# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/101 "2009-03-18T18:16:57Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > But what about the fact that rape is demonstrably harmful whereas sex outside the confines of marriage isn’t? Other than the parameters of my post, I agree that the analogy falls apart. My post was a sardonic interpretation of **Bricker’s** analogy intended only to highlight my belief that punishing people for sex (mainly women) appears to be at the heart of many religious and/or conservative proscriptions involving sex. ---
**Author:** ![buttonjockey308](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@buttonjockey308](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buttonjockey308)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/102 "2009-03-18T18:17:57Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > I’m not making **Bricker’s** argument for him, but you all seem to be overlooking – or rejecting – that the RCC thinks barriers to contraception are morally wrong. It’s like you guys think it becomes _less_ morally wrong if the consequences of the belief are really, really bad. But that’s not how moral beliefs work, at least if they are absolute instead of situational. > > Roman Catholics believe it is a sin to prevent contraception. The fact that lots of people can get a henious disease if they DON’T preven contraception is irrelevant to the larger moral question, which is: Is it morally wrong to prevent contraception, or not? If you answer is YES, it is morally wrong, in all cases, always, then it is wrong in all cases, always. And, frankly, no one is in a position to tell them that moral belief is “wrong” any more than you can tell someone it’s wrong to keep kosher or wear hijab or be a vegetarian for religious reasons. > > And I have no problem with that. I have a problem when the Church goes beyond teaching that as a tenet of its own belief to its own practitioners, to actively discouraging condom use by spreading disinformation about the causes of AIDS and the efficacy of condoms in the prevention of HIV. All due respect **Jodi** but that’s a heaping load of fresh crap. If they believed that hiding pederasts from the law was seen as a favor to God, would they be…oi, hold on, they did that and it was, wait for it…wrong! I’m absolutely in a position to say their stance, based on their “morals” is wrong,wrong,wrong. It’s wrong, bad and stupid. They don’t have to listen to me and I sure as hell am not listening to them, but it’s as wrong as wrong can be. That’s my opinion and my opinion, though it carries none of the weight of the church has done damage to precisely no one. Conversely, the opinion of the church in this and many other circumstances has injured or killed millions thoughout history. That, could not BE more wrong. ---
**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 18, 2009, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/103 "2009-03-18T18:21:17Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Other than the parameters of my post, I agree that the analogy falls apart. My post was a sardonic interpretation of **Bricker’s** analogy intended only to highlight my belief that punishing people for sex (mainly women) appears to be at the heart of many religious and/or conservative proscriptions involving sex. Okay. It’s just that I find it hard to believe that the Catholic Church really views sex outside of marriage as something as bad as rape. If they do, my mistake. Though that man who raped his stepdaughter wasn’t excommunicated so maybe rape is also forgivable. ---
**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 18, 2009, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/104 "2009-03-18T18:23:32Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > Roman Catholics believe it is a sin to prevent contraception. I’m very much in favor of safe sex, but even I think that’s going a bit too far. > [@](#): > > The fact that lots of people can get a henious disease if they DON’T preven contraception is irrelevant to the larger moral question, which is: Is it morally wrong to prevent contraception, or not? If you answer is YES, it is morally wrong, in all cases, always, then it is wrong in all cases, always. And, frankly, no one is in a position to tell them that moral belief is “wrong” any more than you can tell someone it’s wrong to keep kosher or wear hijab or be a vegetarian for religious reasons. Joking aside, I disagree with the above very strongly. Labeling something a “moral belief” does not exempt that belief from criticism. A great many heinous beliefs are considered “moral” beliefs by the people who hold them, on topics ranging from the advisability of medical treatments for minors, to the rights of people to hold different religious beliefs, to the role of women in society. The Catholic Church’s position is of a piece with these sorts of beliefs. While it is, indeed, a “moral” belief, it is also a belief that is doing tangible harm to millions of people, in the form of preventing effective medical care and encouraging the endemic poverty of the region. Once a moral belief starts killing people, it become fair game for others to judge the rightness of that belief. