Kristof on The Vatican

[Tiassa]

Kristof: "Don't tell the Pope"

So Nicholas Kristof sounded off yesterday on The Vatican.

The Vatican is increasingly out of touch and exerts a reactionary — even, in this world of AIDS, deadly — influence on health policy in the developing world . . . .

. . . . Here at the grass roots, the Catholic Church is a vibrant, flexible organization enormously different from the out-of-touch Vatican. At the Catholic-run hospital here in Sonsonate, doctors tell women about IUD's and the pill — and especially about using condoms to protect against AIDS. Their humanitarian work is a reminder that the Catholic Church is much greater than the Vatican: local priests and nuns often ignore the troglodytes in Rome and quietly do what they can to save parishioners from AIDS.

"The bishop is in San Salvador and never comes here," explains Dr. Martha Alica De Regalada. "So we never get in trouble."

It's an interesting article, and I think it's time we stop and consider a few basic points in an attempt to start viewing faith :

• Do these folks believe themselves damned? Are they trading their own eternities in order to alleviate the comparatively short-term suffering of sinners?

I'd say probably not.

• Gee, maybe this is why God forgives?

That means a great many things to various people, but since we're dealing with Catholicism here, we might view exactly the dichotomy that Kristof discusses--that between the institutions and the individuals--and perhaps understand a bit about why any Catholic would and should defy the institutions. Doctrine and dogma be damned, for no man comes to the Father except through whom?° The instructions are pretty clear, and if Matthew 25° isn't enough, it's obviously scrawled on their consciences: Mercy, Compassion, Vitality: may doctrine be damned.

Notes

° no man comes to the Father - see John 14.1-14
° Matthew 25 - see Matthew 25.31-ff

• Kristof, Nicholas. "Don't tell the Pope." New York Times, November 26, 2003. see http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/26/opinion/26KRIS.html (Times articles tend to go to archive after a while, and furthermore require a free registration; if you do not wish to bother with this, try the link at the beginning of the post, which should go to a different site.)

 

[okinrus]

Tiassa, neither you nor the article is making sense. Premarital sex is wrong according the Church and it does not make too much of difference whether contraception is used. In fact, I could support condoms for those who engage in premarital sex but that's besides the point. AIDS would not have spread so rapidly if everyone was monogamous. Thus trying to blame the Church for this is blatenly wrong.

 

[Tiassa]

Okinrus

"Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.

Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'

Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?'

And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'

Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'

Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew 21.31-ff, RSV)

Noting Mr. Kristof's article:

The Vatican has consistently opposed condoms and safe-sex education, even claiming falsely that condoms don't protect against AIDS. That's on a par with the church under Pope Urban VIII putting Galileo under house arrest - except that this will have more deadly results.

It's not about blaming the Church for AIDS, Okinrus, and I'm rather quite disappointed that such is all you could get from the issue.

Tell me, where is the mercy of Christ in lying to people and endangering them by deliberately preserving a state of functional ignorance?

I guess the people have to be sick before you can show Christian compassion to the sick? Why not fight illness and help the folks stay healthy in the first place?

Advocating false information does not help the situation at all.

 

[okinrus]

Tell me, where is the mercy of Christ in lying to people and endangering them by deliberately preserving a state of functional ignorance?

The article doesn't cite any quote from the Vatican regarding condoms protecting from STD's. I would expect that a factual article would cite one of the Vaticans official statements so I'm inclined not to believe it. In fact, it's a clear misunderstanding of what the Vatican and science teaches; that is, Codoms don't offer 100% protection from AIDS. In this respect, no I don't take 98% risks with my life. The Vatican is letting science speak for itself on scientific issues, I think. Furthermore, not everything that saves a life is morally right. For instance, if someone is dying due to a failed organ, we don't go find someone to kill for a replacement organ. Thus, while science may say that doing something may save a life, the moral laws have higher precidence. As I pointed out earlier condoms are really a moot point here. Following what the Church teaches on marriage is a more effective barrier than anything else. So why then should the Church offer money to buy contraception for those who are not even trying to follow what she teaches? While the Church should support those who have illness, we have to worry more about the spirtual illness. Condoms don't. Further, they are a detriment.

I guess the people have to be sick before you can show Christian compassion to the sick? Why not fight illness and help the folks stay healthy in the first place?

So your now advocating giving codoms to AIDS victims?

Advocating false information does not help the situation at all.

Based on a false claim that the article made.

