http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090317/ap_on_re_af/af_pope_africa_14
They are complicit in the AIDS crisis in Africa with their anti-condom stance, and apparently this (utterly evil) policy will continue.
Fuck 'em. Not with a condom, but with a chainsaw.
This has come up again and again.
Those who vilify the Church for this cast her position as “Use condoms” vs. “Don’t use condoms.” They then shriek with indignation at the Church’s teaching people not to use condoms.
But it’s not fair to evaluate that teaching on its own, apart from the rest of the message. “Fidelity in marriage and abstinence from premarital sex,” is the rest of the message, and it’s hard to argue that, if followed, this teaching would not be highly effective against the spread of AIDS.
So what’s the problem? The Church’s teachings on condoms is so powerful it kills millions, but those same millions are utterly immune to the Church’s OTHER teachings? Why is it that when the Church speaks about condoms, they are credulous and trusting as puppies, and swear that never shall latex touch their intimate parts, but then they completely zone out the rest of the dialog?
Why, in other words, do you hold the Church responsible for the failure of people to follow her teachings and simultaneously for the fact that people follow her teachings?
So the church is not really interested in preventing AIDS, so much as spreading the dogma. “Just say no” didn’t work either, and it does not absolve the church when they tut-tut and pretend they did all they could.
I would say that Catholic church has killed more people in Africa of AIDS than Al Quaeda has killed the world over. :mad:
Not to mention that even if condoms were distributed freely today there would be bias against them for generations to come because of the lies of the RCC.
All religions are stupid and childish, but the RCC, because of its power and reach has a special capacity to inflict its childish stupidity on others.
Because condoms are easy, and the bit about “don’t have sex before you get married, and then don’t cheat on your wife” is hard. The reason that nobody listens to the second part of the message is because nobody actually wants to do that second part of the message. So when the Church says “well, if they would just do all the stuff we told them” it comes out a little weaksauce, because the Church should know ahead of time that people weren’t going to follow the second half of their message.
Nobody holds the Church responsible for the people who fail to be celibate until marriage and then monogamous afterwards. They hold the Church responsible for pretending that the Church actually believed that they would remain celibate until marriage and then monogamous afterward.
Bricker, I am not shrieking. But I think the Church is unrealistic at best. I do actually believe that the followers think, in their minds, “fidelity and abstinence until marriage”.
I also feel it’s been proven, time and time agan, that it doesn’t work, and that too many people succumb to the temptation of the moment…and then they have no condoms, or are too ashamed to buy them, or whatever, because it’s been drilled in their heads from Day 1 that condoms are a Bad Thing. I wish the Church would do a combined attack - fidelity& abstinence, but if you MUST, wear a condom outside of marriage. But I also think that is way too much to ask of a Church that really doesn’t seem to move with the times, in that, I don’t believe they will ever update their image.
I mean the church has been around for 2K years and people are STILL making the same mistakes - you’d think the Church at least would learn.
After 2000 years, it is clear the RCC knows exactly what it is doing, and sacrificing those who stray from her teachings is intentional and deliberate. They said upfront there is only one true way, and all others will perish.
My father always says to me when I am being stubbon and annoyed at the actions of others:
“Do you want the right thing done, or do you want to be right?”
Clearly, the Catholic church is more interested in being right.
Because the Catholic church tries to impose its teachings on people who aren’t Catholic, or even Christian. In Africa, faithful married women are more likely to become HIV positive than unmarried women* because their husbands fool around. Granted, the guys in this case are not being monogamous, but if condom use was more acceptable, they might not get HIV in the first place, and if they do get it, they might be less likely to pass it on to their innocent wives.
*http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=19561&page=1
Consider these two admonitions:
Which do you think is more likely to be heeded?
Ignoring this mere matter of human nature, another reason people hold the Church responsible is because the Church has been shown to lie at the very highest levels about matters of fact (see: Cardinal Trujillo) in order to discourage condom use, and we find it very difficult to believe that such disinformation does not still continue on an informal level.
Finally, you also ignore transmission of STDs in Church-sanctioned sex; it’s entirely possible for someone to obey both rulings, and yet still contract an STD because of misguided trust in Papal bullshit - all it requires is that their partner be weak.
Come on, there are multiple differences you are ignoring here… For starters:
First, we have the fact that of the two teachings, “abstinence” is telling people not to do something enjoyable, whereas “no condoms” is telling people not to do something many of them would rather not do anyway, and moreover, against which there is a significant cultural bias in certain areas. Might that not explain why one of the teachings has more impact than the others?
