# This is why I can't stomach the Catholic Church - still against condoms in Africa **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 17, 2009, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774 "2009-03-17T17:57:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/41 "2009-03-17T20:23:11Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > The problem is that this falsehood is being used to support the policy. At best that’s a logical flaw, at worst a deliberate lie to support an indefensible policy that cannot be defended through legitimate means. Well, to the extent that this OP is about that specific lie… then I stand in agreement with it. It _IS_ detestable. The policy should be defended on the merits of truth, as the Church sees the truth: that condoms should never be used in the marital act simply because the marital act should always be open to the transmission of life. And there should be no sex outside the bounds of marriage, period. Any efforts to claim condoms don’t physically stop STDs are wrong, and should indeed be criticized. And I’m perfectly willing to do just that. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/42 "2009-03-17T20:23:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But it’s opposition to condoms is tied inextricably to its opposition to premarital and extramarital sex. The two are part of the same package. But opposition to _rape_ is not based on any external value set - it is based on the fact that a single person has been forced to do something against their will (unless, of course, you wish to argue that rape’s negative effects are purely subjective). Your opposition to extramarital sex is borne of a concern that people are not living up to your personal standards - standards they may not hold. Your opposition to condom use is even harming people who _do_ share your standards - they might merely be unfortunate to be married to people who are weak, a point you still refuse to address. The situations are _not_ analogous, and none of your equivocating will make them so. When you declare that your values vis-a-vis condom use are more important than the well-being of two people who freely consent to sex, you are inserting yourself somewhere you do not belong. When you _lie_ to minimise the effectiveness of condoms in order to benefit your personal set of ideals, you are inserting yourself in an equation in which you do not figure. It’s all well and good that you repudiate the Trujillos of this world (and I’m aware you’ve done so before), but your quibbling about the Pope’s words undermine this stance fatally. That you should choose to compare the undeniable harm of rape to the entirely subjective harm of condom use does not speak well to your intentions, nor still to your faculties of reason in this instance. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/43 "2009-03-17T20:26:37Z")
> [@Dead\_Badger](#): > > That you should choose to compare the undeniable harm of rape to the entirely subjective harm of condom use does not speak well to your intentions, nor still to your faculties of reason in this instance. Seriously: learn to read. Speeding, OK? Since you’re constitutionally unable to encounter the word ‘rape’ and retain your ability to dispassionately reason, forget that I ever said it. I withdraw any and all references to rape in this argument. I repudiate them utterly. They are anathema to me. Speeding. That’s my argument now. Speeding. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/44 "2009-03-17T20:29:21Z")
**Bricker** , you seem to have missed the point. The fact is that the Catholic Church has succesfully blocked (or reduced) the use of condoms in Africa, but has done little or nothing to block or reduce the incidence of pre-marital sex. Clearly, its techniques are not working. The fact that they are continuing to preach the same harmful message makes them worthy of our anger. If this was some sort of new approach to the African AIDS epidemic, it would be totally different. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/45 "2009-03-17T20:30:11Z")
No, I’m afraid your powers of analogising are really just buggered here. I’m perfectly capable of reading, and have previously argued against the stupid over-interpretation of analogies (check it out, it’s one of my only Pit OPs), but your analogy is just fucking stupid. Deal with it. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/46 "2009-03-17T20:33:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s an obvious consequence. When the message is, “Have sex with whomever you like, just use a condom,” you weaken and destroy the barrier that should exist to confine sex to a martial relationship. Perhaps. But the actual reference in the article is to the spread of AIDS. I see no reason to construct a different meaning for “it” when one is plainly stated. > [@](#): > > Now, it’s true of course that using condoms would be far better than NOT using condoms, assuming it’s a given that people will be having premarital and extra-marital sex. But while the people apparently listen slavishly to the words of the pontiff on the issue of condoms, they don’t care what he says about actually having the sex. Apparently. :rolleyes: I’ve given you my thoughts on that. Folks are much more likely not to do stuff they don’t want to do, and in fact aren’t doing, than they are to stop doing what they want to do and are already doing. If you tell me not to open a beer bottle with my teeth, I’d probably go along. Tell me not to drink beer and things get a bit stickier. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/47 "2009-03-17T21:00:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But it’s opposition to condoms is tied inextricably to its opposition to premarital and extramarital sex. But why should any of those be promoted as a means of fighting AIDS? The RCC is in the business of saving souls, fine, we get that. The RCC says using condoms, premarital and extramarital sex is sinful, we get that. The RCC says people who sin risk eternal damnation, we get that. But when the RCC starts saying abstaining from condom use, premarital and extramarital sex is some how a means to prevent AIDS, that is where their dogma crosses the line from saving souls to killing people. The RCC should state there is no church approved means to prevent AIDS, and stop pretending they are part of the solution, when they are part of the problem. The RCC is a victim of mission creep, when they deviate from saving souls and start promoting their dogma as having any relevance in reducing the human suffering of AIDS. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/48 "2009-03-17T21:17:16Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > But when the RCC starts saying abstaining from condom use, premarital and extramarital sex is some how a means to prevent AIDS, that is where their dogma crosses the line from saving souls to killing people. It seems to me that abstaining from premarital and extramarital sex is hugely effective in the prevention of AIDS. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/49 "2009-03-17T21:18:24Z")