 

[Tiassa]

Okinrus

Okinrus:

The article doesn't cite any quote from the Vatican regarding condoms protecting from STD's. I would expect that a factual article would cite one of the Vaticans official statements so I'm inclined not to believe it.

Does that mean that the lack of a bibliography on any given newspaper column makes the newspaper unreliable?

That question aside:

• Bradshaw, Steve. "Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids." The Guardian Online, October 9, 2003. see http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html
• "Vatican in HIV condom row." BBC News Online, October 9, 2003. see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3176982.stm
• "WHO rejects Vatican claims that condoms don't protect from AIDS." ClariNews/AFP, October 10, 2003. see http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/ch/Qvatican-religion-health.RSDR_DOA.html
• "EU Rejects Vatican Claim that use of Condoms does not protect vs AIDS." The Religious Consultation/AP, October 20, 2003. see http://www.religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/EU_rejects_Vatican_on_condoms_vs_AIDS.htm

I would invite you to peruse those articles. Apparently Mr. Kristof isn't the only one who thinks the Vatican has made such statements.

Some excerpts, though, in case you'd like to save the mouse clicks:

The church's claims are revealed in a BBC1 Panorama programme, Sex and the Holy City, to be broadcast on Sunday. The president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, told the programme: "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom.

"These margins of uncertainty... should represent an obligation on the part of the health ministries and all these campaigns to act in the same way as they do with regard to cigarettes, which they state to be a danger."

The WHO has condemned the Vatican's views, saying: "These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million."

The organisation says "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%. There may be breakage or slippage of condoms - but not, the WHO says, holes through which the virus can pass. (Guardian)


The programme includes a Catholic nun advising her HIV-infected choir master not to use condoms with his wife because "the virus can pass through".

The Archbishop of Nairobi Raphael Ndingi Nzeki told Panaroma that condoms were helping to spread the virus.

"Aids...has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms," he said. (BBC)


The World Health Organization Friday rejected claims from Roman Catholic leaders that condoms were ineffective in halting the spread of AIDS.

"From a scientific perspective, anyone who claims that a male condom does not protect against AIDS is wrong," said WHO spokeswoman, Fadela Chaib.

She was responding to the findings of a BBC investigation which showed that some Roman Catholic leaders were claiming that the deadly HIV virus which leads to AIDS can pass through tiny holes in condoms.

Chaib referred to studies conducted by the WHO establishing that condoms are effective in preventing against the AIDS virus 90 percent of the time, the remaining 10 percent being linked to improper usage. (ClariNet/AFP)


"Statements not supported by sound scientific evidence are not plausible," Philippe Busquin, EU research commissioner said in a statement. He added there was enough such evidence to demonstrate that "condoms are the best way to prevent HIV infection."

The rebuke from the EU's head office comes after Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, reasserted in an interview with The Associated Press last week that the use of a latex condom to prevent the spread of the HIV virus "is not even proven."

He added that "to talk of condom as 'safe sex' is a form of Russian roulette," adding that "there are many published studies that give rise to well-founded doubts" regarding the safety of condom use. (The Religious Consultation)

See also:

• Short bio: Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo
• Website: Pontifical Council for the Family

At 68, apparently Trujillo's name has been bandied about as a possible candidate for the papacy when John Paul II is done.

So your now advocating giving codoms to AIDS victims?

Well, condom distribution helps prevent HIV transmission, and we might bear in mind the BBC story, which reports on the nun who tells an HIV-positive patient to not bother with condoms when with his wife.

We could, after all, hop over to Kenya, for instance:

The practice of polygamy, coupled with many sexual partners outside marriage, renders the spread of HIV within families extremely easy. Furthermore, rape within marriage is neither recognised by Kenyan law, nor by the vast majority of men, Kenyan feminists point out. Neither is a wife's right to say "no" to sex. "You're his wife, you're supposed to give in to him," Marita told PlusNews. "You are his property, his belonging. You have no rights over yourself - your body is his. It doesn't matter whether you are participating or not."

In cases where wives suspect that their husbands are unfaithful, or that they may be HIV-positive, there is little they can do to stop being infected themselves. While condom-use has increased in recent years thanks to billboards and advertisements promoting safe sex, most people agree that condoms are unpopular except with a minority living in urban centres. "They say sex with a condom is not sweet, they can't feel each other. They won't even talk about it," commented Marita. (UNCHA/IRIN)

Given the reality on the ground, I think these church practices and policies are simply wrong.

