(August 30, 2015 at 2:37 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: Nonononono. He said that condoms would make things worse. Which is just incorrect.
They also said that condoms were ineffective. Not 'not 100% effective', but ineffective. Which is a lie.
Quote:Church officials argue that reliance on condoms to prevent transmission of AIDS can result in a false sense of security because of the problem of "leakage and breakage". In 2003, contrary to some manufacturers' empirical evidence, the president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family - "senior spokesman" Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo - claimed that condoms are permeable to the aids virus. He explained to BBC interviewers that "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon and can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom." These assertions (HIV 120 nm, Spermatozoon 55µm, latex pore size 5µm [20]) were echoed by an archbishop of Nairobi, as well as by Catholics as far as Asia and Latin America.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic...d_HIV/AIDS
Which is all still ignoring the fact that the church insists on enforcing demonstrably ineffective tactics which also demonstrably make things worse.
Right, I get that he said it would make it worse because he believes it would continue to encourage people to sleep around, rather than attempting to teach them sexual morality. Same with the ineffective bit. They simply believe the true solution to solving the aids epidemic once and for all is to save sex for life long monogamous relationships, and that is why they think it would be ineffective in the grand scheme of things to pass around condoms. Before you villainize an entire group of people, you have to understand their intentions and where they are coming from, and to see things in context.
You can think this is all bullocks and you can disagree with it vehemently and you can blame the Church for aids in Africa, but what I was saying is that it's a far cry from how those articles from the Guardian made it sound. These last 2 articles you posted though, tell the whole picture and are much more objective in how they told the story. Thank you for posting them.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
