The pope and hiv

[PRmerger]

I never said one did, I said that if your talking about it making it worse, how could it.

I’m sorry–I have no idea what the above sentence means.

Whatever.

You didn’t write Post #93 that said condoms “do not make HIV come into you faster”? Who said that they do?

 

[BareKnuckler]

When I said that none of what I asked you to read I meant, about the Pope, since that is what I just asked you to read, then you asked me if I wanted to ask you anything about it or to comment on it.

I am happy to see that you did see those other FACTS though, perhaps you need to reread them and take them in.

Now, I also would appreciate it if you didn’t refer to the Holy Father in the way you do, I know you don’t understand this or believe this, but he is your Holy Father too, thats a HUGE part of the world’s problems, people aren’t listening to him. For those of us who do however, we don’t have a problem with respecting our elders and know that they are far wiser than us. In his case, he hands on ALL of Jesus’ teachings, ALL of them, and explains them quite well, he is very intelligent. It isn’t that he just sits around and makes things up. In any case, you would do well to listen to other than your own opinions.

lol, I love you man.

He is a old man, thats not dis-respectful. My father lives with me, and he isn’t Holy, neither is Joseph Ratzinger, and I am sorry that you consider a human being above you, Humanity is equal, their is no better man or better woman, they might be smarter, older, stronger, but that doesn’t make them better, just different.

I have a old man that I listen to thank you, he is the Dalai Lamia.

 

[allhers]

lol, I love you man.

He is a old man, thats not dis-respectful. My father lives with me, and he isn’t Holy, neither is Joseph Ratzinger, and I am sorry that you consider a human being above you, Humanity is equal, their is no better man or better woman, they might be smarter, older, stronger, but that doesn’t make them better, just different.

I have a old man that I listen to thank you, he is the Dalai Lamia.

My father was holy and so is the Pope, we are all called to holiness.

Are you sure that is how the man’s name is spelled that you claim to listen to? Does he say that its okay to do all the things that you say?

 

[allhers]

Strange, I looked him up and it says this about him…

Dalai Lama of Tibet
Official site of his Holiness The 14th Dalai Lama, the Tibetan Buddhist spiritual leader and statesman.

So, he’s holy but the Pope isn’t, right?

Is that what you’re saying?

 

[BareKnuckler]

My father was holy and so is the Pope, we are all called to holiness.

Are you sure that is how the man’s name is spelled that you claim to listen to? Does he say that its okay to do all the things that you say?

Maybe to you, but I do not consider anyone holy, I consider everyone equally human.

That is not his actual name, that is his position, his name is Jetsun Jamphel Ngawang Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso, he is a incarnation of a long line of Bhuddist Masters, at least that is what a belief is in him.

No, I just like his opinoin, I never said I follow all of them, or any of them.

 

[RedGecko]

I was listening to something about this on the BBC this morning and I thought I heard someone from Africa saying that married couples needed the permission of the church in order to even use a condom.

What’s that about?

I think (and I may be wrong) that you were listening to the program “World Have Your Say” which is carried by the BBC World Service. In the program, people from around the world call or text to make comments about a current news topic. So what you heard was not the BBC making a statement (as some other members here have assumed), but rather an ordinary Catholic telling of his or her experience. I haven’t listened to the BBC for over a week, so I missed the show. Sorry!

However, the comments made by others that we should look to the BBC to answer your question made me do just that. And this is what I found:

But one SACBC Aids programme staff member - who preferred to remain anonymous - said Catholic teaching on condom use was often misunderstood.

The church does, for example, condone the use of condoms between a married couple where one partner is HIV-positive.

“The teaching is not against the use of condoms, but against the casualisation of sex,” the SACBC worker said.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4417521.stm

The opinions of some anonymous employee of the South African Catholic Bishops Conference isn’t authoritative nor is it necessarily accurate. But the opinion may reflect a common belief that the Catholic Church will grant a dispensation to use condoms in a marriage where one partner is HIV positive and the other is HIV negative. This belief may be erroneous (I honestly don’t know), but it apparently is prevalent. I think (and I may be wrong) that this belief is what the caller to the BBC was talking about.

 

[RedGecko]

I think that condom use in preventing HIV transmission is futile because, as stated previously, condoms really cannot prevent the transmission of viruses, and people who use them even to prevent the transmission of sperm have failures. How many more failures there most be in preventing HIV.

Actually, they seem to work pretty well. The risk of transmitting HIV to one’s married partner is less than 1% per coital act during the period of highest risk. And after that highest risk period (the first two months of infection), the risk of transmission is approximately one tenth of 1 percent per coital act.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15809897

Of course, as someone mentioned the more frequently the couple engages in sex, the greater the cumulative risk. But condoms do work and they do have a use for infrequent, but unifying, lovemaking.