Here’s the problem: speeding is a problem because it endangers lives. Make that your analogy to multiple-partner sex. The church opposes that. That’s fine. An analogy to condoms needs to be an analogy to something that **reduces** risk, not something that **increases** risk. As someone suggested before, seatbelts provide an excellent analogous situation here. Now we may imagine a group that opposes both speeding and seat belts. Part, though by no means all, of their opposition to seat belts is that folks wearing seat belts feel more confident in driving unsafely: the Church believes that seat belts encourage speeding. They say things like, “You can’t resolve the speeding crisis with the installation of seat belts. On the contrary, seat belts increase the problem.” Now your analogy is, well, analogous. Except that to be accurate, the Church needs to be highly effective at reducing the use of seat belts in countries with high rates of speeding, while being ineffective at reducing the incidences of speeding, resulting in millions of additional deaths from speeding each year. **Bricker** , a point of theology. Condom use is a sin, no doubt. Is taking a public stance that you may safely predict will result in the deaths of dozens, if not hundreds of thousands, of **innocent** deaths (e.g., the deaths of children and spouses of the unfaithful) morally problematic? In fact, lemme make my argument weaker. If it’s probable (\>50%) that the church’s policy will result in the net death of at least one innocent human, over their not taking any stance at all, is the stance defensible from a theological standpoint? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/50 "2009-03-17T21:19:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It seems to me that abstaining from premarital and extramarital sex is hugely effective in the prevention of AIDS. But promoting it is not. ---
**Author:** ![cher3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/da6949/32.png) [@cher3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cher3)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/51 "2009-03-17T21:20:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It seems to me that abstaining from premarital and extramarital sex is hugely effective in the prevention of AIDS. Not in places where the balance of power between men and women is still hugely unequal. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/52 "2009-03-17T21:27:03Z")
I can understand the RC Church thinks contraception is a sin, and it should not be encouraging sin. But presumably, and I am not a theologian by any stretch, homosexual anal sex with a condom is no more of a sin than homosexual anal sex without a condom. And in a world with AIDS, wouldn’t it be less of a sin? It would seem sensible to me that reducing the risk of self destructive behavior would be considered a good by a church with a culture of life, even if it doesn’t eliminate the behavior it views as bad. Back in my Church going days, I remember being taught that our body was a temple, and that we should preserve that temple for God in good condition. Is this not shared by the RC Church? If it is shared, isn’t less “destructive” behavior morally preferable to more “destructive” behavior? In which case, shouldn’t the RC Church be encouraging gay people to glove up before anal sex, while still maintaining their ideological stance against contraception? ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/53 "2009-03-17T21:36:58Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > But why should any of those be promoted as a means of fighting AIDS? The RCC is in the business of saving souls, fine, we get that. The RCC says using condoms, premarital and extramarital sex is sinful, we get that. The RCC says people who sin risk eternal damnation, we get that. > > But when the RCC starts saying abstaining from condom use, premarital and extramarital sex is some how a means to prevent AIDS, that is where their dogma crosses the line from saving souls to killing people. The Catholic Church says Catholics should not use condoms? Fine. We Jews say Jews shouldn’t eat shellfish. The Catholic Church says no one should use condoms? Also fine. We Jews say no one should steal. I’m not sure why any non-believer would consider either statement binding in any way, but OK. (A non-believer might, of course, think stealing is wrong because of their personal moral code, but they wouldn’t care that Judaism thinks it’s wrong.) The Catholic Church makes misleading (even if technically not false) statements about the effectiveness of condoms at preventing the spread of AIDS? Problem. Just like it would be a problem if we Jews spread misleading rumors about the likelihood of getting food poisoning from shellfish, in order to discourage people from eating shellfish. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/54 "2009-03-17T21:40:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It seems to me that abstaining from premarital and extramarital sex is hugely effective in the prevention of AIDS. But arguing that condoms contribute to the spread of AIDS – with no data to back that up, indeed with reams of data the other way – is manifestly NOT hugely effective in the prevention of AIDS. If the Catholic Church cannot in good faith support an imperfect solution, fine; but IMO they have an obligation to not become part of the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/55 "2009-03-17T21:42:24Z")
