Or, SHIT! You mean the PRIESTS are getting it at a high rate? Well now it all makes sense.
The priests are all getting AIDS (because they’re only human…) and they swear up and down they’ve been using condoms.
Therefore Da Vatican deduces that condoms are ineffective at stopping the virus. OK. I get it now. Think I’ll go hijack a Pit rant…
Being virginal or monogomous guarantee nothing to begin with but another point here is that from a simply moralistic standpoint, the RCC draws no distinction between monogomous homosexual relationships or promiscuous behaviors. Even if gay people do live in committed, promiscuous relationships they are still condemed as immoral by Church doctrine. That’s a separate issue from whether they would be more protected from AIDS but I persoanlly find it distasteful to suggest that AIDS has any moral implications for the person who contracts it.
What the hell are you responding to here? I’m trying to find some context for this post but I don’t know what you’re talking about.
The Fuller/Keenan article from 3 years back linked to by tomndebb above, points to there being a lack of unanimity about this angle on the condom issue within the hierarchy. Still, in JP2’s last days the hardline reactionaries seem to be going full-tilt-gonzo for every chance to reassert themselves. That’s probably because they correctly figure that if they can make their pet project look like part of JP2’s “legacy” it stands a better chance of surviving future changes in Church political climate.
Pretty much so. The traditional position is that every urge of the flesh can be mastered. Remember, theoretically speaking, under RCC doctrine you may not even masturbate; as mentioned, real-world pastoral care tends to be more flexible than abstract theological positions (And hey, in the most reductionist sense, they do have a point: remaining celibate is not gonna kill you. Sex is a life-or-death need for the species but not for the individual)
Diogenes, I think he’s referring to the fact that priests aren’t allowed to marry. You know, the old switcheroo.
Nice catch, ** Cheese **, I forgot to put in the part about the priests not having received sufficient/correct condom-use instruction–them dang things is tricky!
** Diogenes ** in my post preceding the facetious one I was sincerely responding to Otto’s response to an earlier post essentially stating that AIDS is pretty easy to NOT get if you exercise some educated restraint sexually. A point with which I agree.
I’m not such a dimwit as to associate spiritual morality with physical disease, and it appeared from Ottos post that those barred from marriage were more prone to AIDS:
**There are those who are barred by law and doctrine from marrying. One of those groups ** homosexuals (and priests)
** is among the hardest hit by the AIDS epidemic. ** get more AIDS
Coincidence?
This seems to assert that those who are not married are more succeptible. This can only be because (a) God Almighty is punishing their wanton behavior or (b) those who are not married can not conduct themselves in a manner which is **completely monogamous, and … virginal until marriage ** irrespective of whether or not the marriage is socially or religiously sanctioned.
Cuz if you don’t fuck someone with AIDS (and ALWAYS use your OWN needle and don’t lend it out) you ain’t gonna get the disease…unless you’re one of the few with astronomically bad luck who get it from receiving tainted blood products.
To the people that are telling Brutus to fuck off, would you actually LOOK at what it is he’s trying to say. Stop reacting. Look.
I, for one, happen to think the Church is extremely consistent in its belief system regarding sexual relations. I also think that if every single person on the planet followed those belief systems, we would have not only have no AIDS epidemic, we wouldn’t have AIDS period.
“But what about the cheating spouse you douche bag?”
The church prohibits adultary.
“But what about the IV drug user you twatwistle?”
The church prohibits drug use.
“But what about the guy who rapes your wife you smegma sucker?”
The church prohibits raping another person.
“But what about the gay relationship you fucking homophobe?”
The church prohibits gay relationships.
“But what about the mom who gives birth to an HIV infected child you craniumanus?”
If everyone followed the church’s rules, that would never happen.
“But what about the doctor who gave it to his patient you hamster squicker?”
Do you think he’s a mad scientist? That he invented AIDS in his backroom? No, he got it from someone else who didn’t follow the church’s rules.
If every single person lived the life the Church set down for us: one person only as your partner, HIV and AIDS would never ever have happened. Those who deny this, those who call other people names for pointing out this blatantly obvious fact, are the true morons in this thread.
That said, let me be clear: I don’t agree with a good deal of what the church has laid down on this topic. Given that HIV is out there, given that homosexuals wish to have relationships, given that marriage before sex can be, well…pretty damn good, the church’s stance is hopelessly outdated and indeed harmful in most instances.
But it is internally consistent. That’s the point. If everyone from the very start were to have followed those rules, we’d not be discussing this today.
Sure, ENDER, but as I’ve already said, so what? We are discussing it today because people don’t follow those rules, because the whole damn world isn’t Catholic, much less Catholic and perfect.
So pointing out that we wouldn’t be in this mess if everyone just kept their naughty bits in their pants is pointless. They don’t, they never have, and if the Catholic church is lying to people about the transmission of AIDS, they are criminally irresponsible down here in the real world.
Seems to me that by acknowledging people DO use cheat and use condoms, the Church is (momentarily) stepping into the real world. But then it attempts to step out of it again and say that they shouldn’t use them because they don’t work (incidentally, I thought the RCC officially frowned on lying as well).
Let me draw an analogy for a moment: the best way to avoid dying in a skydiving accident is to never go skydiving in the first place. But if you do it, the best way to survive is to use a parachute. If I say that you shouldn’t skydive and that even if you do, you should never use a parachute because they’re sinful, even if I’m being internally consistent, it’s more noteworthy and germane that I’m being a gigantic raving moron.
