This post is NOT about the existence of God, but the existence of Evil.
God, if you are there, please save Africa and the rest of the world from annihilation at the hands of Your hard-hearted Pope!
In his first public statement on HIV/AIDS and contraception since taking office, Pope Benedict XVI recently told African bishops that “The traditional teaching of the church has proven to be the only fail-safe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids.” The Pope categorically rejected the use of condoms, even to prevent infection with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, because he says they contribute to a “breakdown in sexual morality”.
“Even amid the greatest suffering, the Christian message always brings hope,” the pope said.
But with U.N. estimates of 10% or 90 million people in Africa becoming infected with the deadly virus by 2025, unless a massive prevention and education program is undertaken, Africa cannot hope to prevent a total breakdown of African societies as limited resources are stretched to the limit by the epidemic, and break.
Instead of seeing this looming catastrophe, the Roman Pontiff has hardened his dogmatic heart and has instead been busy rationalizing the excommunication of schismatic Holocaust-denying Catholic Bishops. I was afraid that Cardinal Ratzinger, former head of the Roman Curia, would turn out like this as Pope. Despite acknowledging the worldwide furor over his decision, Benedict did not apologize or reverse the reinstatement of rabidly and openly anti-Semitic, even Neo-Nazi-like bishops.
Benedict also gives encouragement and support for the reactionary Philippine Catholic Church’s own insane stand on reproductive health measures, contraception and life-saving pieces of latex.
Is there any doubt that the virus of dogmatic religion is the most lethal brain infection ever created by Man?
This post is NOT about the existence of God, but the existence of Evil. In Rome.
Popularity: 1% [?]
And you wonder why Filipino Catholics are so out of touch with reality?
The Church and therefore the Papacy just like the Military and therefore the Command are constant sources of change-resistant dogmas.
In both cases, they do not modernize. Would that make them evil by necessity?
That might lead us to the question:
“Is it Holy because it is loved by the gods; or is loved by the gods because it is Holy?”
HIV is caused by sexual contact.
No matter what you do, or what you preach.
People will have sex, because:
1. It is fun.
2. It is sometimes free. The only business that is
booming in a worldwide recession.
3. Religious leaders forbid it, without matrimony.
If only Ratzinger’s parents used a condom….
Looks like time is ripe for something similar to the London bus campaign – “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”.
Focus on finding a solution and sweep the irrelevant religion and religious personalities that waste productive thinking time.
Actually Papa Ratzi is on the mark. The evolution of HIV-AIDS exploited the non-monogamous characteristic of human sexual behaviour. Change that behaviour and you deny the adaptive fitness of the virus.
To deny the adaptive fitness of HIV, one has to be monogamous. Now monogamy has conferred some important evolutionary advantages for Homo sapiens. We can enhance natural selection with directed selection.
So it is more logical to promote monogamy and faithfulness to one’s partner than condoms. I’m sure the Church is the right place to do this if only they can get people back in the pews.
Unfortunately the celibacy rule for Latin rite priests runs counter to this strategy. If priests were married and had families to look out for this strategy would make more sense.
But I believe that the Roman Church should look into the problem of having an HIV + partner in the state of Holy Matrimony. The use of condoms may be licit since condoms here are not intended as a contraceptive but a method of maintaining health.
And BTW Filipino Catholics are not out of touch with reality. The overwhelming majority use their common sense (which is really sensus fidelium!). Only a minority are out of touch. Unfortunately this minority doesn’t give a damn about consulting the faithful.
So let’s pray to John Henry Cardinal Newman that he gets the saintly halo soon!
But Blackshama, is it the fault of a perfectly faithful and monogamous spouse that his or her partner might be promiscuous?
If we are to take the Pope’s words at face value:
“The traditional teaching of the church has proven to be the only fail-safe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids.”
it seems like we must first convert Africa to Catholicism, and teach them traditional Church dogma to solve the AIDs problem.
But you are right to point out that condoms would be used not so much for contraception (since they would have to be used even during infertile periods) as for disease prevention.
