Firstly, upon what authority does the Catholic Church speak ?
It is not involved as far as I know in research into AIDS, it does not manufacture drugs to treat it, it does not carry out blood transfusions, in short it has very little frontline experience of AIDS, apart from trying to condemn the unfortunate victims of the illness.
If we were to accept the word of the Catholic Church on all matters, we would still believe the sun rotated around the earth, we would still be burning people to purify them, we would still be in the middle ages.
The Catholic Church is somehow attempting to hijack the advice that medical practitioners have discovered about AIDS.
It is trying to associate its moral values with medical advice, as if this were somehow divinely inspired, which is a gross insult to all those who have worked so hard in the field.
The Catholic Church is trying to imply that its moral teachings are the savlation from AIDS, and the further implication is that those with AIDS who do not follow those moral teachings are themselves to blame for their condition.
That Brutus is why the senile old shaman’s utterings are so offensive.
I can’t believe I’m doing this, especially given my distaste for the political commentary from Brutus, but …
Yes, I think Brutus is quite aware that AIDS can be transmitted via tainted blood products, or from unclean needles, or from a pregnant mother to her unborn child, or from aliens from the planet Zok sticking a cattle prod in my ear. His point remains, though, that AIDS is primarily transmitted through sexual contact, and that if, hypothetically speaking, every single sexual contact in the world were in the confines of a monogamous, commited relationship, then the spread of AIDS by sexual contact would be far, far, far less than it is today.
However, expecting everyone in the world to have one and only one sexual partner in his or her lifetime is not as realistic as some may hope.
Now, please. stpauler, Libertarian, Eva Luna, I respect your passions on this issue, but try to look at what Brutus is saying – all of what he is saying.
My position on the issue? I think the Roman Catholic Church would be far more relaxed if the Pope and the entire College of Cardinals would head off to a strip club, kick their feet up, light up some stogies, and get lap dances until their mitres go limp.
Well, he’s right. HIV is primarily, although certainly not exclusively, as the example of Ryan White and people who use contaminated needles shows, transmitted through sexual contact.
Well, not per se . AFAIK, there is nothing "sinful’ in Catholic Dogma about two gay people “entering into one life long monogamous relationship”. As long as they don’t have sex during that relationship, and don’t try & get married. Purely platonic gay relationships are not “sinful”. Of course, that is rather ridiculous to ask the gay people not have sex, but still, worded as you did. Yes, this is a quibble, but since you quibbled on the next point…
Sure- there are other ways of getting infected by AIDS other than thru sex. Rare, but it happens. BUTwearing even a dozen condoms won’t help in those cases.:rolleyes: Abstinence is 100% effective in preventing sexually transmitted AIDS. Condoms are only 90% effective- and only if used correctly. Thus, in a way- the Cardinal was correct- not having promiscuous sex at all is safer than having promiscuous sex with a condom. Correct- yes, but completely unrealistic, as humans being humans some will have sex at every opportunity, and thus using condoms during such is far safer than not.
Of course, assuming he was talking about latex condoms- the “tiny holes” theory is bullshit. Here the Cardinal is very wrong.
As has been said before The Pope did not make this statement. I am sure, in theory the Pope would suggest absinence over condom usage (with promiscuous sex) - but so does our idiot President. Rememer them wanting to teach abstinence instead of masturbation? :dubious:
Note also we have exactly one source for this- one article in a VERY biased paper. It is quite possible that they took the Cardinals words out of context or misunderstood him. If all he said was that abstinence is safer than condoms, then he is right, although naive.
This was a IMHO thread within the last two weeks. I’m outie in 4 minutes so I’m not going to do a search for it. But the question to an extent depends on your definition of “sex.” There are any number of ways to have sex which don’t involve penetration.
Would I bottom for someone if I knew they had full-blown AIDS? Probably not I would say now but given an actual person with actual medical history that answer might change. But there are lots of sexual activities in which I’d engage with an HIV+ or FBA partner without hesitation.
Of course, I see your point: especially in the developed world, there aren’t a lot of cases of AIDS contracted within monogamous lifetime sexual relationships. However, as I mentioned before, the picture is very different elsewhere.
I feel the most for the people who thought they were avoiding risky behavior, but contract HIV anyway: the spouses who didn’t know their longtime partner was cheating or using drugs. They have done nothing wrong, but they are screwed anyway. And now the RCC is basically telling them they should abstain, for life, from one of the most basic forms of human contact, or risk infecting their partners? That sucks. My apologies to all non-hypocritical devout Catholics out there, but I’m sure glad I’m not one of you.