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/105 "2009-03-18T18:29:36Z")
**Bosstone** , yes of course; I meant conception. :o > [@buttonjockey308](#): > > All due respect **Jodi** but that’s a heaping load of fresh crap. Gee, good thing you added “all due respect”. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > If they believed that hiding pederasts from the law was seen as a favor to God, would they be…oi, hold on, they did that and it was, wait for it…wrong! Cite that the RCC believed hiding pederasts from the law was a favor to God? You don’t _have_ to make ridiculous arguments, you know; your original one was pretty good. > [@](#): > > I’m absolutely in a position to say their stance, based on their “morals” is wrong, wrong, wrong. It’s wrong, bad and stupid. Yeah, well, sez you. And that has about as much weight and value as if you were going to say that being religiously vegetarian was wrong, or keeping kosher was wrong, or adhering to _any_ religious moral position was wrong just because you, personally, don’t like the ramifications. Catholics do not arrive by their moral beliefs based on the _ex post facto_ reasoning: Let’s see the consequences of potential beliefs, and then decide what we’re going to believe. It _is_ of course your opinion and you _are_ welcome to it, but if that’s the extent of your argument – who cares? The RCC’s stance in this regard boils down to “because we said so” too, and it’s of equal value to me as a non-adherent, which is to say none. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/106 "2009-03-18T18:44:14Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Joking aside, I disagree with the above very strongly. Labeling something a “moral belief” does not exempt that belief from criticism. Well, that depends on who you talk to, right? The Aztecs believed in human sacrifice – clearly not in the best interest of the Guest of Honor – but was that “wrong”? Are you asking me, or an ancient Aztec? And I never said beliefs were exempt from criticism, I said that if they are genuinely morally held then they can’t be summarily announced to be “bad” or “wrong,” because they people holding them quite obviously do not consider them bad or wrong, and who can then proclaim that they are? I mean, who do you think you are – **buttonjockey308**? It’s not like informing them of that is going to change their mind on the subject anyway. > [@](#): > > A great many heinous beliefs are considered “moral” beliefs by the people who hold them, on topics ranging from the advisability of medical treatments for minors, to the rights of people to hold different religious beliefs, to the role of women in society. The Catholic Church’s position is of a piece with these sorts of beliefs. Exactly. On what grounds do you declare that any of these beliefs are “heinous”? Is Christian Science? Is animal sacrifice? To me, the point at which we can step in to say that religous beliefs are objectively “wrong” on a societal level – not a moral level – is when they _directly_ cause objective harm to others: female genital mutilation, human sacrifice, children dying – literally dying – for a lack of immediate medical care. But those societal decisions do not require us to gauge the morality of the belief, merely the societal cost of the consequences. Why IMO the RCC in this case does not fall in that category is because the harm is not direct. The RCC is not, as a general matter, telling people to have unprotected sex; they are telling married people to have unprotected sex and the rest of us to have no sex at all. Therefore, I agree with **Bricker** that it is unreasonable to blame them solely for the consequences of unmarried people having unprotected sex, which is not something the RCC has ever been in favor of. But, people say, this POV is not realistic, because _of course_ unmarried people will have sex; they always have. And I personally agree with this myself, but I do not think we are entitled to demand that the RCC change millenia of moral beliefs to be more “realistic” about what people _actually_ do, as opposed to what the Church says they _should_ do. All that said – and as I said before – teach whatever the hell you want to your own adherents as a matter of doctrine or belief, but do NOT misrepresent the realities of science or the real world in order to make your position more palatable or make it seem like it’s grounded in reality. It is _not_ grounded in reality, it is grounded in moral belief. IMO, if the RCC cannot speak honestly about the efficacy of condoms as an HIV preventative, they have the obligation to shut the hell up about it. What is IMO their sin is not believing as they do, but lying about condoms in order to defend or further that belief. And I use the word “lying” advisedly; when the Pope says that condoms make the problem of AIDS worse in Africa (or anywhere) that is nothing more than a lie. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/107 "2009-03-18T18:50:51Z")
IOW, to me it’s as if Jewish elders were trying to convince people to keep kosher because if you mix your dishes, you’ll get sick. Believe what you want, follow your own beliefs, heck, teach them to those who will listen. Just don’t lie about them, that’s all. ---