The church seems to believe that use of latex tubes on penises and vaginas is inherently evil.
blackshama: you are playing with words. No one is promoting condoms for the purpose of promoting the “fun”-ness of sex.
The medical community promote condoms for safe-sex, and leave alone how often, the time-of-day, who and how many partners to have (safe-) sex with and the positions taken. The medical community respects and allows individual to decide (as shaped by his friends, family, religious beliefs, etcetera).
Democracy has Morality but no Theology (Separation of Church and State)
1987: “No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil and political rights.”
Papa Ratzi is trying to violate our Constitution and the Freedom From Religion that 1987 explicitly states is enjoyed by citizens when making moral decisions, such as how to save their lives and those of their loved ones from the ravages of a terrible disease.
unfotrunately DJB, the objections of the pope have no influence on africa, coz as u said, they aren’t catholic.
their govt/govt’s can buy/use/issue condoms all they want.
DJB
You queried “is it the fault of a perfectly faithful and monogamous spouse that his or her partner might be promiscuous?”
Obviously not. So threaten to cut. Some people have actually done that!
As Benedict’s statement. While abstinence is good and monogamy is even better, it is unscientific to insist that those are the “only fail safe” methods.
But then again abstinence provides 100% protection from STDs! Condoms only 97%. Three percent is much bigger than the 1% risk of type I error as any Stat 101 student learns.
gabbyd,
africa is 60% catholic, and still growing. that translates to about 185 million (source: christian science monitor). that isn’t small, is it? so maybe his message will still exert influence.
blackshama:
I am not convinced that the overwhelming majority use their common sense (which is really sensus fidelium!) given the current state of the Philippine government and economy – “VOX POPULI VOX DIABOLI”.
On another note, other cultures that do not share the catholic beliefs have a right to pursue solutions that are in accord with their beliefs – not just Ratski.. Ratzinger whatever.
DJB,
I think the Pope’s admonition was taken out-of-context by the liberal mainstream media, especially in France.
I believe what he meant was that strong education (read as: indoctrination, he’s German you know) is still better than artificial prevention. (What if a man doesn’t have a condom with him, but he is at that point of no return?)
Here’s Inquirer’s report:
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20090318-194884/Pope-sparks-condom-backlash-on-Africa-visit
Phil Manila:
It depends on what the strong education is all about.
Recent studies conducted on abstinence-only sex-ed program in Texas and Florida have shown interesting results.
Florida’s school districts are legally required to promote “abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-aged students” but aren’t expected to offer even basic information about safe sex, says the report.
“The most recent data available shows Florida has:
* the third highest rate in the nation of new AIDS diagnoses
* the fifth highest rate of new HIV infections; teen pregnancy rates that are the sixth highest in the nation
* nearly two-thirds of all new sexually transmitted diseases in the state were among young people and 15% of new HIV infections occurred among those under the age of 25,”
according to the report. “In sum, Florida has some of the worst health outcomes on these key indicators of reproductive and sexual health nationwide.” There’s nothing funny about that.
(source: http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/03/04/sex_ed_sunshine/)
Pope John Paul II was my hero. I miss him…
the pope is being consistent with the teachings that the church has.
i don’t think he is using a social science or biological POV /framework.
but as far as policy goes, catholic teaching shouldn’t be the only thing that a policy maker should think about. (shouldn’t even be the number 1 thing)
for a catholic individual tho, the teachings of the pope should (but not always) carry more weight.
GabbyD,
The Pope’s influence extends much farther than the RCC. As the world’s oldest continuously functioning Theocracy, we are dealing with a major historical, political, financial and religious juggernaut. Those traditional teachings, those dogmas and doctrines are like 2000 year old laws and constitutions that can look down the dusty ages as such quaint inventions as Democracy with ancient disdain–and does in such events as this.
And of course my greatest concern is the Philippines itself, where that Papal power and authority has never been challenged and reigns supreme in the ever loyal City still guarded by Damaso.
This reaffirmation of those “teachings” is a Sentence of Conviction for millions–without a reasonable doubt.
The logic of this post is a bit like this:
Pope: Marriage is sacred. Dont screw around and expose yourself to the dangers of indiscriminate sex. Stay with the one youre married to.