I’m still struggling with the question about who would have sex with someone who is HIV positive, even while using a condom. Who would take that risk? There are more ways to love someone than having sex.

Personally, I don’t think I would engage in sex with someone who is infected. But married couples do sometimes make that choice.

 

[lyrikal]

chastity.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=234
What’s wrong with shipping condoms overseas to help with the AIDS epidemic? Click that link to see the answer.

 

[kalt]

Actually, they seem to work pretty well. The risk of transmitting HIV to one’s married partner is less than 1% per coital act during the period of highest risk. And after that highest risk period (the first two months of infection), the risk of transmission is approximately one tenth of 1 percent per coital act.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15809897

Of course, as someone mentioned the more frequently the couple engages in sex, the greater the cumulative risk. But condoms do work and they do have a use for infrequent, but unifying, lovemaking.

Personally, I don’t think I would engage in sex with someone who is infected. But married couples do sometimes make that choice.

Of course someone can be iinfected during the first coital act with an HIV-infected person even after the highest risk period.

No one promoting condom use seems to want to admit that. They look at the numbers for a group, and give the individual the false impression that if they have sex, their individual chance of being infected is less than 1 in a hundred.

The fact is that if they have sex with an infected person they either will or won’t be infected by the virus, and their individual risk can’t be calculated. There will be a leak, it will slip, it will break, or it won’t. How can you calculate that?

The calculations are for a population as a whole, not for an individual.

I think the HIV infection rates and condom use prove their claims wrong, but I’m not an expert at that kind of thing.

At any rate, the calculated risk for a population isn’t the calculated risk for any particular individual.

If condom makers and promoters were to talk to an individual, and were truly concerned about the individual, they would tell them to never, ever, ever have sex with an infected partner, even if it’s their spouse, and to never, ever, ever have sex with anyone but a faithful spouse, infected (to your knowledge) or not.

 

[kalt]

I found this on the CDC site.

"Preventing HIV Infection

The most reliable ways to avoid becoming infected with or transmitting HIV are:

Abstain from sexual intercourse (i.e., oral, vaginal, or anal sex)
Be in a long-term, mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner
Abstain from sharing needles and/or syringes for nonprescription drugs "

That is the complete list of the most reliable ways to prevent infection. Why would anyone NOT promote these ideas first and foremost? Why would anyone imply that using a condom while continuing to have sex with infected individuals or to have multiple partners (of unknown health status) is “safe sex”? Or even “safer sex”?

Regarding sexual activity - no sex is the safest non-sex. Sex with one faithful partner is safest sex. Sex with a condom w/ an unfaithful partner or a partner or unknown health status is less safe sex. Sex with a condom w/ multiple partners of unknown health status is still less safe sex. Sex with a condom w/ an infected partner is the least safe sex.

And that’s just the list I’ve come up with. There is sex w/ IV drug users. With partners w/ other VDs and aids (which increases the risk of transmission, apparently). With partners who are bisexual. W/ partners who are homosexual.

The fact remains that sex w/ one, committed, faithful, healthy partner (marry before sex and don’t have sex w/ anyone else, ever) is the safest sex there is.

Can’t we admit that sex outside of marriage (or outside of a once-and-for-all monogamous partnership–first partner for both, only partner for both, forever) is not safe sex at all? That condoms give a sense of false security that masks the true danger to the individual? That condom makers and promoters are giving individuals numbers that lead unsuspecting people to believe that engaging in risky behavior is actually safe, and smart, that they are taking care of their health rather than risking it?

Condoms aren’t safe. Condoms make risky behavior seem safe.

A helmet may protect your head when you skateboard, but if you really don’t want to risk a head injury, don’t skateboard.

AIDS kills. If people thought of sex w/ a condom like they think of jumping out of a plane w/ a parachute, I wonder how many would take the risk.

 

[kalt]

Of course someone can be iinfected during the first coital act with an HIV-infected person even after the highest risk period.

No one promoting condom use seems to want to admit that. They look at the numbers for a group, and give the individual the false impression that if they have sex, their individual chance of being infected is less than 1 in a hundred.

The fact is that if they have sex with an infected person they either will or won’t be infected by the virus, and their individual risk can’t be calculated. There will be a leak, it will slip, it will break, or it won’t. How can you calculate that?

The calculations are for a population as a whole, not for an individual.

I think the HIV infection rates and condom use prove their claims wrong, but I’m not an expert at that kind of thing.

At any rate, the calculated risk for a population isn’t the calculated risk for any particular individual.