If you ask me, which for a zillion reasons no church ever would, the most moral thing to do in any situation is to respond logically and sensibly to the facts at hand. If the Church was just playing the “I told you so” game (advocating abstinence), that’d be one thing. It wouldn’t be particularly helpful because it doesn’t deal with the real world, but still. Instead, they’re not only avoiding the real world truth that people are often non-monogamous, they’re giving bad advice (don’t use condoms) and false justifications (they never work).
Incidentally, I don’t buy this bit about “if people were monogamous there’d be no AIDS.” The current theory is that the disease lept from monkeys to humans when people ate the flesh of infected monkeys, right? The people who ate those monkeys and gained the virus could’ve had monogamous sex with their life partners and given them the disease, and then they would’ve had kids who with AIDS, who would then likely have sex and pass on the virus to their monogamous lifepartners and their children, etc. Not that it would necessarily be the problem it is today, but even if the Church has a point, they don’t have THAT MUCH of a point…
I’d be a bit more inclined to say the person who listens to the no parachute part while ignoring the no skydiving part is the raving moron. Of course what seems obvious to me might not be so obvious to less educated people across the world.
Marley23 and Cheesesteak both got the analogy a bit wrong. This’d be a bit closer:
If I say that you shouldn’t skydive because it’s sinful and that even if you do, you should never use a parachute because parachutes aren’t 100% effective, even if I’m being entirely illogical, it’s more noteworthy and germane that I’m being a gigantic raving moron
Note: I’m not trying to say that either Marley23 or Cheesesteak are gigantic raving morons. The Bishop is a gigantic raving moron.
Well, Desmo, I did include the bit about skydiving also being wrong, and I think I noted that parachutes were ‘bad’ and not just ineffective, but I think we covered everything between the two of us. ‘Internal consistency’ is less than important when you’re being ass-backwards and stupid on a given topic.
Cheesesteak, I think the education part is very important. A fully informed person who chooses not to use a condom when he should is an idiot. On the other hand, people who don’t have all the facts because a source they trust (for reasons that are a total mystery to me) is lying to them are in a different situation.
Jodi, I do not disagree with you. The world is not Catholic and perfect. Heck, I don’t even believe being Catholic is being perfect, but that’s really another thread.
But while one may disagree with the teachings of the Catholic church, one can still agree that following its teachings to the letter would have stopped this epidemic before it started. Just making that statement shouldn’t be reason for an absolute pileon by the person who said it. That’s my point. You may disagree with message but would it be too much to ask that you guys stop killing the messenger (i.e. Brutus)?
Marley23, I have not heard this theory before. Do you have any information on it?
Besides, if the monkeys had just followed the church teachings and been in monogomous relationships…
Also, your analogy is flawed. If you equate skydiving with premarital sex, the church is not saying “even if you do skydive, we say don’t use a parachute.” The church is saying “don’t skydive at all. Ever.” If you are Catholic and choose to break that rule, it’s you who is being internally inconsistent.
Bullshit yourself.
Brutus made an completely accurate statement that AIDS is primarily a sexually transmitted disease. The bullshit came from you.
Are you going to claim that if someone has stated that “gay sex causes AIDS”, you or someone like you wouldn’t have jumped down his throat? Feel free to try - I need a laugh, and the idea of you claiming that someone else is “characteristically charmless and ignorant” wasn’t enough.
I agree with this assertion, if you care.
“If it weren’t for non-monogamous sex (and, to some extent, IV drug abuse), the incidence of AIDS would be enormously reduced, particularly in America but also throughout the rest of the world.” Do you agree with that assertion? Because every word of it is true.
If it weren’t for the fact that the average number of sex partners for the first patients diagnosed with AIDS in America was in the hundreds, the HIV virus would not have spread like wildfire thru the gay community. Tainted blood products for hemophiliacs did not become a problem until after that occurred.
Are you claiming that AIDS in Africa is spread by people in mutually monogamous relationships? Please don’t talk nonsense.
Hemophiliacs get the disease from tainted blood. The blood is tainted (primarily) by people engaging in non-monogamous sex or IV drug abuse.
Children get it from their mothers. Their mothers get it from tainted blood (see above), IV drug abuse, or non-monogamous sex with bisexual men or IV drug abusers.
Prostitutes get it from IV drug abuse or non-monogamous sex.
Men get it from non-monogamous sex with prostitutes.
These strained scenarios where some completely innocent person gets it from some other completely innocent person, who got it in some completely innocent way, happen, but they happen very, very rarely. In nearly every instance, the virus was transmitted by some act that the Church specifically condemns as sinful, at most at one or two removes.
You are arguing that there is some method of transmission besides sex or needles? What would that be, casual contact?
Are we back to the misconceptions of the early 80s again?
Regards,
Shodan
Bad people get sick. Everyone knows that.
Shodan is a fuckwit. Everyone know that, too.
Bullshit you. Show me where Brutus said AIDS is primarily a sexually transmitted disease. He said that AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease.
Yes it is, because the primary method of transmission is through sexual contact with an infected person. It’s true that it also can be transmitted through infected blood products, but that doesn’t make it any less an STD.
Syphilis can also be transmitted through infected blood, but it’s considered a sexually transmitted disease.
I still disagree. It can be a sexually transmitted disease but to call it an STD is syllogistic logic and a misnomer as it can be contracted elsewise.