DJB: F-you! I’ll screw around because it’s fun.
(DJB then contracts AIDS)
DJB: Damn you, Pope! It’s all your fault!
Jeg,
“The logic of this post is a bit like this:
Pope: Marriage is sacred. Dont screw around and expose yourself to the dangers of indiscriminate sex. Stay with the one youre married to.
DJB: F-you! I’ll screw around because it’s fun.
(DJB then contracts AIDS)
DJB: Damn you, Pope! It’s all your fault!”
What if a husband is faithful but his wife fools around behind his back and he gets AIDS from her? What will the Pope’s solution be?
What if a husband is faithful but his wife fools around behind his back and he gets AIDS from her? What will the Pope’s solution be?
The Pope’s solution is any sane man’s solution: send her to the hospital.
What I was addressing was the logic of blaming the Pope for something you or I did when all the time the Pope was saying, “Dont do that.”
Jeg,
No one is questioning the FACT that not having sex will prevent HIV/AIDs.
but the Catholic church did not discover or invent this fact. It is not as if people don’t know that this is a fact. This fact is NOT the teaching of the Church. It IS the common sense of thoughtful people.
But not all people are educated, thoughtful, or listen to people like the Pope.
HIV/AIDS is public health hazard, but the Pope’s implication is that it is a moral hazard and that people who get sick from HIV/AIDS get sick because they have sinned!
DJB can take moral responsibility for his actions, but what of the poor, the ignorant who live in Dark Africa, or Dark Philippines? People who don’t know any better and cannot be physically saved before they aer morally upgraded?
In this lies the essential dogmatic hard-heartedness of the Catholic church itself.
And of course, the fallacy in your argument.
Jeg,
The other rebuttal of your argument is this: Sex and Driving, Condoms and Seat Belts.
The Pope is saying that if you never drive a car, you will never get into a fatal accident.
Driving like sex, can be “responsible” or “irresponsible” and both have perfectly legitimate uses, such as the preservation of the species and of martial concord in couples.
But as MB points out, unlike driving, it takes two to tango. No individual, no matter how moral, ought to be blamed for seeking protection against the immorality of another.
Finally, let us not forget WHY the Pope is against condoms, even if, like abstinence it would certainly reduce the incidence and spread of disease. He is against condoms because “it would promote sexual promiscuity and a breakdow in morality.”
This hardly deserves Jeg’s logical defense of it.
But not all people are educated, thoughtful, or listen to people like the Pope.
Of course not all people listen to the Pope. So why blame the Pope? The Pope is addressing the moral aspect. He’s just saying live righteously. Filipino Catholics listen to the Pope. The Pope is telling them, ‘Dont do that.’ When they do anyway and get sick, why is it the Pope’s fault?
People get sick with AIDS, whether it is a sin or not, get sick because they screw around. Why is that the Pope’s fault?
First, “Benedict condemns millions to die…” then “Not all people listen to the Pope.” And my argument is fallacious?
This hardly deserves Jeg’s logical defense of it.
:-) Believe me, I dont like defending the Pope. Im not even Catholic. Im all for condoms and seat belts and all those things that would prevent people from dying. Im just pointing out the fallacies in knee-jerk arguments.
@DJB on March 19th, 2009 10:29 am
i take issue w this analogy:
“The Pope is saying that if you never drive a car, you will never get into a fatal accident.”
NO. the pope is saying, drive defensively, not recklessly.
Jeg,
The Pope is not some blogger or private person. He is the head of a 2000 year old global institution that once ruled the world, and still thinks it ought to. He is pontificating about matters better left to the scientists and the public health authorities, who would certainly use his help instead of his condemnation of their activities. He is the one saying “condoms” are a no-no. No one is saying abstinence is a no-no. That is the big difference. That is why he is condemning millions to death, or saying he could care less if they die because it is their fault anyway.
By not helping on the simple matter of prophylactics, he is committing mass murder as a sin of omission.
If Pio Nono had not made this a matter of infallible teaching, and Pius VI had not followed that evil example, then their successors would not be forced to uphold infallible Tradition.