I'm sorry if you disagree, but telling people to behave how you would prefer they behave will do nothing to slow the spread of HIV.

And that nothing is a best-case scenario.

Oh, yes. That last quotation:

• "Kenya: Focus on female vulnerability to HIV/AIDS infection." UNCHA/IRIN, 21 October, 2003. see http://www.plusnews.org/AIDSreport.asp?ReportID=1489

 

[okinrus]

Does that mean that the lack of a bibliography on any given newspaper column makes the newspaper unreliable?

All newspaper articles are unreliable insofar as they express opinions. I can't speak for actual reporting of events but they do make mistakes.

I would invite you to peruse those articles. Apparently Mr. Kristof isn't the only one who thinks the Vatican has made such statements.

There is an entire legion of anti-catholics who assume what the Church
teaches. That article was not written factually. A true article would
give both sides, including an interview with a bishop. What the Church
teaches is what medical science teaches. There is a chance of AIDS
infection when having sex wearing condom. Since the odds are 2%, yes
AIDS can be spread when still wearing a condom. Anyone who knows
he has AIDS and has sex with a condom is, I believe, commiting attempted
murder. It's not surprise that a nun would tell a choir boy not to do it.

Also, while a priests word should not be taken likely, it does not have the full weight of the Vatican behind it until it the Vatican approves of it. It would be like the words of the some congressman speaking for the entire US congress. Thus a <i>factual</i> article would list whose belief it is.

 

[Bells]

I think This is enough proof of what the catholic church thinks of the use of condoms or contraception in regards to AIDS/HIV.

Especially nothing is to be understood to imply that the Holy See endorses abortion or has in any way changed its moral position concerning abortion, contraception, or sterilization or the use of condoms in HIV/AIDS prevention programmes.

But then we unfortunately also have
this...

The Holy See wishes to emphasize that, with regard to the use of condoms as a means of preventing HIV infection, it has in no way changed its moral position.

Okinrus, I'm sure you are well aware of the Catholic Churche's unfortunate stance on the use of contraception and condoms. And I'm sure you deem the vatican as being a reliable source.

And Tiassa, you are absolutely correct... it is wrong and frankly stupid.

 

[Tiassa]

Burn the evil?

What? You don't think Trujillo is "official" enough?

Since being appointed head of this pivotal Council Cardinal has been responsible "for the promotion of the pastoral ministry of and apostolate to the family, through the application of the teachings and orientation of the ecclesiastical Magisterium, to help Christian families fulfill their educational and apostolic mission." In addition, he oversees the Council's management of issues on sexuality and procreation, thus intertwining with many other curial offices and always remaining a favorite of the Pope's who is so staunchly pro-life in promoting the sanctity of life which begins with the family. (click here for source)

I mean, really ... if the Pope himself isn't saying it, it's because on this occasion saying it falls under Trujillo's job description.

Oh, and if you want the transcript, it's available from the BBC.

Anyone who knows he has AIDS and has sex with a condom is, I believe, commiting attempted murder

That's a lot of prosecutions to file:

• Remien, Robert, et al. "What are HIV+ Persons' HIV Prevention Needs?" Fact Sheet #37E, August, 2000. San Francisco: UCSF AIDS Research Center. see http://www.caps.ucsf.edu/poz.html

Why would someone infect another?

Most HIV+ persons are concerned about not infecting others and have made efforts to prevent transmission. Yet there has not been much support for HIV+ persons to gain the necessary skills and tools to adopt new, safer behaviors. Couples where one partner is HIV+ and the other is HIV- often wrestle with issues such as how to maintain sexual satisfaction and trust. For some couples, the risk of losing commitment and intimacy in a relationship is more threatening than the risk of transmitting HIV . . . .

Abstinence is a bit like perfection: the obvious solution that really just isn't practical.

And at this point we're dealing with circumstances that include knowledge of infection. What of those instances where the infected person is ignorant of their condition?

The fact is that condom use definitively helps prevent HIV transmission. For the Catholic Church, through any office, to endorse the exploitation of a natural statistical chance in order to unduly frighten a community away from a known prevention technique is simply irresponsible.

Put it in context of Matthew 25:

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.'

Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?'

He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.'

