When I made a statement that RC clergy in Africa were spreading AIDS-in-condoms rumours to scare people away from using rubbers, many months ago, I was asked for a cite. I was also called an anti-Cathgolic bigot, a liar and worse.
It’s a bullshit conspiracy theory. The RC church simply believes that a person should only have sex inside of marriage and for the purposes of pro-creation.
If you don’t like their position, don’t join the church, speak out against their positions, and fuck everyone you want to.
But the bottom line is that 2000 years of tradition has made me think that at least SOME believers are sincere and aren’t attempting genocide in Africa…
There is a debate in here, somewhere, However, since the OP has chosen to start off his rant by specifically reversing the words of the person he has cited for “proof” of his claim, I’m going to let him enjoy himself in the Pit where he probably forgot to post it.
(Hint: if the bishop is dumb enough to believe his claims, then he is not deliberately making things up to spread terror, although he might, indeed, be too eager to believe stuff that supports his own views–much as the OP, in fact.)
I’m really not clear here. Are you saying that the Archbishop never said this and that it is all a conspiracy to discredit the church?
Right, and does that justify spreading ignorant beliefs that will kill people?
Yes but the views expressed by the archbishopwill doubtless kill some non-believers as well, right? It’s not as though they were transmitted on a special frequency only audible to Catholics.
What if the wife is a stauch Catholic, and faithful to her husband - who is also a Catholic, but not faithful. Will her belief save her life?
Oh hell no.
Many many years ago I attended Catholic mass with a good friend, and found it very comforting. The ritual of the mass was soothing to my soul, and I considered converting. The research I did convinced me that I would never be able to whole-heartedly believe in a religion that was so focused on tradition that they would let people become ill and die rather than modify their teachings. (Among other issues)
No, he’s saying ***the Archbishop ** is buying into * a BS conspiracy theory *(“Don’t believe what Whitey Science tells you about how to prevent AIDS, they’re trying to kill us all”) * that is widespread in Africa independently from the RCC’s own bonehead policies on population and sexual health, and, tragically, happens to be helped in no small measure by an alarming number of African “leaders” in political and civil society who are openly suspicious of anything from “Western-science” that means changing their ways. Just so happens that in this case the conspiracy-theorist is ALSO a high RCC hierarch which compounds the damage even further.
Missed Edit window: Of course, that up until now there have been no orders from the top-level leaders Rome to its African hierarchs to stop parrotting such pseudoscience conspiracy-theories and bearing false witness against outside persons and entities, and to instead stick to preaching the party line based on the actual doctrine, does NOT look good and does look like they acquiesce to going along with the kooks – there’s no way around that.
Like Blake, I’m confused by your point here. Is the bullshit cnspiracy theory that condoms contain AIDS, or that the RC Church is claiming condoms contain AIDS to prevent condom use? Or both?
Are you saying the Archbishop didn’t say this? Or that what he said has no bearing on what the Church’s position is?
I’m thinking you mean that the church’s refusal to accept condom use does not constitute a conscious attempt at genocide, and I suppose I would agree with that. But their position is contributing to the spread of a devastating disease, no matter how morally well intentioned. Haven’t they learned in 2000 years that people sill sin and fuck like rabbits?
If the Pope can drive around in a big armored Condom…er, “Popemobile” in order to avoid harm, then the average Catholic should be allowed to use condoms in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
After all, doesn’t God have some sort of vested interest in keeping his (alleged) primary representative on Earth alive? Wouldn’t his assassination therefore have to be divine will? So if he can use “protection”, then how come the average person cannot?
That’s what the press releases say. Been keeping track of the news for the last few years? I think there are a lot of priests getting more action than I am.
How influential is the Catholic Church actually in Africa?
Wouldn’t it be more correct to point the finger at the African governments that still deny a link between HIV and AIDS, and promote (esp in the case of a South African health minister) quack cures?
It seems like the easy option to point the finger at the evil Catholics.
And I say this as an ex-Catholic athiest, I have no love for the Church.
According to this link, 24.2% of the Mozambique population identifies itself as Catholic. So, about 4 and a bit million people, which tallies with this Catholic source.
Why do we need to pick one? Can’t we denounce both? We could go further, and shame western “nutritionists” who go on tours of Africa claiming that Vitamin C is “better than AZT” for curing HIV. We could point the finger at foot-draggers who slow the process of finding drug licensing compromises that would ease anti-retroviral distribution in the worst affected areas. The list goes on.
There’s no shortage of idiots, and they all need tackling, quick-sharp. The idiocy in the OP is every bit as insidious as the others.
Slight hijack: In the words of Homer Simpson: "Face it, Marge, Catholics rule! We’ve got Boston, South America, the GOOD part of Ireland, and we’re making serious inroads in Mozambique!
Indeed. Throw in also the “corporate pharmaceutical biz refuse to promote real cures because it’s more profitable to keep people sick” gang. When you add it up, it’s no wonder that to a lot of African Public Opinion it does sounds plausible that there is some sort of plot afoot to string them out and/or that real medical science has no clue…
Like myself and** TokyoPlayer** mentioned before, what makes the Church look specially bad in this case is that this bishop (and others, too) is signing up on this libel, rather than just sticking to the actual official doctrine(*), and the reaction from the Holy See, if any, is so muted as to not even be noted, when it could be a call to stand firm exclusively on moral/doctrinal grounds and not create mistrust of “western” medicine – since the Church itself runs medical facilities, and surely the last thing it wants is for people to start being "skeptical’ of it.
(*The official Church doctrine IS “no condoms”, which is bad enough under the circumstances: but it’s NOT “condoms and AIDS medicines are poisoned and Whitey is trying to kill you”(**); the Bishop is inflicting some serious credibility damage on everyone involved)
(**Not that I’d be surprised if there were some prelate in Rome lobbying for this to be so; there are nuts in positions of influence everywhere)