The RCC’s stand on birth control is irreformable because they said so. That is evil PRIDE incarnate in my opinion.
GabbyD,
Abstinence is the equivalent of “defensive driving”.
I would say using a condom is safe sex–that is defensive driving.
Abstinence means you keep your, uhmm motor in the garage.
@DJB on March 19th, 2009 10:47 am
again, no. the RCC is in favor of certain forms of birth control. Its not like they are against the concept of keeping births down.
the ONLY point of disagreement is the method of doing so.
GAbbyd,
There’s a missing question mark: Abstinence is the equivalent of “defensive driving”??
Having sex without a condom, THAT is reckless driving, while using a condom (safe sex) is “defensive driving.”
GabbyD,
Birth control is of course a different issue that AIDS. But I will engage on that also. The method of doing birth control is not the only point of disagreement over a matter of public policy (“condom distribution for free, let us say). It is that matter of sexual morals that the Church says must be protected from CERTAIN forms of birth control, namely those that promote a worry free experience.
The RCC wants people to only have sex for procreation. This is a THEOLOGICAL motive, not a moral one.
As we have thrashed it out before, Democracy cannot tolerate theology sticking its camels nose into the tent of public morality and policy. We would have bloody chaos if we did that.
IMHO, the Pope’s opinions are just as valid as the opinion of any FV blogger, balut vendor, barber, taxi driver, manager, ad infinitum.
His pronouncements are attempts to remain relevant and shore up the RC brand in an increasingly diverse and secular planet.
Bottom line is to keep on the fight against AIDS with ones tool of choice.
@Bong
i agree. it wants to keep its identity. to do so it must follow its core principles. its being very consistent with what its been saying for decades now.
it would’ve been easier (in terms of popularity and membership) if it would just succumb to pressure and “do it” (OK condoms)…
FV is not a religious cult. Our main concerns, and rightly so, involve public policy and the thinking that forms that policy. Yes in a strictly constitutional sense, all are free to express opinions. But the Pope must be held accountable, even to his own conscience by the CONSEQUENCES of his exercise of civil and political rights, such expressing an opinion.
The motives of the church are selfish, dogmatic and irrational. It is not just as Jeg says an advocacy of celibacy, (how convenient for him!) or monogamy, but an outright condemnation of Common Sense in the use of condoms.
In my book this is immanent EVIL.
DJB
Check your facts first.
The Iglesia Filipina Independiente has challenged the Papal authority before by rejecting the encyclical Quae Mari Sinico. They are Filipino, follow the Catholic tradition and is the second largest Christian church in the Philippines. There are IFI dioceses in every province of the Philippines.
The IFI never cavorted or sought privileges from the ruling establishment of the country.
The IFI has no problem with condoms! or even female priests!
Ben,
Then I have no problem with the IFI. But you realize of course that IFI is the one outstanding example of a PAPAL EXCOMMUNICATION in the Philippines (1902?) aside of course from Jose Rizal’s. (For which there is no apology yet, inspite of lifting excommunication for those Nazi bishops.)
DJB
But has condom promotion reversed the HIV/AIDS epidemic? Let’s hear from the other side at–
http://www.ncregister.com/daily/condoms_aids_and_research/
“Last year, the Register spoke with secular experts who said that, in many places, condom promotion actually increases AIDS.
“We explained, in Grace Candiru’s recent story about Uganda:
Edward Green is director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies. He wrote Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning From Successes in Developing Countries and reported that, between 1989 and 2001, the average number of condoms per male ages 15 to 49 in African countries skyrocketed. So did the number of those infected with HIV. South Africa, Botswana and Zimbabwe had the world’s highest levels of condom availability per man. They also had the world’s highest HIV rates.
“Norman Hearst is a family physician and epidemiologist at the University of California, San Francisco.
“UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS, asked Hearst to do a scientific review to see if condom promotions had reversed HIV/AIDS epidemics. His review found the contrary was true. Countries with the most condoms per man tended to have the highest HIV rates. UNAIDS refused to publish Hearst’s findings.
“Condom promotion in Africa has been a disaster,” Hearst said.
