Pope spreads AID/HIV? Options

[MeanBastard]

So, what's your take on this? The pope is opposed to condoms, and therefore indirectly contributes to the spread of AIDS.

Economist, 20 Apr 2005.
"And the refusal to condone the use of condoms has helped the spread of AIDS; the church has not only refused to change its stance, but has even promoted shoddy science purporting to show that condoms are ineffective in preventing transmission of HIV."

Jurgita Zemaityte, Brussels, Economist letters, 21 Apr 2005.
"Finally, the assertion that the church's teaching on contraception has contributed to many deaths is extraordinary. How can the church stand so accused when it proposes the only secure way to avoid AIDS transmission, which is through fidelity in marriage? If the church's ideas were followed, the spread of AIDS would not be the problem we have now."

New Scientist, 9 April 2005.
"We were disappointed that Pope John Paul II did not realise the Roman Catholic policy on condoms actually contributed to many deaths in the fight to control HIV/AIDS."

Arthur Moore, Nottingham, UK, New Scientist letters, 30 April 2005.
"Of course the pope and the Catholic church knew that deaths would result from their policies. According to the Bible, the 'wages of sin are death', and many right-wing Christians think that to permit the use of condoms would be to encourage sex outside marriage, or sex inside marriage that is not for its proper purpose of procreation. The logic follows that those who sin will die and, while this is perhaps not entirely desirable, some probably do not view it as an entirely bad thing either, as it serves as a warning to others of what will happen if they 'sin.'"

Jack Miles, Slate.MSN.com, 19 April 2005.
"The second question was whether the church would liberalize its stance on sexual morality and whether, in particular, it would soon take the step of allowing artificial contraceptives—as it came close to doing in the mid-1960s, before Humanae Vitae. That 1968 encyclical reaffirmed ultraconservative sexual morality and reversed a trend toward collegiality in church government. Today, condoms have helped to slow the spread of AIDS in Brazil and elsewhere. But in Africa, where the AIDS crisis is worst, the church is identified more than ever with the most adamant opposition to the condom. Meanwhile, church governance remains more tightly centralized than ever. The election of Joseph Ratzinger announces that in both these regards—sexual morality and church governance—the status quo will remain unchanged."

And a few others thoughts:
-African women have much less say in sex than in more developed countries. What one would call "rape" here is more acceptable there.
-There are ways to get AIDS other than sex, especially mother to child. Does the child deserve to die for it's parents' sinful ways?



So, 2 questions here, really.

1. Is the pope contributing to the spread of HIV/AIDS?

Nobody denies this one (well, maybe that second guy; let's say nobody with any rational logic at all).

If you have a way to prevent something but refuse to use it, you're contributing. Remember, "contributing" is a lot broader than "causing." That France, Great Britain, Russia, Serbia, Austria, and Germany all contributed to starting WWI is not debatable; who caused it is.

2. If we accept (1), is it wrong for the pope to contribute to the spread of HIV/AIDS?

This one is obviously more contestable.

I'd say it is wrong. Of course, I'm not Catholic, so I'd guess that plays a huge role (especially with the pope supposedly being infallible on morals when he speaks for the whole Church). I think letting people die is worse than "encouraging" them to have non-marital sex. If I were heavily religious, I could try to claim that both murder and adultery are in the 10 Commandments and are equally important. Bah. Nobody thinks ignorning your mother telling you to take the garbage out is a sin equal to killing someone.

Also, as Jack Miles points out, the Church being opposed to condoms is very temporal. In a few years (well, most likely only after this pope, considering how conservative he is), the Church could very well accept condoms, just as it has accepted the idea that the earth revolves around the sun or that there is no physical hell or that women are not simply property. The Church hardly stands by its views forever; it adapts to meet the needs of its followers.


Discussion?

[parallel]

Um. Wow. That's quite a lot of information you've got there. x]

This is quite interesting though. On the other hand. How weird.

[EmmalieV]

Well , the reason the church opposes condoms is because it believe for you to have sex , your taking on the responsibilty and consequences of child birth , etc etc.

Now , Im not sure if im opposing what they are saying because you have to take on the consequences , but to protect myself I would use a condom anyway.

I thought condoms dont prevent HIV , I pretty sure they dont.

[Chaos13]

Well , the reason the church opposes condoms is because it believe for you to have sex , your taking on the responsibilty and consequences of child birth , etc etc.

Now , Im not sure if im opposing what they are saying because you have to take on the consequences , but to protect myself I would use a condom anyway.

I thought condoms dont prevent HIV , I pretty sure they dont.

Yes condoms doesn't prevent HIV because there are micro-holes on the condom which can lead the sperm cell to penetrate it easily and yeah..you get it..

[JlIaTMK]

I find this really interesting. I actually do find that.... he indirectly is contributing to it. But, as a question, what the hell could the pope to to stop it? He's just one religious leader. People that want to have sex with condoms, will have sex with condoms. This is all the more adding to the fight with religion vs. science. I personally believe the pope is wrong because it may add, without the use of condoms, many more STDs to our society.