And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew 25.41-ff, NAB)

I just don't see how judgmental standards of conduct--e.g. demand of abstinence--can override medical common sense in this case. What welcome, stranger, if the words are a lie? They might care for the ill, but where is the compassion for the healthy? Condom use is proven to help keep people healthy. It's not a surefire guarantee, but neither is surgery. I don't hear the Church complaining about surgery. Of course, there's no moral judgment to be had unless there's a sinner to decry.

For the love of God, man, they're hanging the poor and ignorant out to dry. They're promoting false information in pursuit of a homogenized goal of faith. And this isn't about diversity, but about reality. It's about idealistic exploitation in the face of a grim reality.

It's soul-chilling.

RAPHAEL NDINGI MWANA A'NZEKI, Archbishop of Nairobi: The Catholic Church does not advocate use of condoms under any circumstances. HIV AIDS is going so fast because of availability of condoms.

BRADSHAW: You think condoms are causing AIDS?

A'NZEKI: Yes. I'll explain. You give a young Kenyan a condom for him or for her it's a license for sexuality. They think they're protected and they're not protected. Understand?

BRADSHAW: You don’t think anybody should use…

A'NZEKI: We don’t use… any produced condom, they should not be made at all.

BRADSHAW: They should not be made.

A'NZEKI: Yes.

BRADSHAW: Nobody should use them.

A'NZEKI: Yes.

BRADSHAW: Even people who are not Catholics you think should…..

A'NZEKI: Anybody for that matter. The laws of God affect everybody.

BRADSHAW: Catholics bishops in Kenya produced this pamphlet which claims: "Latex rubber from which condoms are made does have pores through which viral sized particles can squeeze through during intercourse." We read this to the World Health Organisation who told us it is: "simply not true".

This is scientific nonsense isn't it?

A'NZEKI: Scientific nonsense?

BRADSHAW: Yes.

A'NZEKI: That is true. First we are defective. What ?? they have?

BRADSHAW: It doesn't say anything about defective condoms. It says: "Latex rubber from which condoms are made has pores through which viral sized particles…."

A'NZEKI: It means they are not proof… complete 100% proof.

BRADSHAW: But it says latex rubber, it says that viruses can pass through latex rubber. That's nonsense.

A'NZEKI: You go and get the scientists to look at it.

BRADSHAW: Archbishop, with the greatest respect, what I'm suggesting is that you're peddling superstition and ignorance.

N'ANZEKI: We are not peddling ignorance. We shall be proved the only people who have been right in this matter in the long-run. (BBC)

Lastly, a general note for those inclined toward safe sex advocacy--click the BBC link, use your browser Find command to search for the phrase, "symbolic burning." Yes, that's a hint of what you'll find.

 

[okinrus]

What? You don't think Trujillo is "official" enough?

Look, people make odd ball remarks. In this case, however, I don't consider
it completely untrue. Condoms don't protect completely against AIDS. Due
to what's at stake, the matter of someone's livihood, I wouldn't take that
risk. In my simple minded state of not taking risk I would say condoms don't protect against AIDS.

Okinrus, I'm sure you are well aware of the Catholic Churche's unfortunate stance on the use of contraception and condoms. And I'm sure you deem the vatican as being a reliable source.

We can be sure that the Vatican is a reliable source on what they say. It not really a matter faith whether condoms protect someone from AIDS. It would be like asking the Pope what the next lottery ticket is going to be. The fact that article brings up the vatican on a scientific issue is questionable.

Abstinence is a bit like perfection: the obvious solution that really just isn't practical.

Why not practical? Besides it is abstinence before Marriage.

And at this point we're dealing with circumstances that include knowledge of infection. What of those instances where the infected person is ignorant of their condition?

Some who has AIDS should not have sex. It should be a crime. I remember a case a while back where a man was tried for this, I think. The partner did not know he had AIDS though.

For the Catholic Church, through any office, to endorse the exploitation of a natural statistical chance in order to unduly frighten a community away from a known prevention technique is simply irresponsible.

I believe this chance does not include improper usage.

What welcome, stranger, if the words are a lie? They might care for the ill, but where is the compassion for the healthy? Condom use is proven to help keep people healthy. It's not a surefire guarantee, but neither is surgery.

Feeding the hungry is not feeding them with lust but with bread. It seems you beg to differ. Whether the priest offers a wrong explanation to why condoms are wrong makes little difference. It only shows the priest's ignorance of the science of condoms. He knows it is wrong but he offers a bad explanation, so what?

 

[Tiassa]

Okinrus

Look, people make odd ball remarks.

