The Pope wants you dead

I’ve been explaining to people the past few weeks that just because the Pope is old and frail it doesn’t mean he’s mentally deficient or senile and they shouldn’t judge people on appearances like that. However, I take all that back. The Pope is either mad, stupid, or evil. You decide.

According to this article the Catholic church is telling people with AIDS not to use condoms, which I’m sure you already know. But they are also telling people that condoms offer no protection against AIDS, which is entirely false according to all scientific research.

It’s fair enough to decree people should only have the choice of abstinence, since at least then people can make an informed choice between obeying or suffering the torments of Hell (or Purgatory; my theology sucks).

But now they are adding propaganda and misinformation, actually claiming that condoms will let viruses through and some priests are even claiming that condoms give you AIDS. On this issue, the Vatican is in total contradiction to conclusions arrived at by actual scientific research of the World Health Organization, the US National Institutes of Health, and numerous other august institutions who actually know things about biology and medicine.

So not only is the Vatican determined to prohibit condom use for dubious doctrinal reasons with scant scriptural or moral justification, even banning their use between an HIV+ husband and his wife, they are willing to lie in order to achieve their goal. Isn’t telling blatant falsehoods a sin any more? Way to go, Mad Pope.

Of course, if people followed the Church’s doctrine of entering into one life-long monogamous relationship, AIDS would have been unheard of.

If people aren’t going to pay attention anyways, why shouldn’t they take the highroad?

Of course the church knows that nobody ever makes a mistakes and selects an incompatible partner.

Get church out of the bedroom, human reproduction is not the remit of the church, it is just a way of totalitarianist control by the religeous idealogues.

No kidding.

I don’t think the Pope wants people to die any more than Clinton wanted Hillary to hurt. Sometimes, people just say and do stupid things without thinking it all the way through.

Um, why would that be? And does the principle apply to, say, syphilis? What about Hodgkin’s disease? Skin cancer?

Just say no to disease!

You truly are a reprehensible fucking idiot, Brutus.

Could you explain what the high road is in this sitation?

What now? I was told for years by medical professionals that condoms wouldn’t stop AIDS virus for a second. If thats the case, you can hardly blame the Pope or the Vatican for being a bit behind. I usualy keep up prety well with medical tech, but…

That said, priests shouldn’t say that condoms give you AIDS, but I didn’t read the whole article. In any case, it looks more like the church is saying “if you have AIDS, don’t have sex assuming a condom will protect you.”

Yeah, the Catholic Church has a long standing tradition of taking the high road. cough alterboys cough

The position of the RCC has long been:

A) Birth control is immoral.
B) People should enter into life-long monogamous relationships. C) People should only have sex within those relationships.

People don’t seem to pay heed to B or C, but that doesn’t make A any less important in the eyes of the Church. Changing A just because people are ignoring the heck out of B and C would be pandering. Sure, you could argue that changing A may save lives. But if people just payed attention to B and C, there would be no need to change anything.

Hence, the highroad: Don’t change just to appease those who aren’t listening to you anyways.

  1. It took eight replies to get the obligatory, always insightful “alterboys” (sic) reference? Huh…getting slower.

  2. The term is altar boys


Desmo, you are the idiot. This does apply to syphilis, and every other STD. Are implying that skin canceer is an STD? Sheesh. Brutus was right. AIDS was mostly spread by truckers in Africa visiting whores and then bringing it home to their wives. Not what the church preaches.

Brutus it would be wise to choose ones battles. In this you are being a pandering apologist. It’s not as if we didn’t know the Catholic Church was against birth control. I don’t agree with the position, but I certainly respect their right to their dogma. If this article is correct they perverted the scientific facts to suit the dogma.

That is despicable. Furthermore, I would think as a conservative of the anti-Clinton variety you would be willing to condemn lying as a means of exerting power and influence. The Catholic Church knows damn well that the AIDS virus cannot pass through a condom. To pervert the truth in this way is unforgivable.

Yes, because the Church’s doctrine makes sure to take in account getting AIDS from other ways than sex. (A doctor working on an infected patient contracts the disease and now, he can’t use a condom to protect his uninfected monogamous wife).
You sir, need to shut the fuck up.

The problem here is not that the Vatican continues to hold its position that birth control is immoral; I doubt anyone here is expecting them to change their minds. It’s that they’re spreading false information about the effectiveness of condoms against disease (and did anyone else note, pregnancy as well.) Does taking the high road mean lying to add weight to your position?

Grrgh. If their stance is that birth control is immoral, why should it be their concern if it actually works or not? The lies reported in that article… AIDS-treated condoms?? The priests spreading them are doing grave disservices to their parishioners. And what’s the point?

“The use of condoms runs counter to the teachings of the church. And, um, they don’t work anyway. Yeah. And, ah, some already have AIDS on them before you put them on. Yeah, that’s the ticket. So, um, right. Don’t use them.”

Got me there. How could I have missed the obvious truth? It was those sonofabitch truckers.

You stupid prick.

Yeah, I know, I didn’t think I’d get a shot at it at all! In my haste to get it out there I didn’t spell check properly. Sorry about that.

I understand and can respect A, B and C, even if I disagree. But I don’t think the lying and/or spreading ignorance constitutes the high road to those goals. That, I believe, is the crux of the OP.

The Church’s actions (as is so often the case in matters of human sexuality) are reprehesible, but I must give them snaps for coming up with the program name “Sex and the Holy City.”