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% [?]
Jeg,
It could be that all those dictators down there are sabotaging the aid efforts on AIDS because it makes them look bad. And I must admit, it took me some time to learn how to use the bloody things right. It wasn’t until someone tipped me off to the most important point. You cannot use a condom without taking your jockey shorts off first. Damn! That’s all there was to it!
BTW, I think to be perfectly consistent with the Pope’s reasoning, the Catholic Church ought to ban drugs like Xenical (Orlistat) because it causes a breakdown in gustatory morality.
Just as condoms allegedly abet lust and lead to debauchery, so too do these anti-fattening drugs encourage priestly gluttony and lead them to the expensive haberdashery.
Another way to look at this issue is ask yourself, why do you think sexual promiscuity bad? is it because it spreads diseases, causes unplanned pregnancies and strains marriage relationships? or is it simply because God says its bad, so its bad, end of story…??
a wise man once said, life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate :D
I propose that we change Benedict’s name to Beenadick Allalong.
“…but i take it you are against condoms as a defense against AIDS in Africa?” – DJB
The problem of HIV/AIDS is multi-dimensional therefore it may also require multiple approaches to tackle it. Just as the secular sector of the world’s population can only do so much in preventing HIV/AIDS, different beliefs and practices of all of the entire religious sector of the world also can only do so much to prevent this problem. Rather than hitting each other with fake intellectual arrogance and fake spiritual humility, both sectors’ (the secular and the religious) efforts to fight the problem may be appreciated if it is viewed in their respective focus of influence and considered in the proper context of their respective authorities.
Both sectors advocate various safety measures, condom and abstinence are just two of them. Both methods could cater to the “secular” people and as well as to the “religious” people. It is a waste of intellectual prowess for one to even give some kind of importance to the triviality of the matter such as this statement: “The church did not invent the idea of abstinence also being effective.”
Even though seat belts, air bags, and other devices do not guarantee a safe drive, they are still being used and employed by most drivers for the simple reason that in case they happen to be in a vehicular crash, they may still have at least some probability of surviving.
Most “secular” people do not believe in the immorality of sex outside marriage. So, condom may be a choice for them if they persist on living sexually active lives, in that way at least they have seat belts as they drive. But one’s chance of having a safe drive greatly increases when he/she knows how to behave properly in going through the traffic.
Sex is a very good thing, and like any other thing it can be abused and misused. In combating against the consequences of the abuses and misuses of sex, some sectors concentrate their efforts in advocating for the appropriate use of sex, and while still other sectors focus mainly on preventing the consequences of unrestricted sex from happening.
Regardless of whether one is secular or religious, perhaps what matters is what appropriate measures are you actually doing to help fight HIV/AIDS. One will always reap what he/she sows.
Reckless drivers don’t grow old, they simply die young.
Oh just one more thing. In the mud, what’s the use of boots when both partners have no legs?
Condom only offers a limited sense of protection. Misused sex between females can’t be protected by condom.
Non-Malignant,
I shall take that lengthy response to mean “NO” you do not oppose the use of condoms to defend against AIDS.
In return let me say I also support and promote the ideas of monogamy and abstinence, but not as exclusive solutions, as apparently the Church insists upon.
I also do not proclaim an eternity of torture for the dead who in life did not obey a hard-hearted dogmatist’s edicts and prohibitions on how to fight a virus He allegedly created.
to jeg: click below on information about HIV/AIDS, e.g.
Infectious “Bodily Fluids”
HIV can be transmitted from an infected person to another through:
* Blood (including menstrual blood)
* Semen
* Vaginal secretions
* Breast milk
Blood contains the highest concentration of the virus, followed closely by semen, followed by vaginal fluids. These are the three basic fluids that infect adults with HIV.
The risk from these fluids can be worsened or lessened depending on how they get into someone else’s body, which we will discuss below.
Breast milk can contain a high concentration of the virus, but in this situation, transmissibility depends on who and how. An adult can ingest a small amount of breast milk at minimal risk. But an infant, with its very small body and newly forming immune system, consumes vast quantities of breast milk relative to its body weight. Therefore an infant is at risk from breast milk, whereas an adult probably is not.
http://www.sfaf.org/aids101/transmission.html
to jeg and others who are interested:
Here is another site:
http://www.hivedmonton.com/about.htm
@DJB
do you have an inconsistent position?
i think you are saying some ideas are better than others, and that the pope should be judged for not having the ‘better’ idea.
and yet i recall u writing once that you say that science books and MSM should be free to have their own opinion, because ideas change over time and no one should be able to impose a uniform standard. hence, science books and newspapers should publish what they want.
is this an accurate assessment of ur past opinions?
what i have been saying in the thread is that the pope ought to be judged based on his teachings, because the RCC’s worldview appreciates the world differently. his position is consistent and true: if people were faithful as taught by himself (and people CAN be faithful), then sexual transmitted diseases wouldn’t be a problem.
i mean, set aside for a moment the scientific debate about condom effectiveness in africa. … the reason the pope said what he said was coz he believes in a view that appreciates the world differently…
GabbyD,
As the NY Times editorial says today about this issue, everyone has a right to their own opinions, but not to their own “facts”.