If condom makers and promoters were to talk to an individual, and were truly concerned about the individual, they would tell them to never, ever, ever have sex with an infected partner, even if it’s their spouse, and to never, ever, ever have sex with anyone but a faithful spouse, infected (to your knowledge) or not.

The infect or not part refers to the person a spouse might think is “safe” to have sex with. That was unclear, I think.

 

[RedGecko]

I found this on the CDC site.
"Preventing HIV Infection

The most reliable ways to avoid becoming infected with or transmitting HIV are:

Abstain from sexual intercourse (i.e., oral, vaginal, or anal sex)
Be in a long-term, mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner
Abstain from sharing needles and/or syringes for nonprescription drugs "

That is the complete list of the most reliable ways to prevent infection. Why would anyone NOT promote these ideas first and foremost? Why would anyone imply that using a condom while continuing to have sex with infected individuals or to have multiple partners (of unknown health status) is “safe sex”? Or even “safer sex”?

In general, I agree with you. But to answer your question as to why a person would have sex with a partner who is HIV positive, perhaps you will need to visit an HIV forum and ask the question there. I do know that some people make that choice, even if I wouldn’t.

 

[kalt]

In general, I agree with you. But to answer your question as to why a person would have sex with a partner who is HIV positive, perhaps you will need to visit an HIV forum and ask the question there. I do know that some people make that choice, even if I wouldn’t.

I can’t escape thinking that the other is being used as an object of pleasure, that physical pleasure is the primary motive and purpose of the act - in the end, really the only motive and purpose.

If someone wanted me to have “safe sex” and that person were infected with HIV, I would cerainly know that I was being used, and that true, selfeless, self-giving love had nothing to do with it.

Maybe that’s what we should be teaching instead of how to put a condom on.

 

[RedGecko]

If someone wanted me to have “safe sex” and that person were infected with HIV, I would cerainly know that I was being used, and that true, selfeless, self-giving love had nothing to do with it.

Yes, that would be horrible. But you are assuming that it is the infected partner who wants to have sex. I’m sure that is not true in all cases of married couples where one is HIV positive and the other is not. And I am not even sure it is true in the majority of such cases.

 

[kalt]

Yes, that would be horrible. But you are assuming that it is the infected partner who wants to have sex. I’m sure that is not true in all cases of married couples where one is HIV positive and the other is not. And I am not even sure it is true in the majority of such cases.

If I were infected an my spouse want sex, I would say no. How could I say yes?

Everyone is responsible for his own behavior, and no one can say that they were pressured into putting someone else at risk, even if that someone else is the one doing the begging.

We’re responsible for ourselves and for others.

Who can reasonably say that he spread the infection to his wife because his wife begged him to?

IMO, the one with the infection is the one with the heavier burden to prevent its spreading. The other spouse might feel that having sex is worth the risk, because he feels that that is true love. The one with the infection should love his spouse enough to say no.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

If I were infected an my spouse want sex, I would say no. How could I say yes?

Everyone is responsible for his own behavior, and no one can say that they were pressured into putting someone else at risk, even if that someone else is the one doing the begging.

We’re responsible for ourselves and for others.

Who can reasonably say that he spread the infection to his wife because his wife begged him to?

IMO, the one with the infection is the one with the heavier burden to prevent its spreading. The other spouse might feel that having sex is worth the risk, because he feels that that is true love. The one with the infection should love his spouse enough to say no.

Either they see it or they dont. True Charity shines a light so bright on this subject there is no doubt at all what the correct path is. The Light shows Love goes FAR beyond sex. If someone is infected, it is their cross alone, and must do everything to avoid harming others. The thought of poisoning someone is contrary to the very essence of Christian love and is in fact of the Devil (whether realized or not).

 

[Laurent_LUG]

chastity and faithful marriage is the sure way to end this disease.

I’m not gonna argue that , 'cause I agree !!
But , HIV is also possible through blood-to-blood transmission ,
Or , even via needle !!

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
– Laurent LUG (.@…), March 24, 2009

 

[BareKnuckler]

Or , even via needle !!

Yea, that scared me away from tattoos at first, but when I join up, I plan on getting 2 tattoos, but no more, I am not a tattoo maniac, just want the 2 I’ve wanted since I was younger. Gonna make sure I check my artist’s credentials, and make sure I get a history of his business, and talk to some of his previous customers.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I just like his opinoin, I never said I follow all of them, or any of them.

LOL! Opinions are things like, “My favorite color is red.”

You ought to be more interested in the Truth, not in someone’s opinions.

I just heard someone on Catholic radio make this quote, which I just love, “Opinions are like your armpits–both are stinky.”

 

[Cracker_Mom]

I have never heard that one, guess we all see things different?

Guess you’ve never been to a NFP class