Yes, but this oddball remark fits perfectly under the umbrella of what Trujillo does for the Church. Church policy does go through his office.

Condoms don't protect completely against AIDS.

This we can agree on. But it's a far cry from telling people to not use them, from telling people that they don't work at all, from blaming condoms for HIV.

In my simple minded state of not taking risk I would say condoms don't protect against AIDS.

Obviously, HIV patients feel differently. We must at some point acknowledge reality. Clinging to a fantasy when that fantasy abets something like the spread of HIV is nearly criminal. The faithful trust the Church, and the Church is abusing the faithful in making a stand on a principle of faith in the face of glaring reality.

• Why not practical? Besides it is abstinence before Marriage.

• Some who has AIDS should not have sex. It should be a crime.

Which brings us back to abstinence after someone is married, as well. Let us know when Magic Johnson is placed under arrest.

I remember a case a while back where a man was tried for this, I think. The partner did not know he had AIDS though.

There's a few of them. At least.

I believe this chance does not include improper usage.

So ... instead of advocating proper use, we ought to simply throw the whole thing out?

Feeding the hungry is not feeding them with lust but with bread.

What about feeding them ignorance and superstition?

Whether the priest offers a wrong explanation to why condoms are wrong makes little difference. It only shows the priest's ignorance of the science of condoms. He knows it is wrong but he offers a bad explanation, so what?

Because that wrongness is assisting HIV in its spread through humanity.

Deal with reality, Okinrus. Cancer patients sometimes smoke. AIDS patients do not trade their libidos at the door. Partners do not always choose to abandon their infected mate. You're dealing with the human species, and it would be helpful to the HIV fight if both you and the Catholic Church came back to reality on this one. Assisting the sick according to Matthew 25 does not include withholding information from them that could prevent their sickness. Such an utter lack of compassion among the Catholic institutions is dangerous to the rest of humanity.

I'm curious under what circumstances you view abstinence practically.

• A woman in ... Zimbabwe, for instance, ought to simply trust that her husband has not had prostitutes or other lovers, and ought not take protection against disease because the Church teaches her not to?

• How long will it take to achieve a mission of abstinence? Does the Church turn to the sick and say, "Sorry, protecting you from illness by telling you the truth would have been sinful"?

• What evidence have you to demonstrate that advocating abstinence is an effective social policy?

Shall we take a note from modern Shari'a and punish people for having sex?

Okinrus, you pretend confusion in your first response to the topic, yet you seem to be arguing one side of it rather quite ... I guess "well," isn't the word, since your argument is untenable. But it would appear to me that you understand exactly what this topic is about. To revisit the topic post:

• Do these folks believe themselves damned? Are they trading their own eternities in order to alleviate the comparatively short-term suffering of sinners?

I'd say probably not.

• Gee, maybe this is why God forgives?

Standing before God, what sin would you rather answer for? Giving a woman a condom that happened to save her life, or promoting ignorance and causing death?

In Sonsonate, some Church workers have made that decision already.

And if God wants an apology from them, God can take a flying leap. Jesus violated The Law, yet He did not come to destroy it but fulfill it.

Obviously, someone at Sonsonate was taking notes.

 

[okinrus]

Okinrus, you pretend confusion in your first response to the topic, yet you seem to be arguing one side of it rather quite ... I guess "well," isn't the word, since your argument is untenable. But it would appear to me that you understand exactly what this topic is about. To revisit the topic post:

No, I'm quite certain of the illogic of it all; athough I morbidly understand it given their anti-catholic bias.

Obviously, HIV patients feel differently. We must at some point acknowledge reality. Clinging to a fantasy when that fantasy abets something like the spread of HIV is nearly criminal. The faithful trust the Church, and the Church is abusing the faithful in making a stand on a principle of faith in the face of glaring reality.

How are you making the contectual leap from an uneducated preists erronously forgetting the words "some" or "inadequate" to the Vatican's offical ruling on contraception. The two are completely different.

What about feeding them ignorance and superstition?

I don't really see how this relates to the supernatural? The central point was that condoms have microscopic holes that allow some virus through. This is a scientific, maybe flawed, argument.

Deal with reality, Okinrus.

Reality is the world and would thus be rejected. The Church endeavors to set a perfect code of conduct. You seem to think there is something wrong with this? As if the law tells you that your not perfect and therefore it's wrong. Well the Law tells everyone that they are not perfect.

