Pope's comments on AIDS

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kuzushi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kuzushi

Guest
On O”Reilly it was reported that the Pope said condoms are “not the solution” to AIDS. Laura Ingram then interviewed a man from EWTN ( can’t recall his name) who took it further and said that condoms do not make a difference in preventing AIDS. Such talk is simply disingenuous. Clearly latex condoms that ARE USED and USED PROPERLY will substantially lower the risk of contracting AIDS.

It would have been way better if the Pope and the spokesperson from EWTN had just stated the church’s position that fornication, adultery, and homosexual sex is a sin and leave it at that.
 
Kuzushi said:
On O”Reilly it was reported that the Pope said condoms are “not the solution” to AIDS. Laura Ingram then interviewed a man from EWTN ( can’t recall his name) who took it further and said that condoms do not make a difference in preventing AIDS. Such talk is simply disingenuous. Clearly latex condoms that ARE USED and USED PROPERLY will substantially lower the risk of contracting AIDS.

It would have been way better if the Pope and the spokesperson from EWTN had just stated the church’s position that fornication, adultery, and homosexual sex is a sin and leave it at that.
Click to expand...
Which begs the question of how many of the millions of rubbers ARE USED and USED PROPERLY in Africa. Face it: condoms were invented in the 19th Century to be used by whores to keep them from getting pregnant. Despite what you read in the men’s room of the local bijou, they don’t offer much protection for disease. If a guy in East Africa really wants wants to avoid AIDS he will simply get hold of some 12-13 year old virgin boy or girl.
 
Kuzushi said:
On O”Reilly it was reported that the Pope said condoms are “not the solution” to AIDS. Laura Ingram then interviewed a man from EWTN ( can’t recall his name) who took it further and said that condoms do not make a difference in preventing AIDS. Such talk is simply disingenuous. Clearly latex condoms that ARE USED and USED PROPERLY will substantially lower the risk of contracting AIDS.

It would have been way better if the Pope and the spokesperson from EWTN had just stated the church’s position that fornication, adultery, and homosexual sex is a sin and leave it at that.
Click to expand...
Hi Kuzushi,

Perhaps you’ll be interested in this thread:

Harvard AIDS Expert Says POPE IS CORRECT on Condom Distribution Making AIDS Worse
 
RobbyS said:
Despite what you read in the men’s room of the local bijou, they don’t offer much protection for disease.
Click to expand...
Well studies show they do protect 80% of the time so I think I will go with that rather than your mere opinion. Without getting too graphic that other 20 % probably has more to do with using the condom for ALL the sexual acts.
 
A big ‘thank you’ to Robert Bay for fixing my blunder with the link, above. 🙂
 
*On O”Reilly it was reported that the Pope said condoms are “not the solution” to AIDS.**It would have been way better if the Pope …had just stated the church’s position that fornication, adultery, and homosexual sex is a sin and leave it at that. *

I don’t know if you are an epidemiologist and speaking from a position of knowledge or just a media consumer but it would appear that a number of experts in the field would agree with the Holy Father.

You might like to have a look at the following articles for example.

**Reassessing HIV Prevention **a retrospective study conducted by Malcolm Potts, Daniel T. Halperin, et. al., and published in the May 9, 2008 issue of Science.
sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/320/5877/749

To read the article go to:

hvtn.org/media/ReassessingPrevention.pdf

Excerpt

Condom use. Condom promotion is effective
in epidemics spread mainly through sex
work, as in Thailand (7, 10, 11) and also, to
some extent, among other high-risk groups
such as [men who have sex with men] MSM. Although condom use has also
likely contributed to HIV decline in some generalized
epidemics, there is no evidence of a
primary role (2, 4, 10, 11). This is because consistent
condom use has not reached a sufficiently
high level, even after many years of
widespread and often aggressive promotion, to
produce a measurable slowing of new infections
in the generalized epidemics of Sub-
Saharan Africa. When most transmission
occurs within more regular and, typically, concurrent
partnerships, consistent condom use is
exceedingly difficult to maintain (2, 4, 7, 10).

