If the official position of the RCC is that you can get AIDS-flavored condoms, then yes, that is a problem. But in 12 years of Catholic schooling, I have never heard anything of the sort. Color me skeptical about that part of the story.
As for the other part, the WHO states in the article that “…condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%.” A far cry from 100%, when being in that 10% could mean a slow and painful death.
Maybe the good Cardinal was talking about lambskin condoms? Aren’t they all leaky when it comes to virii?
WTF? Are you really that incredibly stupid? (Face the question squarely.) Are you prepared to come in here and say that HIV and AIDS are “gay” or “immoral” diseases caused only by promiscuous and philandering misconduct?
Thank you for making the call on this one right away, Desmostylus. Very respectable of you.
Have we purchased a teensy weensy clue yet, Brutus? You are despicable.
And as we are now well into the second decade of widespread AIDS transmission, I suppose you think that anyone who contracted HIV from birth to an infected mother, or from a transfusion, or from a needle stick, or from unknowingly having sex with an infected spouse should either never have sex again, or accept a greatly elevated risk of infecting his/her partner?
Geez, I hope you follow your own rules if you should ever come down with anything.
Besides, even as a Jewish agnostic, I know the Church doesn’t frown on people remarrying if they are widowed or obtain an annullment. Even strictly observant Catholics may have more than one monogamous relationship in a lifetime.
Not to try and defend a pretty ridiculous statement by the church or anything but… if people really were monogamous, and kept faithful, AIDS would be much less of a problem than it is today. It would be almost entirely restricted to IV drug users. The reality is that infections come almost exclusively from sexual contact or IV drug use. If you want to focus your argument on the tiny percentage that got it another way, don’t let me stop you, but it’s not really a good argument.
If you’re completely monogamous, and remained virginal until marriage (along with your spouse) you’re in really good shape AIDS wise.
True enough, percentage-wise, particularly in the Western world. But then you are forcing innocent people to suffer even more due to the misdeeds of their partners, even if they were 100% monogamous and believed, in good faith, that their partners were as well.
Let me frame it a bit differently, since the U.S. model of AIDS transmission is very different than in other places. So if an African wife has a husband who is screwing around on her while working in another city, and he contracts HIV and eventually dies (very young, due to inability to obtain appropriate treatment because of its exorbitant cost) of AIDS, but has infected her in the meantime, she should never be able to have sex again?
I was raised as a Catholic and always told that the Pope is, essentially, the embodiment of god on earth. Granted, I got that from the nuns who also said if you sit at the back of the church it doesn’t count because god can’t see you back there. But I did find this in the Catechism of the Catholic Church :
“Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals…The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . .”
Not as bold a statement as what the nuns told me, but it does seem to say that in matters of faith and morals, the Pope is infallible.
Exactly! These are the things to worry about. I’d much prefer my odds in this situation than if I’d have to track back my multiple partners and my SO’s multiple partners and THEIR multiple partners for similar risks. Your odds of getting infected go up significantly if you sleep around, because you have to worry about the risk factors for every partner you have.
If you have 10 partners, and your SO has 10 partners, you’ve got 21 people to worry about, as opposed to 1. If your SO screws around with a hooker, you have to worry about the hundreds of guys she’s slept with, too.
Stay viriginal and faithful and your risk factors drop right down into your own home. You only need worry about the things you mentioned, that’s a lot less to be concerned about than the alternative.
Just for the record, I think it’s a fantasy world that the RCC is living in, expecting all people to be virginal and faithful, doesn’t seem to happen in real life. Individuals can do it, society as a whole… not likely.
Right. Now you have it. Being infallible in matters of faith is not necessarily being infallible in general, just as a mouse is a rodent, but a rodent is not necessarily a mouse.
A: This was not an Infallible Ex-Cathedra doctrinal decree by the Pope.
Read the linked OP article, it was not even a statement BY the Pope. (more on that under ‘B’)
“Papal Infallibility” DOES NOT mean that every word he, or any Church official, speaks about morality is infallible. lauramarlane, the Popes have exercised the authority to speak infallibly under that article exactly TWICE in the last 200 years, last time in 1950.
B:
Alas, Most Honourable Roman, it does look like he meant latex.
It pains me, but at the most generous interpretation the argument we could have is that the condoms available to the poor of the world are made with inferior material and no quality control, will be used incorrectly, and may be even often washed out and reused. Of course, even if that were the case, Cardinal Trujillo of the PCF would likely not detail it so since the mandatory follow-up question would be “then you would approve if we use high-grade Trojans and educate people on how to properly use them?”
However, the OP title and opening sentence is slightly misleading in that it’s not the Pope who said that. The article DOES say the Pope opposes Birth Control, but for the classic, traditional Church doctrinal reasons. (BTW, JP2, like many CEOs or Heads of State, may be totally at sea when it comes to evaluating scientific claims, relying instead on advisors to tell him what research report to believe. Problem is he handpicks those advisors so he is responsible for getting the wrong info) It’s the PCF who’s on record alleging a permeability of latex to viruses, apparently embracing the (to me, bogus) principle that if you can’t absolutely prove a risk is absolutely 0 in absolutely every case, it’s not worth it in any case; and the bishops in the Third World who are fearmongering about spiked condoms.
What seems to be happening, is that although it doesn’t seem to be “official policy” in the sense of a proclamation with the Papal seal on it, the hierarchy have decided that anything-goes in the campaign against “promiscuity”, because appeals to simple moral authority just don’t work. That makes me very, very sad. It’s like all those bishops are just giving up on the position of faith.
Although I must say the Church has got itself in this mess in part because of a historic unwritten tradition of allowing certain “cultural” practices that are technically outside the pale – such as men keeping mistresses – to go on as long as (a) it meant the population DID convert and (b) they were kept private and you did your penance quietly w/o causing “scandal”.
I’d like to also add that if the culture allows for many multiple partners, the likelihood of transmission goes up geometrically. If the society (in the RCC’s fantasyland) only supported monogamy, the ability for AIDS to transmit sexually would drop like a rock. The guy who gets infected from a transfusion can infect his wife, that’s it, nobody else gets it. In reality, he may have sex with many women, who have sex with many men, they can all get infected.
I want to emphasize something that you just said, lauramarlane - not necessarily to correct you, but to clarify any confusion that may be present among our silent lurkers.
What this means is that not everything that comes from the Pope’s pen is God’s Holy Writ. This papal infallibility is invoked extremely rarely:
Technically, the pope is only considered infallible when he makes a statement ex cathedra, which is done in a specific manner. To the best of my knowledge it has only been done twice ever, establishing the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption as matters of Catholic doctrine.
I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong, but I think that the education beaten into me by the Jesuits is coming through correctly here.
A doctrinal question: does Catholicism allow for use of condoms to prevent disease if it has already been medically established that one or both partners are incapable of conceiving a child? (past menopause, prior trauma, or whatever) Or that is inadvisable for the wife to become pregnant due to risk to her own health and/or life?
Thanks for the info, JRDelirious and beagledave. That part wasn’t clear to me from my cursory reading of the catechism, or from what I’d been taught as a young Catholic. And I like your rodent analogy, Libertarian.
A Catholic friend of mine had been advised by her doctor to avoid pregnancy because of a variety of medical conditions she has. When she and her husband discussed this with their priest, he advised them to abstain because the use of birth control is a sin. I don’t know that this is the official position of The Church, but it is what their priest advised them to do.