**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 18, 2009, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/108 "2009-03-18T19:10:07Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > Well, that depends on who you talk to, right? The Aztecs believed in human sacrifice – clearly not in the best interest of the Guest of Honor – but was that “wrong”? I’m going to go out on a limb here and say, “Yes.” Sure, an Aztec’s going to disagree with me, at least so long as he’s the one holding the knife, and not lying on the altar. But so what? The fact that people have conflicting moralities does not mean that one cannot make moral determinations. > [@](#): > > And I never said beliefs were exempt from criticism, I said that if they are genuinely morally held then they can’t be summarily announced to be “bad” or “wrong,” because they people holding them quite obviously do not consider them bad or wrong, and who can then proclaim that they are? This is an absurd position. The Nazis believed that wiping out the Jews was a moral good. Al Qaeda believes that blowing up the WTC was a moral good. The fact that a person feels that a particular belief is a good thing does not mean that other people can’t say, “No, that is not, in fact, a good thing. That is a horrendous thing.” > [@](#): > > I mean, who do you think you are – **buttonjockey308**? It’s not like informing them of that is going to change their mind on the subject anyway. If that were true, the Catholic Church would still be drowning witches and burning heretics at the stake. Religious beliefs can change over time, and the mechanism by which this happens is changing the opinion of individual worshippers. Quite a lot of Catholics already believe that there’s nothing wrong with using a condom. At some point, the percentage of Catholics who believe this will be large enough that the Church will change its doctrines. > [@](#): > > Exactly. On what grounds do you declare that any of these beliefs are “heinous”? My own moral sense, naturally. > [@](#): > > To me, the point at which we can step in to say that religous beliefs are objectively “wrong” on a societal level – not a moral level – is when they _directly_ cause objective harm to others: female genital mutilation, human sacrifice, children dying – literally dying – for a lack of immediate medical care. But those societal decisions do not require us to gauge the morality of the belief, merely the societal cost of the consequences. And I say that there is no difference between a moral wrong and a societal wrong. When a belief is causing people to suffer and die, it’s a moral wrong. The Catholic Church’s opposition to sex education is causing people to suffer and die. Therefore, it is a moral wrong. If it makes you feel better to call it a societal wrong, then go ahead. I don’t see a distinction between the terms. > [@](#): > > Why IMO the RCC in this case does not fall in that category is because the harm is not direct. I disagree. When the Pope says, “Using a condom is a sin,” and someone thinks, “Well, I guess I won’t use a condom, then,” the Pope bears a portion of the responsibility if that person gets sick. Not all the responsibility, of course, but enough that he deserves criticism for that statement. > [@](#): > > And I personally agree with this myself, but I do not think we are entitled to demand that the RCC change millenia of moral beliefs to be more “realistic” about what people _actually_ do, as opposed to what the Church says they _should_ do. Why not? We certainly can’t _force_ them to change, but I don’t see any reason we can’t say, “Hey, that policy is all kinds of fucked up, and promoting it makes you a big ol’ douche.” ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/109 "2009-03-18T19:30:04Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’m going to go out on a limb here and say, “Yes.” Sure, an Aztec’s going to disagree with me, at least so long as he’s the one holding the knife, and not lying on the altar. But so what? The fact that people have conflicting moralities does not mean that one cannot make moral determinations. Sure, but you only get to make them for yourself or yor kids, unless you can show direct societal cost in allowing them to be followed. On what basis would you impose your morality on me, or anyone else? That’s why as a collective, a society, we don’t weigh in on “morality” – being, as it is, purely subjective – but only on harm. > [@](#): > > This is an absurd position. The Nazis believed that wiping out the Jews was a moral good. Al Qaeda believes that blowing up the WTC was a moral good. The fact that a person feels that a particular belief is a good thing does not mean that other people can’t say, “No, that is not, in fact, a good thing. That is a horrendous thing.” People can say and believe whatever they want. But what made the Nazis and Al Qaeda objectively “wrong” was not what they _believed_ but what they _did_. On what basis do you declare that it is “wrong” to be opposed to contracepton, be it barrier form or otherwise? Do you have something more to your argument than “I think so”? Because that’s pretty much all the RCC has