What Human Rights?

[Catholic_Lady]

There was another article in the Guardian on September 11, 2010 about this topic.  
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...nti-condom

I'm just wary of how factually accurate these articles actually are. They are clearly extremely biased, not even pretending not to be.

[Longhorn]

I'm just wary of how factually accurate these articles actually are. They are clearly extremely biased, not even pretending not to be.

In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI said that widespread use of condoms could worsen the situation, a position rejected as 'unscientific'.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21507723

[Catholic_Lady]

I'm just wary of how factually accurate these articles actually are. They are clearly extremely biased, not even pretending not to be.

In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI said that widespread use of condoms could worsen the situation, a position rejected as 'unscientific'.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21507723

I don't doubt that they said the safer option is abstinence and that you can still get aids while using condoms. I remember when the Pope said that condoms would worsen the situation because it would encourage people to continue to sleep around, while also saying that the better solution would be a deeper respect for human sexuality through monogamy. I agree with all that. But it was the way it was laid out in the articles may have blown things out of proportion to villainize the Church. Kind of like how your first post about this was that the Church was telling people condoms would kill them. Not exactly the case.

[Catholic_Lady]

Now this new article you posted, I like. Much more objective.

"For decades, the Roman Catholic Church opposed use of condoms to prevent spread of sexually transmitted infections (STI) because of their contraceptive effect. In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI said that widespread use of condoms could worsen the situation, a position rejected as 'unscientific'. Recently, however the Pontiff stated that because the Church considers acts of prostitution and homosexuality to be gravely immoral and disordered, in such specific cases use of a condom might become an initial step in the direction of a moralization leading to an assumption of responsibility and a new awareness of the meaning of sexuality. In doing so, he reaffirmed his belief that condoms cannot solve the problem of STI spread, stressing the Church's position that modern societies no longer see sexuality as an 'expression of love, but only as a sort of drug that people administer to themselves'. The new Papal position has been widely applauded, but made conservative Catholics unhappy. A dialogue with the Church now seems possible: Does concentrating on condoms hinder the effectiveness of other strategies? What are the respective roles of condoms and other approaches to prevent infection spread? Does a special situation exist in Africa requiring specific and focused interventions?"

[Longhorn]

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.

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.

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

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.

[Longhorn]

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.

Their beliefs have no effect on reality. Parents who believe in faith healing deeply believe prayer is the most effective solution for their child's illness. Doesn't change the fact that it isn't, or that the kid dies an easily preventable death and the parents should be charged with negligent murder.

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.

Have I done that? I get that you don't see a difference between 'Catholic officials and church representatives in positions of power' I refer to as the RCC and the average catholic Joe, but there really is one.

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

Their beliefs have no effect on reality. Parents who believe in faith healing deeply believe prayer is the most effective solution for their child's illness. Doesn't change the fact that it isn't, or that the kid dies an easily preventable death and the parents should be charged with negligent murder.

I understand that. I don't object with people's objections to how the Church chose to do things when they were helping out in Africa. My objection was simply to how it was laid out and how the Church was portrayed in those first articles you guys posted from The Guardian..

[Longhorn]

K.

(That's too short for a post ._.)

[Catholic_Lady]

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.  

Have I done that? I get that you don't see a difference between 'Catholic officials and church representatives in positions of power' I refer to as the RCC and the average catholic Joe, but there really is one.

Ah, gotcha. Perhaps you didn't mean to, but that's how it came across to me when you first brought it up in this post to Chad:

(my bold)

(Chad responding to someone's claim that Christians are not actually pro life because they don't do anything for the suffering) Maybe you haven't heard of the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, World Vision, or any of thousands of Christian organizations working locally and worldwide to be Christ's presence on a suffering world. My favorite is the Pacific Garden Mission.

And maybe you haven't heard of the countless deaths from AIDS in Africa, because *somebody* told them condoms would kill them, leaving millions of orphans behind. Pro life my fucking ass.