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09032003.html
In 2004 August more than 40 million condoms of the Engabu brand were found to be defective and were recalled to be destroyed. This was after a huge public outcry on the condom failures which may have exposed many people to HIV/AIDS in the false hope of security from these latex from China."

article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTNlNDc1MmMwNDM0OTEzMjQ4NDc0ZGUyOWYxNmEzN2E
Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies

“The pope is correct,” Green told National Review Online Wednesday, “or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope’s comments. He stresses that “condoms have been proven to not be effective at the ‘level of population.’”

“There is,” Green adds, “a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded ‘Demographic Health Surveys,’ between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates. This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction ‘technology’ such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by ‘compensating’ or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology.”
 
Kuzushi posts in this thread, and in other threads, are anti-Catholic. We also has started threads in which he claimed that prayer is futile. When most of a poster’s posts are anti-Catholic, you have to assume the person is only pretending to be a Catholic.
 
mpi said:
Kuzushi posts in this thread, and in other threads, are anti-Catholic. We also has started threads in which he claimed that prayer is futile. When most of a poster’s posts are anti-Catholic, you have to assume the person is only pretending to be a Catholic.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it was inevitable that not separating the goats from the sheep within the Church would eventually lead to the goats running the place.

Usually sheeple is a term that only athiests would use against Catholics. When Catholics refer to other Catholics by this same term, we can only be reminded of Augustine’s and Jesus’s directives that God will separate the goats from the sheep. Until then the goats roam freely among us, bleating derisively at the sheep as is the nature of a goat to do.

Until the Shephard moves, understand what is happening to Catholics within the Church. We can at least be aware that not all of the congregation is of the same species as the flock of David.
 
It’s hard to see the logic missed by 90% of the culture you live in. The culture at large simply believes that sexual behavior is a fixed constant. If that WERE true, then it would be absolutely true that condoms reduce AIDS transmission.

But it’s not. People make decisions based on all sorts of factors, conscious and unconscious. As the Harvard guy noted, risk assessment is DEFINATELY one of those factors. When the culture at large hands you a condom and says “use this any you will be safe” that action produces a culture that takes more sexual risks. So much so that it more than offsets the disease fighting benefits of the condom use.

Too bad nobody wants to hear it.
 
Kuzushi said:
On O”Reilly it was reported that the Pope said condoms are “not the solution” to AIDS. Laura Ingram then interviewed a man from EWTN ( can’t recall his name) who took it further and said that condoms do not make a difference in preventing AIDS. Such talk is simply disingenuous. Clearly latex condoms that ARE USED and USED PROPERLY will substantially lower the risk of contracting AIDS.
Click to expand...
Are you seriously trying to tell us that you have less chance of catching AIDS by using a condom to have sex than by not having sex at all? Let’s see some backup for this absurd claim. :rolleyes:
 
Neil_Anthony said:
Are you seriously trying to tell us that you have less chance of catching AIDS by using a condom to have sex than by not having sex at all? Let’s see some backup for this absurd claim. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I just thought, “Condoms won’t protect you from a contaminated blood transfusion.”
 
Kuzushi said:
On O”Reilly it was reported that the Pope said condoms are “not the solution” to AIDS. Laura Ingram then interviewed a man from EWTN ( can’t recall his name) who took it further and said that condoms do not make a difference in preventing AIDS. Such talk is simply disingenuous. Clearly latex condoms that ARE USED and USED PROPERLY will substantially lower the risk of contracting AIDS.

It would have been way better if the Pope and the spokesperson from EWTN had just stated the church’s position that fornication, adultery, and homosexual sex is a sin and leave it at that.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what the Pope meant in his speech. I suggest you read the entirety of the speech. The holy Father choice of words may sound inappropriate but the substance of his speech is that all those who advocate the use of condoms and medical testing and so forth neglect the spiritual aspect of this epidemic. If folks like O’reilly can spent more time talking about abstinence, or advising people to avoid prostitution or extra-marital sex (this is what the Pope meant) It will certainly curb the spread of HIV rather than promoting the use of condom. The truth is that condoms may lower the risk but they are not the solution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top