and, as I said, I don’t find it at all persuasive. > [@](#): > > And I say that there is no difference between a moral wrong and a societal wrong. Well, then you’re wrong. (See what I did there?) Is it wrong to dance? Wrong to play cards? Is it wrong for women to lead worship? Is it wrong to have more than one spouse? Is it wrong to eat meat? Wrong to eat meat and dairy together? Just because YOU assert there’s no difference between a moral wrong and a societal wrong, doesn’t mean your position is particularly defensible. People believe a lot of things are “wrong” based solely on their own personal or religious morals, yet many of those things are obviously not “wrong” in any objective sense to outsiders. The difference is of course whether we are talking about a purely subjective wrong (moral wrong) or an objective wrong, i.e., harm to others (societal wrong). > [@](#): > > When a belief is causing people to suffer and die, it’s a moral wrong. The Catholic Church’s opposition to sex education is causing people to suffer and die. See, here’s where I don’t buy your argument. The RCC’s teaching are: Don’t have sex outside of marriage. Don’t use contraception when you do have sex, which you surely are not doing outside of marriage. I find it really hard to leap from that to “causing people to suffer and die” without adding in several other steps, like (a) demanding that the RCC amend its aspirational behavioral requirements to reality, as if just because people _don’t_, the CHurch is not allowed to say people _should_ or _must_; (b) completely ignoring that adults are volitional and are capable of choosing to have sex or not (as if the RCC is making Africans have unprotected sex); and (c) adding in the heaping helping of misinformation about the efficacy of barrier contraception – the last of which I join you in finding completely indefensible. > [@](#): > > I disagree. When the Pope says, “Using a condom is a sin,” and someone thinks, “Well, I guess I won’t use a condom, then,” the Pope bears a portion of the responsibility if that person gets sick. Not all the responsibility, of course, but enough that he deserves criticism for that statement. I have no problem with you assigning him a portion of the blame; I think that’s completely reasonable. If the RCC wants to turn a blind eye to the realities of human sexuality and the AIDS epidemic in Africa, I see no reason why they should not be expected to own their own part in failing to stop that epidemic. But then I don’t think they have any affirmative obligation to actually assist in stopping it (much as I wish they would do so). I just think they have an affirmative obligation not to obstruct through misinformation all those who ARE trying to stop it. That’s where the rubber hits the road for me. ---
**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 18, 2009, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/110 "2009-03-18T20:39:03Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > Sure, but you only get to make them for yourself or yor kids, unless you can show direct societal cost in allowing them to be followed. On what basis would you impose your morality on me, or anyone else? That’s why as a collective, a society, we don’t weigh in on “morality” – being, as it is, purely subjective – but only on harm. Where in this thread have I said anything about imposing my morality on you? For that matter, where in this thread has anyone attempted to impose their morality on anyone else? Unless I missed it, no one has called for the Catholic Church to be _forced_ to abandon their teachings on contraception. > [@](#): > > People can say and believe whatever they want. But what made the Nazis and Al Qaeda objectively “wrong” was not what they _believed_ but what they _did_. On what basis do you declare that it is “wrong” to be opposed to contracepton, be it barrier form or otherwise? Do you have something more to your argument than “I think so”? Because that’s pretty much all the RCC has and, as I said, I don’t find it at all persuasive. Yes, actually, I do have more than “I think so.” I have countless studies demonstrating that sex education is a more effective method of preventing the spread of disease and the conception of unwanted children than abstinence only education. The RCC opposes effective safe sex education, thereby rendering it more difficult to fight the spread of deadly diseases, or resolve one of the fundamental causes of the rampant poverty of the region. If the RCC did not insist on abstinence only education, then there would be fewer sick and dead people in Africa today. I consider that to be direct harm. > [@](#): > > Well, then you’re wrong. (See what I did there?) Is it wrong to dance? Wrong to play cards? Is it wrong for women to lead worship? Is it wrong to have more than one spouse? Is it wrong to eat meat? Wrong to eat meat and dairy together? Just because YOU assert there’s no difference between a moral wrong and a societal wrong, doesn’t mean your position is particularly defensible. No, none of those are moral wrongs. Because none of them do harm. For something to be immoral, it has to cause harm. Therefore, societal wrongs and moral wrongs are the same thing. Mind you, that’s just my own personal moral code. Other people have different ones, which cover things ranging from the absurd (no dancing) to the obscene (honor killings of rape victims). The ones that are absurd I shrug at. The ones that are obscene I agitate against. On this issue, the RCC is tending towards the latter half of the scale. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/111 "2009-03-18T21:15:48Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Where in this thread have I said anything about imposing my morality on you? For that matter, where in this thread has anyone attempted to impose their morality on anyone else? Unless I missed it, no one has called for the Catholic Church to be _forced_ to abandon their teachings on contraception. You impose your morality where and when you decide or declare whether a moral belief is “wrong” or not. When you are (and others) declare that something is morally “wrong” in any universal sense, you are obviously trying to assert that your version of morality is the correct one – because the other one is “wrong.” Whether that constitutes “imposing your morality on anyone else” is a matter of opinion. > [@](#): > > Yes, actually, I do have more than “I think so.” I have countless studies demonstrating that sex education is a more effective method of preventing the spread of disease and the conception of unwanted children than abstinence only education. But of course the question is not which is “more effective” but whether the RCC is “wrong” in some objectively measurable way to believe and to declare that the use of contraception is immoral. > [@](#): > > The RCC opposes effective safe sex education, thereby rendering it more difficult to fight the spread of deadly diseases, or resolve one of the fundamental causes of the rampant poverty of the region. If the RCC did not insist on abstinence only education, then there would be fewer sick and dead people in Africa today. I consider that to be direct harm. And I consider that a huge leap, relying as it does on the paternalism of presuming that Africans cannot be taught outside the rubric of a single religion, and cannot be trusted to make up their own minds if and when given correct facts by entities other than the RCC. The RCC has _always_ insisted on abstinence-only education – everywhere, all the time. They have _never_ supported the use of contraceptives, not ever. They cannot support “effective safe sex education” because they believe, as a moral matter, that it is _wrong_. So what on earth would you ask of them? They cannot support something they think is wrong. To the extent their _actions_ cause harm – including “insisting on abstinence only education,” which is _not_ what I’ve been talking about, seeing as it’s an action and not a moral belief – by all means, feel free to take them to task. But to me, if you don’t like how the RCC is educating people, then the solution is provide alternative, more effective education – not to expect them to start teaching or supporting things they believe are sinful. > [@](#): > > No, none of those are moral wrongs. Because none of them do harm. For something to be immoral, it has to cause harm. Therefore, societal wrongs and moral wrongs are the same thing. Mind you, that’s just my own personal moral code. . . . Whatever your own personal moral code may be, my point is that you have no standing to impose that moral code on anyone else – unless there is some objective harm done. You, apparently, agree with this, but would argue that the RCC’s position _is_ an objective harm done. I only disagree to the extent that I think the position itself is effectively unassailable (being a matter of belief) but the _actions_ that flow from it are fair game for criticism and refutation. All of which is a long way of saying I don’t really think we disagree all that much. I just don’t jump up and down on people for what they believe, since I find it much more effective to attack what they do. _And_ I consider it manifestly unreasonable to expect people to teach or to do things they feel are immoral, or to declare them “wrong” for not doing so. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/112 "2009-03-18T21:22:01Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > I’m not making **Bricker’s** argument for him, but you all seem to be overlooking – or rejecting – that the RCC thinks barriers to contraception are morally wrong. It’s like you guys think it becomes _less_ morally wrong if the consequences of the belief are really, really bad. But that’s not how moral beliefs work, at least if they are absolute instead of situational. Has the RCC ever changed it’s stance on whether something is morally wrong? Has it ever changed it’s stance on what constitutes absolute dogma? If so, it can do it again. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/113 "2009-03-18T21:32:40Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Has the RCC ever changed it’s stance on whether something is morally wrong? I honestly don’t know. Someone above mentioned something about witchcraft; AFAIK they’re not much more in favor of witchcraft than they’ve ever been, t’s just that opinions of what “witchcraft” might look like have changed. But I do think it’s safe to say that you would have to go a long way before finding an organization _less_ likely to change its moral stance that the RCC. “Flexible” and “progressive” are not the sort of terms that are usually flung at it. But then, I’m not RC so I’m not really in a position to say how or when they’ve reversed course. As to “how often” – I’m fairly confident the answer to that one is “rarely.” > [@](#): > > Has it ever changed it’s stance on what constitutes absolute dogma? If so, it can do it again. It has, so manifestly it can. But I wouldn’t be the ranch on a turn-around on fundamental doctrine like “right to life” anytime soon. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/114 "2009-03-18T21:41:33Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > I honestly don’t know. Someone above mentioned something about witchcraft; AFAIK they’re not much more in favor of witchcraft than they’ve ever been, t’s just that opinions of what “witchcraft” might look like have changed. But I do think it’s safe to say that you would have to go a long way before finding an organization _less_ likely to change its moral stance that the RCC. “Flexible” and “progressive” are not the sort of terms that are usually flung at it. But then, I’m not RC so I’m not really in a position to say how or when they’ve reversed course. As to “how often” – I’m fairly confident the answer to that one is “rarely.” > > It has, so manifestly it can. But I wouldn’t be the ranch on a turn-around on fundamental doctrine like “right to life” anytime soon. Well they did eventually retreat from the “the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves in circles around it” postion. At the time, that was a hardcore dogma. To argue against it was heresy. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/115 "2009-03-18T21:45:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If it is, let’s discuss speeding laws Yes, let’s. The analogy between speeding laws (routinely used as a form of literal highway robbery rather than for their ostensible purpose of safety) and opposition to contraception (routinely used as a form of social control rather than for its ostensible purpose of moral improvement) is rather more compelling that any analogy you’ve offered. ---
**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 18, 2009, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/116 "2009-03-18T21:47:29Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > You impose your morality where and when you decide or declare whether a moral belief is “wrong” or not. When you are (and others) declare that something is morally “wrong” in any universal sense, you are obviously trying to assert that your version of morality is the correct one – because the other one is “wrong.” Whether that constitutes “imposing your morality on anyone else” is a matter of opinion. So, having a moral belief is the same as imposing a moral belief? > [@](#): > > But of course the question is not which is “more effective” but whether the RCC is “wrong” in some objectively measurable way to believe and to declare that the use of contraception is immoral. No, the question is, indeed, which is more effective. If abstinence-only education were equally (or more) effective, or if there were no way to tell which was more effective, then there would be no problem with the Church promoting abstinence only education. However, we know, for a fact, that abstinence only education does not work. Therefore, continuing to spread abstience only education at the expense of more effective ideas is recklessly irresponsible at best. > [@](#): > > And I consider that a huge leap, relying as it does on the paternalism of presuming that Africans cannot be taught outside the rubric of a single religion, and cannot be trusted to make up their own minds if and when given correct facts by entities other than the RCC. I have made precisely the same arguments about abstinence-only education being promoted in the US, by entities other than the RCC. > [@](#): > > The RCC has _always_ insisted on abstinence-only education – everywhere, all the time. They have _never_ supported the use of contraceptives, not ever. A stupid idea does not become less stupid with age. > [@](#): > > They cannot support “effective safe sex education” because they believe, as a moral matter, that it is _wrong_. So what on earth would you ask of them? They cannot support something they think is wrong. To the extent their _actions_ cause harm – including “insisting on abstinence only education,” which is _not_ what I’ve been talking about, seeing as it’s an action and not a moral belief – by all means, feel free to take them to task. But to me, if you don’t like how the RCC is educating people, then the solution is provide alternative, more effective education – not to expect them to start teaching or supporting things they believe are sinful. Ideally, I’d like the Catholic church to get over its medieval obsession with the horrid sinfulness of sex. But that’s asking a lot, and probably not going to happen any time this century. In the interim, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect them not to value dogma over