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.

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.

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.

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.

From Science magazine, published by that bastion of Catholic propaganda and all-around conservative religious values, the AAAS:

Uganda provides the clearest example that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is preventable if populations are mobilized to avoid risk. Despite limited resources, Uganda has shown a 70% decline in HIV prevalence since the early 1990s, linked to a 60% reduction in casual sex. The response in Uganda appears to be distinctively associated with communication about acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) through social networks. Despite substantial condom use and promotion of biomedical approaches, other African countries have shown neither similar behavioral responses nor HIV prevalence declines of the same scale. The Ugandan success is equivalent to a vaccine of 80% effectiveness. Its replication will require changes in global HIV/AIDS intervention policies and their evaluation.

Emphasis mine and for the sarcasm-challenged, the AAAS isnt a bastion of Catholic propaganda.

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

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.