You completely ignore socialogical changes due to the result of contraception. If condoms liberated the sexual mores of society, then they have induced the AIDS epidemic, I think.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

No, I'm quite certain of the illogic of it all.

So am I, but we're probably going to disagree on where the illogic lies. But we'll get back to that momentarily.

uneducated preists erronously forgetting the words "some" or "inadequate"

Compared to A'nzeki, I'm not sure what you're referring to. I mean, sure, we can account for uneducated priests, but what of the Archbishop of Nairobi?

The two are completely different.

The two are intertwined, you know.

I don't really see how this relates to the supernatural?

While works alone won't get you into heaven, they can help get you out.

I've provided the Biblical context. What part is unclear? I'm perfectly willing to explain if I know what the problem is. But go read Matthew 25, I believe it's from verse 31 through the end.

Whatsoever you do, whatsoever you do not do.

The central point was that condoms have microscopic holes that allow some virus through.

Please show me a statistical analysis demonstrating that unprotected sexual intercourse carries the same HIV transmission rate as protected sexual intercourse.

In the meantime:

AIDS is, by far, the most deadly sexually transmitted disease, and considerably more scientific evidence exists regarding condom effectiveness for prevention of HIV infection than for other STDs. The body of research on the effectiveness of latex condoms in preventing sexual transmission of HIV is both comprehensive and conclusive. In fact, the ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission of HIV has been scientifically established in “real-life” studies of sexually active couples as well as in laboratory studies.

Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens.

Theoretical basis for protection. Latex condoms cover the penis and provide an effective barrier to exposure to secretions such as semen and vaginal fluids, blocking the pathway of sexual transmission of HIV infection.

Epidemiologic studies that are conducted in real-life settings, where one partner is infected with HIV and the other partner is not, demonstrate conclusively that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection. (CDC)

Or how about:

Effectiveness against HIV transmission. When used consistently and correctly, latex condoms have been shown to be highly effective in preventing sexual transmission of HIV. Latex condoms protect against HIV by covering the penis and providing a barrier against exposure to genital secretions, such as semen and vaginal fluids. The virus cannot penetrate the latex condom.

Studies of HIV discordant couples (one partner is HIV-positive; the other partner, negative) have found less than 1% HIV transmission with consistent and correct use. Other studies have found condoms to be 96% effective against HIV transmission with consistent and correct use, nearly identical to the rates of protection against pregnancy. (Engender Health)

And it even comes with a nifty graph:

Condoms work!

Lastly, a note from Africa:

We further feel encouraged that President Mwanawasa is preaching a sound message that HIV/AIDS certainly could be overcome by remaining faithful to one partner and using condoms if need be.

However, it is the latter that triggers a lot of thought and discussion

Indeed, if the abstinence that nearly everyone seems to be advocating is an impossibility for you, always make sure to use a condom.

The use of condoms may not be the best answer, but at the moment it is the most sensible way to avoid contracting HIV for those who can't adhere to abstinence.

We don't think the use of condoms should be dismissed or undermined in any way.

Without promoting ideas or standards that depart from good morals, we feel it is necessary to approach the important problems of our time, like HIV/AIDS, realistically.

We see the possibility of conflicts of conscience between the need to control the spread of HIV/AIDS - for if this is not done there will be terrible consequences in our country, sooner or later - and the moralist position on the use of condoms. (Lusaka, Zambia)

I'll be most interested to see your statistics.

Reality is the world and would thus be rejected.

Now, then ... something about illogic?

The Church endeavors to set a perfect code of conduct

Again ... something about illogic?

You seem to think there is something wrong with this?

When it contributes to unnecessary human loss, yes there is something very wrong with it.

Is an idealistic expectation of perfect conduct a sufficient excuse?

As if the law tells you that your not perfect and therefore it's wrong. Well the Law tells everyone that they are not perfect.

But where does the Law tell you to wallow in that imperfection and celebrate it as superior to perfection?

I'd be curious to find out.

You completely ignore socialogical changes due to the result of contraception. If condoms liberated the sexual mores of society, then they have induced the AIDS epidemic, I think.

You think? Why not try to demonstrate it. I'm pretty sure you'll learn a thing or two along the way.

Something about illogic, Okinrus?

If immediate human suffering takes a back seat to idealistic expectations, we might need to spend some time figuring out just what you consider logical and illogical.

