms can kill you abstinence won’t kill you ever.*** Contrary to what teen aged boys try to tell teen aged girls.

 

[miguel]

Person B uses a condom to prevent becoming infected with HIV…

But is infected anyway despite wishful thinking, because condoms are not 100% reliable for this purpose and no one claims they are.

 

[miguel]

I don’t have a problem with the Pope speaking out against condom use, or with him directing Catholic agencies not to distribute condoms. I do have a problem with him saying that condoms would make the Aids crisis worse. The problem is that it is not true, and that by saying it the Pope reduces the moral and intellectual authority of the Church’s teaching.

It is true and that’s why he said it. Once again the Church is on the side of moral truth. But also on the side of high school level probability theory.

 

[peregrinus_WA]

It is OP like this that is making me rethink about Vatican II. Maybe it is time we scrapped it. npatrol:

 

[PRmerger]

But is infected anyway despite wishful thinking, because condoms are not 100% reliable for this purpose and no one claims they are.

Practically every medical intervention is not 100% reliable, yet we still advocate their use.

Examples: immunizations, antibiotics, chemotherapy, surgery…

I think what is being proposed is if there’s an intervention that can decrease the risk of infection, why not advocate it? If its primary intention is therapeutic and its contraceptive effect is not willed, how is this any different from the licit use of the Pill?

 

[miguel]

Practically every medical intervention is not 100% reliable, yet we still advocate their use.

Examples: immunizations, antibiotics, chemotherapy, surgery…

I think what is being proposed is if there’s an intervention that can decrease the risk of infection, why not advocate it? If its primary intention is therapeutic and its contraceptive effect is not willed, how is this any different from the licit use of the Pill?

If you’re talking within marriage, and a condom fails 5% of the time, that is unacceptable because the consequence of failure is catastrophic. If a husband has HIV and uses a condom while having sex with his wife 100 times a year let’s say, that infection will be passed at least 5 times. Yes, each single encounter has a reduced risk. But you will demonstrate the odds with more encounters. How many times a year does the typical married couple have sex?

 

[PRmerger]

If you’re talking within marriage, and a condom fails 5% of the time, that is unacceptable because the consequence of failure is catastrophic. If a husband has HIV and uses a condom while having sex with his wife 100 times a year let’s say, that infection will be passed at least 5 times. Yes, each single encounter has a reduced risk. But you will demonstrate the odds with more encounters. How many times a year does the typical married couple have sex?

I don’t think that is a correct understanding of statistics. Saying that a condom fails 5% of the time does not translate to “the infection being passed 5 times out of every 100 sexual encounters.” What it means is that with each and every sexual encounter, there’s a 5% chance of transmitting the virus.

But, whatever. It’s really irrelevant to my point.

I’m just wondering why it’s illicit to use condoms, but ok to use the Pill for medical reasons.

 

[Darryl1958]

I think the term, in general, refers to all the big mainstream media blocks, CNN, FOXNews, Reuters, MSNBC, etc, etc. In other words, all the present heavy weights, which do, last I checked, exist.

Yep, I just started flicking at the remote to make sure. they are all still there.

Reuters is out and about too. got a story or two to comment in CA.