That sounds like an excuse, and a bad one. Just because gay people aren’t legally allowed to marry doesn’t mean they can’t have monogamous relationships. Coincidence isn’t the right word, but correlation =/= causation and suggesting so is a pretty big dismissal of the concept of personal responsibility.
The idea that if everyone would just remain in a single monogamous relationship until they kick the bucket, then AIDS would be much less of a problem (maybe approaching “no problem”), strikes me as being obvious. But hey, if my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle.
Meanwhile, back here on Planet Earth, people are promiscuous and irresponsible and AIDS is spreading like wildfire through the continent of Africa – where, according to this article, the Catholic church is telling people condoms do not prevent the transmission of AIDS and actively encouraging people not to use them, saying instead (correctly) that the only way to be absolutely safe is to practice abstinence.
What Cardinal Trujillo is doing is attempting to argue that because condoms are not effective in blocking the AIDS virus 100% of the time, they are useless to block the AIDS virus at all. This is ridiculous, of course, and totally ignores the established science that condoms are 90% effective in blocking the AIDS virus. He is trying to say “Don’t use condoms, they don’t work! Use abstinence instead!” but failing entirely to see the high probability that people (human nature being what it is) will listen to the first half of that message and ignore the second.
It is the “condoms don’t work” part of this message that is IMO almost criminally irresponsible. If the Cardinal were to limit his anti-prophylactics message to “we disapprove of any form of birth control for doctrinal/religious reasons, so don’t use it,” I would have no problem with it – despite the major migraine even that message would present to the health workers and educators of the world. But to tell uneducated people of faith that condoms do not work to prevent the spread of AIDS in the vast majority of cases, when science clearly has established that they do – it’s reprehensible. And indefensible.
I can see wanting to promote monogamy/abstinence. I can even see concluding that promoting church teaching is more important than safeguarding people’s health – I don’t agree with it, but I can see it. I simply cannot see lying to people about something you don’t approve of, when you know or should know that a highly probable result of your lie is that people will rely upon it to their extreme and everlasting detriment.
AFAIC the aura of infallibility pervades all announcements proferred by the Vatican. They know that the overwhelming majority of the rank and file cannot, or will not, dispute, or even discuss, the fine points of when the pope speaks * ex cathedra*, or is just issuing encyclicals, “white papers”, whatever. The Church says it, I believe it, yadda-yadda-yadda[seen it on numerous bumperstickers] Why should they question the Church, that has only the best intentions towards the faithful? More lying and obfuscation. Can’t we get a straight answer from the corporation that’s been beating the “follow the straight and narrow” drum for 2000 years?
As long as the Pope continues to use the bullet proof Popemobile, he’s got no right to speak about the use of condoms.
After all, I’d think that God would have a lot more of a stake in the life of the one and only Pope than whether or not Joe and Jane Pissant use a condom when they have sex.
If by some tragedy my wife acquired the HIV virus through a blood transfusion and developed full blown AIDS, I would still have sex with her (but I would wear the condom. It’s more effective that way).
Quibble over bullshit semantics very much. I was obviouslt talking about the ways in which the virus is transmitted. Brutus proffered a characteristically charmless and ignorant suggestion that if it wasn’t for non-monogomous sex there would be no AIDS. Do you agree with that assertion?
Boy, that’s not my church, where just about anything anyone in a funny hat or a reversed collar says gets challenged. Sure, there are some people that are inclined to “follow the rules,” but they are hardly a majority or even a strong minority. (Have you ever seen the figures for Catholic use of birth control in the U.S.?)
(And I have never seen a bumper sticker that proclaimed “John Paul II said it, I believe it, that settles it.” In what odd corner of the country have you seen that?)
With respect, TOM, I think the unquestioning acceptance QUILTGUY was referring to is far more likely to be the case in Africa, which is (a) where the AIDS crisis is worst and also, unfortunately, (b) where the Catholic church is alleged to be spreading this nonsense. To me, part of what makes this so condemnable is the likelihood that they are dealing with a population that is far more likely than Americans to take the word of the Church as “gospel,” so to speak.
“If you’re completely monogamous, and remained virginal until marriage (along with your spouse) you’re in really good shape AIDS wise.”
Otto "There are those who are barred by law and doctrine from marrying. One of those groups is among the hardest hit by the AIDS epidemic. Coincidence?
Hmmm? The only AIDS group I can think of that are barred * by law and doctrine * from marrying are homosexuals. Are you suggesting that homos have a more difficult time remaining virginal and monogamous until they find their one true love?
I don’t think that’s what you meant, cuz if it is then you are sugesting that homos are philandering sex fiends incapable of respecting the high moral decency required of marriage.