“Nearly every country on the continent has vigorously promoted condoms to stem the tide of the AIDS epidemic there. But the epidemic has only grown larger.
“Uganda, on the other hand, has experienced the greatest decline in HIV prevalence of any country in the world, according to the Heritage Foundation. The Ugandan public education campaign against AIDS mentioned condoms, but emphasized abstinence.
“Studies show that from 1991 to 2001 HIV infection rates in Uganda declined from about 15% to 5%.
“The Ugandan model has the most to teach the rest of the world,” said Green. “This policy should guide the development of programs in Africa and the Caribbean.”
The motives of the church are selfish, dogmatic and irrational.
Dogmatic? Yes. Irrational? What isnt rational about telling people to not screw around to eliminate the risk of AIDS? Seems perfectly rational to me. Selfish? Now that’s a stretch, even for Dawk–, I mean, DJB.
@DJB on March 19th, 2009 12:01 pm
interesting!
“But the Pope must be held accountable, even to his own conscience by the CONSEQUENCES of his exercise of civil and political rights”
i’m not saying you are wrong. i’m saying this is exactly what Pope benedict is interested in also, except his appreciation of the consequences are different (shocker!!!).
thats is why you and he arrive at different conclusions. not that he is disinterested in consequences, but his teachings give a different moral weight.
I would say using a condom is safe sex–that is defensive driving. – DJB
Safety devices (such as seat belts, air bags, computerized car stabilizers, etc.) on the part of the driver and of the car he/she is driving are no sure guarantee of a safe drive.
All a reckless driver needs is his/her recklessness to get himself/herself figured in a driving accident.
It’s not enough to know how to drive a vehicle. Of course you must also know the traffic rules and learn to obey and follow them. But traffic rules and traffic enforcers themselves do not even guarantee an accident-free traffic.
Life is so complex that even defensive drivers — no matter how careful they are in their driving — still some of them get hit by the recklessness of others.
To believe that the problem of HIV/AIDS is best left to the scientists and health experts is again another form of intellectual arrogance.
When one is cynical of the authority of others, fake arrogance kicks in.
Non-malignant,
It’s just an analogy and the point is reasonably expressed. but i take it you are against condoms as a defense against AIDS in Africa?
Jeg,
What is irrational is the opposition to the use of condoms. The church did not invent the idea of abstinence also being effective.
GabbyD,
What moral weight does he give do you think, to 90 million who will sicken and die from AIDS in Africa alone by 2025, compared to his Sacred Dogma?
What is irrational is the opposition to the use of condoms.
Maybe, maybe not. What about domingo arong’s link in his comment at 12:53 pm? It seems that in Africa there is a correlation between condom use and AIDS.
Has there been any research done on whether or not condoms actually prevent AIDS? Or does it merely give people a false sense of security?
Well Jeg, Domingo,
I know that this only the US Centers for Disease Control and not the Vatican’s Roman Curia Clinic of Wishful Thinking, but the scientific answer to your question appears to be YES.
And oh, oh, it’s caused by a virus not a succubus.
And oh, oh, it’s caused by a virus not a succubus.
Haha. And latex is supposed to fight viruses, sure. If the data from Africa is accurate, whether latex actually fights viruses is immaterial. People are dying, even WITH condoms. In fact in Africa, the more condoms there are, the more people die of AIDS. If you dont think there’s something wrong with the condom program, then youre peddling your own form of dogma.
Jeg,
I haven’t examined Domingo Arong’s claims or evidence to support that. But who would you trust to settle what is clearly a scientific question abound Condoms and Aids? The CDC or the RCCWT?
Jeg,
Maybe they are using the condoms more like the Opus Dei uses a CILICE, or only when they do 69. Hehe. Condoms won’t work in those modes.
But who would you trust to settle what is clearly a scientific question abound Condoms and Aids?
Scientists of course. Which means we’re screwed because I dont trust scientists either. Haha. I have to rely on my inner bullshit detector. For now it seems that my bullshit detector isnt triggered by the claim that condoms can prevent the spread of AIDS so I do believe that it does, but IF people are dying in Africa despite condoms, then there is something else in play.