keeping people alive. They are free to continue considering abstinence to be preferrable to safe sex. However, if they are going to act as a public health and sexuality educator, they should not be spreading ideas that actively work against those goals. > [@](#): > > Whatever your own personal moral code may be, my point is that you have no standing to impose that moral code on anyone else – unless there is some objective harm done. You, apparently, agree with this, but would argue that the RCC’s position is an objective harm done. I only disagree to the extent that I think the position itself is effectively unassailable (being a matter of belief) but the actions that flow from it are fair game for criticism and refutation. I agree, except that I don’t think you can reasonably equate disagreeing with a moral belief with imposing your own moral beliefs on someone else. If I hear a bad idea, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying that it’s a bad idea. Appending “moral” in front of “idea” doesn’t grant an automatic exception. > [@](#): > > All of which is a long way of saying I don’t really think we disagree all that much. I just don’t jump up and down on people for what they believe, since I find it much more effective to attack what they do. _And_ I consider it manifestly unreasonable to expect people to teach or to do things they feel are immoral, or to declare them “wrong” for not doing so. Pah. This is the SDMB. I’m not about to let a petty little thing like agreement stand in the way of a good fight. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/117 "2009-03-18T21:49:24Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > It has, so manifestly it can. But I wouldn’t be the ranch on a turn-around on fundamental doctrine like “right to life” anytime soon. Oh, I agree. I’m just countering your argument that such things don’t work that way. Sometimes they do. And, if they do so, as some have suggested, because society as a whole has moved in a different direction; i.e., the change percolates upward, then this issue seems to me to be one where persistent vocal opposition by all who oppose the Church’s stance, whether they be Catholics or not, is the right thing to do. ---
**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 18, 2009, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/118 "2009-03-18T21:53:36Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > I honestly don’t know. Someone above mentioned something about witchcraft; AFAIK they’re not much more in favor of witchcraft than they’ve ever been, t’s just that opinions of what “witchcraft” might look like have changed. How about heresy? At one point, it was the RCC’s position that only members of the Catholic Church were saved, and that anyone following a Protestant faith was damned. That is no longer a part of Catholic dogma. IIRC, they’ve also ammended their faith to allow Jews into heaven, which is also in stark contrast to their beliefs during the first and most of the second millennium. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/119 "2009-03-18T23:19:50Z")
Does anybody have a cite that condoms are any better than abstinence/monogamy in preventing AIDS (As a whole, not per incident)? Using Uganda as an example, according to the statistics here: [http://www.aids.org/atn/2005/04/uganda-rakai.html](http://www.aids.org/atn/2005/04/uganda-rakai.html) In men, for example, in the last ten years, condom use increased from 10% to 50%. New infections (not prevalence, which is affected by deaths!) also rose from slightly during that time period. Monogamy and abstinence fell during that time period. So it seems that its quite possible that condoms, although they reduce the chance per incident, might encourage other risky behaviors that more than make up for that reduced risk. ---
**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 18, 2009, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/120 "2009-03-18T23:28:12Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > Does anybody have a cite that condoms are any better than abstinence/monogamy in preventing AIDS (As a whole, not per incident)? Using Uganda as an example, according to the statistics here: > > [http://www.aids.org/atn/2005/04/uganda-rakai.html](http://www.aids.org/atn/2005/04/uganda-rakai.html) > > In men, for example, in the last ten years, condom use increased from 10% to 50%. New infections (not prevalence, which is affected by deaths!) also rose from slightly during that time period. Monogamy and abstinence fell during that time period. > > So it seems that its quite possible that condoms, although they reduce the chance per incident, might encourage other risky behaviors that more than make up for that reduced risk. Where are you getting that “10% to 50%” increase in condom use? > [@](#): > > The early data presented at the February 2005 Retroviruses conference also showed increasing use of condoms, and some backsliding on reducing the number of sexual partners. But neither change was big enough to greatly affect the incidence of new infections, at least in the aggregate data across the 50 villages studied. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774.md?page=7)