Anyways, this is to be in the Debate forum.

[toodlepops.]

^ Agreed.
He's contrubuting to it inderictly.

[*Fallen_Fairy*]

Your not getting the whole message. Condoms or any other form of contraceptives are opposed by the church because and man and a women should on have sex when they are married. If you are married you are faithul, you have gone into marriage a virgin. Therefore you don't ave any diseases to worry about

[someflipguy]

sorry a little off subject but i thought the title said "Poop spreads AID/HIV" sorry I laughed but anyways I agree with fallenfairy.

[heyyfrankie]

i think that just because he opposes the usuage of condoms doesn't mean that he is contributing to the cause of aids/hiv. but then again...i am kinda on the line.

[fameONE]

How bout this (for the sake of debate)

The Pope is standing firm to his own beliefs. If he believes that premarital sex is wrong and that those who are truly Christians should not (and do not) have sex before marriage, then there's no need for condoms. With that (narrow) mindset, he's completely right and I couldn't agree with him more.

But here's where John Ratzinger needs to wake up and face reality. Not everyone is a Christian, not everyone opposes premarital sex and good people that are (more than likely) bound for the pearly gates indulge in the pleasures of sex before marriage. Therefore, people are going to fcuk, and fcuk and fcuk some more so the most logical thing to do is to distribute and promote the usage of condoms to stagnate the spread of VDs.,

Whether or not he's indirectly contributing to the spreading of the AIDS epidemic could be solely a stance of opinion. You could say that he's the reason why you're ex boyfriend/girlfriend has contracted the virus from you (which you contracted from a guy/girl during a drunken rendezvous that was handled "responsibly" by the use of a contraceptive) but, you could also say that alls he's doing is standing by what he believes to be right.

After all "he's-a the freakin' pope-a." [Esoteric Family Guy reference {the episode is hilarious}]

/end reply.rant>

[rOckThISshYt]

I can understand the church's side of it. I can understand why they want to promote the vow of chastity. I just think they're not doing it properly. As you said, the lack of condoms can spread STDs much faster and to a greater amount of people. It could also mean underage and/or unwanted pregnancies.

Although many STDs are cureable, many others aren't. I learned in health class that the chances are 1000 times more likely to contract an STD without protection than with it. That is a very high number. By demoting the use of condoms, they are indirectly killing off many people. Although, in some cases, it is not the person's fault that contracted it (such as rape, etc.). In most cases it is, though. So I do not put full responsability on the Church. But I think they have serious lack of judgment when it comes to such things.

Also, protection obviously plays a big roll in pregnancy. Without a condom, the chances are so much greater of having an unwanted baby that with a condom. It is much easier to have an underage and/or an unwanted pregnancy without a condom. Again, I do believe that the people having the sex are responsable for this (unless it's rape, etc.). But the Chruch indirectly is involved in the choice.


Like I have said in many other topics, people are going to do what they want to do. In this case, with or without protection (if they want it bad enough). Again, I do not believe saying that condoms are bad is the way of stopping or limiting pre-marital sex.

[XoJennaoX]

If there is no pre-marital sex, you are getting married as virgins and there is no need for condoms. Therefore there would be no diseases in the first place to spread. That is the church's stand.... they are not worring about what happens to those people who go against their beliefs and have sex with different partners and spread the disease. They are only concerned with educating "non-sinners" to not have pre-marital sex by eliminating condoms.... which is a very close-minded, stubborn view. But hey thats what the church has been known for.

[fameONE]

a very close-minded, stubborn view. But hey thats what the church has been known for. 

Such a low blow, but damn it, its so true.

[madchenallein]

Kudos again to BrandonSaunders for a well thought out reply, and fallenfairy, for a simple, straight, good answer.

Here's a couple of important points (I think):

The Church's decrees are for her people. If you're not Catholic, why do you care what the Catholic Church says, it doesn't apply to you-per your beliefs-anyway.

Secondly, the Church has to remain firm on its morality, it can't allow society to sway it every time society changes its mind.
The bottom line is, the Church expects her members to be chaste, either chastely single, or chaste 'within' a marriage-that is, only having sexual intercourse with your spouse. If the Church allowed condom use, that would be like saying well, if you want to sin a little bit, at least do it safely for your body, but go ahead and damn your soul, since it can't get AIDS.

If you are a good Catholic (or really Christian in general) you know what you should and shouldn't be doing, and what the pope says on condoms isn't going to change that. Beyond that, if you don't abide by the pope's decrees, either because you're not Catholic or because you're not a faithful Catholic, then it's up to you. They exist, they have a purpose, you can make a little mistake or you can make a huge mistake. Why don't people just avoid it all together and try NOT to make the mistake to begin with?

You can give innocence away anytime you want, but you can never get it back.