• CDC-NCHSTP. "Male Latex Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases." Fact Sheet for Public Health Personnel. January, 2003. see http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/condoms.htm
• Engender Health. "Male and Female Condoms." Preventing HIV Infection 6, 2003. see http://www.engenderhealth.org/res/onc/hiv/preventing/hiv6p6.html
• Editorial, Staff. "Aids, Abstinence, and the Condom." Lusaka, December 2, 2003. see http://allafrica.com/stories/200312020923.html

 

[okinrus]

Tiassa, I'll get back too it later. I have alot of projects due comming up. It suffices to say that you either don't understand the Law of God or your feigning your understanding. Take "you shall not worship other gods". If someone came and offered life in exchange of worship to other gods than we would be required to take death. The physical reality of death comes after spiritual death. Similarly with codoms. Catholics believe that using contraception is a mortal sin. Giving out condoms would also be a mortal sin if there was no ignorance envolved.

 

[Tiassa]

(Ratt song goes here)

Catholics believe that using contraception is a mortal sin. Giving out condoms would also be a mortal sin if there was no ignorance envolved.

Which brings us back to the topic post.

 

[Craig Smith]

Maybe guilt is the problem.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by okinrus
Tiassa, I'll get back too it later. I have alot of projects due comming up. It suffices to say that you either don't understand the Law of God or your feigning your understanding. Take "you shall not worship other gods". If someone came and offered life in exchange of worship to other gods than we would be required to take death. The physical reality of death comes after spiritual death. Similarly with codoms. Catholics believe that using contraception is a mortal sin. Giving out condoms would also be a mortal sin if there was no ignorance envolved.
----------
M*W: okinrus, when was the last time you went to confession and admitted to using condoms? Okay, you don't have to answer, but as far back as the early 1970s priests were absolving the use of contraception. As a woman and devout Catholic at the time, my female Catholic friends and I know this has been routine. I doubt that these times are less progressive, especially with all the new strains of STD, HIV, AIDS, abortion, etc. As I recall, back in the day when the I asked my priest to interpret for me the Church's stance on the use of "birth control," he said "it is not even necessary to confess the use of birth control, because the Church is becoming more understanding about such things." He went on to explain that the Church is still against "birth control" per se when it prevents the "birth" of a child already conceived (i.e. abortion, etc.), but "contraception" in and of itself is not a sin and, therefore, needs not be confessed.

 

[okinrus]

Okay, you don't have to answer, but as far back as the early 1970s priests were absolving the use of contraception.

Yes, along with other sins.

"As I recall, back in the day when the I asked my priest to interpret for me the Church's stance on the use of "birth control," he said "it is not even necessary to confess the use of birth control, because the Church is becoming more understanding about such things." He went on to explain that the Church is still against "birth control" per se when it prevents the "birth" of a child already conceived (i.e. abortion, etc.), but "contraception" in and of itself is not a sin and, therefore, needs not be confessed."

I think your confusing "birth control" and "contraception". There are some forms of birth control that are ok. For instance, abstance and the rythem method are ok. But the Church denies condoms on theological grounds that it impedes God's creative force. However, I'm more inclined to accept arguments that condoms distort societies values.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by okinrus
Yes, along with other sins. I think your confusing "birth control" and "contraception". There are some forms of birth control that are ok. For instance, abstance and the rythem method are ok. But the Church denies condoms on theological grounds that it impedes God's creative force. However, I'm more inclined to accept arguments that condoms distort societies values.
----------
M*W: No, I'm NOT confusing "birth control" with "contraception." I quoted you what was told to me by not one but two priests. Believe it or not, I don't care. Abstinence and the "rhythm method" (LOL) are accepted as well as "contraception." I'm not confusing ANYTHING. I have four children and four grandchildren. I know what the priests told me. Perhaps YOU haven't lived long enough to have this conversation with a priest.

 

[okinrus]

M*W: No, I'm NOT confusing "birth control" with "contraception." I quoted you what was told to me by not one but two priests.

Maybe this was in the 1960's when the issue was being discused.
I believed that the Pope declaired it to be a grave sin in 1968. A priest may not have been aware of the complete ban on contraceptives.

Abstinence and the "rhythm method" (LOL) are accepted as well as "contraception."

Contraception really implies a artificial means though. I think the official condemnation might use "artificial contraceptives".

I know what the priests told me. Perhaps YOU haven't lived long enough to have this conversation with a priest.

Now M*W, your the only one here complaining about my age. I'm not that young am I?