Second, avoiding abstinence requires only two parties, or, unfortunately in two many cases, only one. Using condoms, on the other hand, requires the involvement of a third party - the supplier of condoms. People might be buying into the “abstinence” message, and not supplyign condoms. As is there right, obviously. But then people who don’t buy into the abstinence message may be unable to protect themselves and their partners with condoms. Therefore even though people who ignore the abstinence part also ignore the anti-condom part, the anti-condom message can still have a negative, damaging effect.
Stupid argument. People don’t respond well to abstinence education. Most people will ignore it. Educating people about risks and sexual practices does work. If someone doesn’t know condoms will prevent AIDS or pregnancy why the fuck would they use one? Education about the risks of sexual activity is the only way to get responsible people to use proven techniques that do work. If no one ever told you to wash your hands after wiping your ass you wouldn’t do it. Educating people about dangers they can’t see is vital.
I guess you don’t have to be that smart to be a lawyer. 
How do you think the pope’s message reaches the people? You think they all just yahoo and read the summary? Or maybe do you think the church’s workers over there spread the word, telling people that condoms are wrong, that they make the problem worse, build up the stigma against them? This is more than that just the church offering another option, the church is actively discouraging the use of condoms. In return they offer an ideal that has is nothing more than wishful thinking.
Promoting abstinence has been shown over and over not to work, and yet the church keeps pushing it. Does the church promote leeches when people are sick? No? Do they tell everyone that insulin is bad and people should hope really hard that diabetes doesn’t kill them? No? Hmm, I wonder why not? And yet, they have no problem with actively denying people something that has been shown to help. By making people think that condoms are bad, they are making the problem worse. People are dying, and they’re helping.
Zealots of any stripe are a danger to the general populace. I recall something recently about righty nutters here raising a stink about Gardisil, the HPV vac, because it prevented a disease you’d get “ONLY” if you were promiscuous, it’s not worth searching for a link for me, but have a nut.
I think the RCC has been complicit in the deaths of SO many people in the past thousand or better years that they’ve grown comfortable being who they are in being “right” without concern for the people who don’t adhere strictly to the teachings of the church.
I find it at once amazing and disheartening that the RCC has so much influence.
In my opinion, it’s because in the first case the Church is telling people not to do something that they already don’t want to do (use condoms,) and in the second case, the Church is telling people not to do something that they *do *want to do (fool around.) Or at least are *inclined *to do.
There’s an old joke that goes: If you’re going fishing with a Baptist, take two, that way they won’t drink your beer.
The point is that people are more apt to let religion control their behavior if other religious people are breathing down their necks. Oh, they’ll sneak off and have sex. The Church has the power to drive premarital sex underground, but not to stop it. But condoms need to be above-ground in their distribution, and yet–depending on the region–the Church has the power to suppress their distribution and acceptance.
The Church–along with everyone else in the course of Getting With The Program–should not just say, “use condoms”, but also, “parents and schools should teach young people to use condoms” and “governments should not interfere with their availabilty”, etc.
In other words, don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.
Actually, no, you don’t.
But on this subject: here’s where you and the Church part ways, I suspect. The Church believes, and teaches, that it’s wrong to have sex outside of marriage, and that it’s wrong to impose an artificial barrier to the transmission of life during the sex act inside marriage.
Now, your points seem to be:
Is that about right?
But the Church takes the position that it cannot. Both the idea that sex should be confined to marriage, and the idea that artificial barriers to conception are wrong come, they feel, from God’s law. You contend that based on how poorly people follow their advice, they should change their advice.
But that suggests that their advice is somehow based on what’s most popular as a teaching. I guarantee you that the Church could pick all sorts of changes to their doctrine if they were merely guided by how well people liked the teaching, or how readily they obeyed it. That’s not the touchstone for their lesson plan.
And what of the fact that it’s wrong (in their view) to use condoms? They should simply change that idea? Start thinking it’s right?
Okay, how about this for a touchstone: Which teaching has been shown, over and over again, to prevent the spread of deadly disease? And which teaching has been shown, over and over again, to be utterly ineffective at best at preventing the spread of deadly disease?
We’re not talking about changing their teachings because it’s more popular. We’re talking about changing their teachings to save lives.
Has it ever happened that the Church thought something was wrong, and later thought it was right? Or vice versa, for that matter?
Also, the folks who think the Church is wrong about this *do *wish it would start thinking otherwise. I think that’s the point the OP is making. Without getting into specifics that might be deemed insulting and therefore obscure my point, I think that there are many religious and cultural practices that are wrong, and wish would change.