> [@villa](#): > > It would seem sensible to me that reducing the risk of self destructive behavior would be considered a good by a church with a culture of life, even if it doesn’t eliminate the behavior it views as bad. Back in my Church going days, I remember being taught that our body was a temple, and that we should preserve that temple for God in good condition. Is this not shared by the RC Church? If it is shared, isn’t less “destructive” behavior morally preferable to more “destructive” behavior? Exactly. This is not about telling the Church what doctrine to believe, it’s about the Church’s stance on the lesser of two evils. The Church knows that people will sin, even when they know it’s wrong. Happens all the time, particularly where sex is concerned. That’s why the Church has the whole confession-repentance-forgiveness thing in place, so that sinners have an opportunity to change course. What the Church in AIDS-ridden areas is telling people right now is this: “Committing the sin of extramarital sex plus the sin of using a condom is **WORSE** than committing the sin of extramarital sex **plus the sin of putting yourself and/or others at high risk of a deadly disease**.” That’s sick. There is nothing morally inconsistent about saying “Yes, extramarital sex is wrong, and contraception is wrong, but spreading deadly disease is even more wrong. So if you **are** going to commit extramarital sex (which you shouldn’t, because it’s wrong), at least you should take all possible precautions against spreading deadly disease.” It’s like drug-treatment needle-exchange programs. Yes, shooting dope is wrong and bad and makes you strung out and useless, and obtaining needles to shoot dope with is also wrong. But spreading disease by sharing dirty needles is even more wrong and bad, so if you **are** going to shoot dope, at least get some free clean needles. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/56 "2009-03-17T21:45:22Z")
This is why the RCC saying they are pro-life is so wacky to me. I guess they are, if HIV counts as a life. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/57 "2009-03-17T21:55:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Of course it’s fair. You’re creating a false dilemma that doesn’t exist. Teaching the use of condoms is effective. Teaching prevention through abstinence is not. It doesn’t matter how you or old Joe feels about it; condom education works better and saves more lives. There is no contradiction here and nothing to be confused about. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/58 "2009-03-17T22:00:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, let me ask an analogous question. Here in the USA, we have laws against rape. We constantly broadcast the message that rape is wrong, that ‘no’ means ‘no.’ > > Yet we continue to have rapes, every year. > > Perhaps we should change that approach to somehow acknowledge this? Maybe let people know that if you’re going to rape, try to be gentle, and don’t cause too much physical injury? And, dare I say it, wear a condom when you do? > > Obviously that’s ridiculous. It’s a vile, disgusting idea. Rape is wrong, and we need to make that point through our society’s teachings, even if making it doesn’t stop rapes from happening. > > Don’t we? Brilliant! The logical conclusion is, to you there is no moral difference between something done by force and something done by common consent. That does explain a lot. Care to clarify what you really meant by the analogy instead? Oh, and an apology to the rape victim Dopers would not be out of order too – and I speak as one who committed a similar offense. in the past. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/59 "2009-03-17T22:11:42Z")
> [@cher3](#): > > Not in places where the balance of power between men and women is still hugely unequal. Or where a woman might be engaging in marital sex with an infected husband. She’s not having sex out of wedlock but she’s still at risk. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/60 "2009-03-17T22:13:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, let me ask an analogous question. Here in the USA, we have laws against rape. We constantly broadcast the message that rape is wrong, that ‘no’ means ‘no.’ > > Yet we continue to have rapes, every year. > > Perhaps we should change that approach to somehow acknowledge this? Maybe let people know that if you’re going to rape, try to be gentle, and don’t cause too much physical injury? And, dare I say it, wear a condom when you do? > > Obviously that’s ridiculous. It’s a vile, disgusting idea. Rape is wrong, and we need to make that point through our society’s teachings, even if making it doesn’t stop rapes from happening. > > Don’t we? Hey, if you can point to a scientific study (or, better yet, dozens and dozens of scientific studies) that demonstrate that promoting that particular message will reduce the total number of rapes committed in a year, then I’m all for it. Sure, the message itself makes me morally queasy, but my moral discomfort is immaterial against the inarguable good of less people being raped. And that’s the problem I have with the Church on this issue: the Church is well within its rights to be morally opposed to sex outside of marriage. But the message they’re spreading about abstinence is not effective in reducing the spread of AIDs. On the other hand, safe sex education has been demonstrated, time and time again, to significantly reduce the spread of STDs, and reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies (and, by extension, the number of abortions). Continuing to spread a message they know is not going to be effective in fighting disease is one thing, but actively fighting a message that they know is going to be _more_ effective in fighting disease is morally unconscionable. > [@](#): > > Now, it’s true of course that using condoms would be far better than NOT using condoms, assuming it’s a given that people will be having premarital and extra-marital sex. But while the people apparently listen slavishly to the words of the pontiff on the issue of condoms, they don’t care what he says about actually having the sex. Apparently. :rolleyes: I’m not sure who those rolleyes are directed at. All of humanity, perhaps, for not behaving in a perfectly logical manner? A deserving target, I suppose, but that still doesn’t do much to help prevent the spread of HIV. The fact is, people appear to be willing to listen to the Pope when he tells them not to do something they’d prefer not to do anyway (wear a condom), and are less likely to listen to him when he tells them not to do something they really like to do (have sex outside of marriage). Are you disputing this assertion? On what grounds, precisely? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774.md?page=4)