Thanks UPn. Like I said, ‘Condom use prevents the spread of AIDS’ doesnt trigger my bullshit detector. Let’s say it’s effective 95% of the time, a fair estimate IMO. Let’s say DJB boinks 100+ different women this year — because he’s a sex machine to all the chicks — using condoms. Based on the hit rate, there is fair chance he’ll come down with AIDS. So like I said, there is something else in play here, something the proponents of abstinence and marital fidelity are addressing.
Thanks UPn. Like I said, ‘Condom use prevents the spread of AIDS’ doesnt trigger my BS detector. Let’s say it’s effective 95% of the time, a fair estimate IMO. Let’s say DJB boinks 100+ different women this year — because he’s a sex machine to all the chicks — using condoms. Based on the hit rate, there is fair chance he’ll come down with AIDS. So like I said, there is something else in play here, something the proponents of abstinence and marital fidelity are addressing.
Jeg,
Parachutes also have a 95% safety rate, and life saving drugs like Norvasc have zero percent (since everybody dies anyway!). That is no argument against parachutes (or for not flying) nor an argument against a drug like Norvasc. What the pope wants is for people never to fly, thus causing many to jump out of planes without parachutes or if they have heart trouble, as you say, to go to a hospital.
Regardng my chances of getting AIDs from all these chicks we are so busily fending off, there is also quite a bit of “quality control” checking we should do on the engines and the “wings” before we board the plane with our parachutes on. sometimes two.(*wink*).
No one solution exists to the AIDs problem. No method that contributes to defense ought to be excluded, which is what the Pope is doing for purely dogmatic and non scientific reasons.
Life itself is a fatal disease. But that is no reason to take unnecessary risks because some Pope says you will end up a sex addict and you will be tortured in hell for all eternity after you are dead from Aids.
What the pope wants is for people never to fly…
Not quite. He’s saying ‘Use your own airplane.’
;-)
“The traditional teaching of the church has proven to be the only fail-safe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids.” Pope Benedict
I think the only fail-safe way to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS through sexual contact is abstinence (if you are single) and faithfulness to your spouse (if you are married).
That’s the real “traditional” teaching of the Bible. Sexual integrity, not contraception.
Though condoms may offer some protection, it is admittedly not fail-safe. It may even give a false sense of security. Of course, little protection is better than no protection at all.
However, the best, fail-safe way is sex in its proper context–marriage. “Flee from fornication” for singles. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” for married people.
True love waits. True love remains faithful ;-D
Jeg, And what if your airplane is second or third hand because it’s former pilot died, say of AIDS, but you love the airplane so much, you would be willing to take a 5% risk of going the same way?
E. Cortez,
The Bible also teaches that it is okay for the Chosen People to rape, pillage, enslave, annihilate and make war on their enemies, with a Divine Covenant guaranteeing victory and success at such enterprise.
But does it also say do not use condoms?
E Cortez,
And even sexual abstinence is not strictly speaking fail safe since you could get a batch of bad blood in a transfusion. Monogamy is not failsafe either as the used airplane analogy demonstrates.
I’d use a condom, DJB. But I’d boink only her, while fending off the rest of them. Love, man. ;-)
@DJB on March 20th, 2009 3:14 pm
non-sequitur man, condoms prevent HIV from fluids exchanged in sex…
also, your reading of what the catholic church teaches from the bible @DJB on March 20th, 2009 3:13 pm is wrong.
@DJB
This is what I said: “I think the only fail-safe way to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS THROUGH SEXUAL CONTACT is abstinence (if you are single) and faithfulness to your spouse (if you are married).”
Of course, we could get HIV/AIDS through blood transfusion. But that is another case. I was talking about transmission through sexual activities.
Note also that I wrote: “That’s the real ‘traditional’ teaching of the Bible. Sexual integrity, not contraception.” I was not dissing or encouraging condom use. I was just saying the Bible focused its teachings on sexual integrity. It did not specifically discuss condoms, being non-existent at that time. But argument from silence is not that conclusive. We have to look for principles. The Bible focused on moral principles as far as sex is concerned. Personally, I have no problems with people using condoms as long as they use it with their spouse. I believe that contraception is a matter of personal conviction, as long as it is not causing abortion. Abortion is killing what is already conceived. Condoms prevent conception and does not cause abortion.
Now, as far as Israel is concerned, whether you agree or not with what happened in the Old Testament is not the issue at hand. We cannot ignore everything just because of that issue on the conquest of the Promised Land. As Mark Twain wrote, “I have no problem with verses of the Bible that I don’t understand. I have problems with verses that I do understand.”
My point is, let’s focus on the main issue. Let us not allow it to be muddled by other unrelated issues.
Thanks for your comments, though.
Also, I pointed out what the Bible teaches, not what the Catholic Church teaches.
I am not a priest. I am a pastor remember?
I am not defending the Catholic stance on contraception, though I may share its stand against abortion. I am evangelical, not Catholic. ;-D
Fair enough E. Cortez. My problem is not with your position but the Pope’s position on condoms, which is what the headlines world wide is all about.
I have no problems with monogamy and abstinence as strategies of defense either, as long as no one tries to exclude other strategies, like prophylactics, which medical and scientific experts, as well as empirical tests show are also effective, if not perfect.
GabbyD,
Would you like some Biblical passages illustrating each of my accusations at 3:13 pm? All from the Pentateuch alone, which is a Christian plagiarism of the Torah? Or in the lone book of Judith in the present Catholic Bible (Imprimatur, Nihil Obstat)?
@DJB I agree with you. I have problems with the Pope’s position on condoms also.
A condom is like a gun. In the hands of a responsible gun owner or law enforcer, it’s an instrument for good. In the hands of criminals, it’s an instrument for evil.
Married couples using condoms to prevent conception, to control the number of their children so that they could only have what they can support properly, is not wrong. Though it is not fail-safe, it could help.
But, people using condoms with those who are not their rightful spouse is wrong. It may prevent HIV/AIDS transmission to a certain degree. But it’s like playing russian roulette.
Just as condoms are not fail-safe in preventing conception, so also it is not in HIV/AIDS transmission.
I think we have a common ground DJB ;-D
Thanks for that, E. Cortez!
Ah, science. Can’t argue with scientific evidence.
From Science magazine, published by that bastion of Catholic propaganda and all-around conservative religious values, the AAAS:
Emphasis mine and for the sarcasm-challenged, the AAAS isnt a bastion of Catholic propaganda.
Jeg,
That is a very interesting CHERRY you have PICKED there.
But here is how it works in scientific research that relies on the work of others:
If you do a literature review, you must present the whole ensemble of available results, interpretations and conclusions.
This single bit proves only that education about what truly causes AIDS is valuable and effective–a thing that scientists have emphasized from the very beginning. Measures such as condoms and vaccines were developed as a result of the knowledge that a virus transmitted during exchange of bodily fluids (and not some Holy Evil Ghost or mumbo jumbo man) is the physical agent of illness and death.
It most certainly does not prove condoms are worthless, even in Uganda, or that what is being reported here is even what is actually happening in Uganda.
What you need is not sarcasm, but a more thorough review of all the evidence, not one post from 2004, — half a decade ago.
It most certainly does not prove condoms are worthless, even in Uganda, or that what is being reported here is even what is actually happening in Uganda.
Good gravy, DJB. Of course it doesnt. Im just continuing with my theme of ‘something else is in play, something that advocates of abstinence and marital fidelity arfe trying to address.’ Theyre saving lives, man. That’s nothing to sneeze at if saving lives is more important to you — and I assume it is — than throwing egg on the Pope’s face. Condoms alone aint doing it.
Jeg,
Who is advocating “condoms” alone?
And who is saying never use condoms?
Astinence would not have occurred to the Pope if the scientists didn’t tell him about the virus.
Besides, the Pope wants abstinence even if AIDs didn’t didn’t exist.
In fact, it isn’t disease prevention he is really concerned about, but Catholic concepts of morality.
It is him that is inhuman and doesn’t really care about saving human lives because he is more interested in their “eternal souls” and the after-life.
You make it seem as if doctors don’t counsel abstinence or educate people about that.
The Church does not know of ANY effective way to combat the disease which they didn’t find out from the scientists.
Now they make it seem like they invented it and everyone else is against their one and only method.
They insist people will go to hell if they don’t obey the Teaching Magisterium’s dogmas.
I can’t let such intellectual dishonesty stand when a lot of people in the Philippines and Africa are being hurt by their insane opposition to latex.
I know this topic is over 2 months old but I just can’t sit back and ignore it.
DJB,
You say the Pope is “inhuman” because he is more interested in “eternal souls”? I don’t know if you believe in God or in the afterlife but if you do, which one would you give priority? The temporary physical body or the eternal afterlife? And in fact, it is the pope who is more human because he treats people as a whole, body and soul, whereas the scientist see the person in a very physical way.
Moreover, if the Pope promotes condoms, then he violates the Catholic teachings against contraception. The problem with condoms is that it would make people look like irrational animals, only thinking about sex and not about the consequences. But we are humans, we are rational, we think.
We just don’t treat Africans as sex-hungry animals and just let them have sex anytime they want. The Catholic Church treats them as humans.
Let’s not degrade ourselves to irrational animals because we know better.