Defence Of Catholic Teaching

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Hi there chaos_defrost / others,

 

As promised here is a thread where I shall attempt to defend aspects of Catholic teaching . I have quoted your posts from the other thread, to use as a basis here.

 

 

Mr Fry is a mailicious liar and bigot. He blames my faith group for HIV

 

He's spot on regarding the Catholic church and HIV

 

 

You accuse Catholic teaching (against contraception) of being responsible for the HIV pandemic, mainly in Africa - a common accusation. Yet, this is
demonstrably untrue.

 

Only ~ 15% of Africa is Catholic, for a start, and so it seems downright strange to claim that the sexual values of a minority group
can be used to explain the overall situation of overwhelmingly non-Catholic Africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_by_country#Africa

 

Additionally, Catholic opposition to condoms could only be problematic if Catholics accepted this teaching, but at the same time ignored teachings regarding monogamy and slept around a lot. The accusation alludes that Catholics are having lots of "unprotected" promiscuous sex - but, thats actually the direct antithesis of what the Church teaches (monogamy or abstinence) about sex. The allegation is illogical.

 

So, when you stop to think about it for a second, you see that the allegation doesnt even stack up in the first place - on several grounds - its a
nonsense.

 

But dont take my word for it, look at the empirical data. According to avert.org (a secular HIV charity), the worst affected African
countries are:

 

"Sub-Saharan Africa is more heavily affected by HIV and AIDS than any other region of the world

 

Southern Africa is the worst impacted by AIDS; in South Africa the HIV prevalence is 17.8% and in three other southern African countries, the national
adult HIV prevalence rate now exceeds 20%. These countries are Botswana (24.8%), Lesotho (23.6%) and Swaziland (25.9%)"

 

And when you consider the Catholic populaitons of these nations:

HIV % Catholic %
South Africa: 17.8 6.36
Botswana: 24.8 4.78
Lesotho: 23.6 53.62
Swaziland: 25.9 5.56

 

Only one of the worst hit countries has any Catholic population to speak of. You can see that the Africans affected by HIV are overwhelmingly non-Catholic.

 

http://avert.org/hiv-and-aids-africa.htm
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/sc1.html

 

So, I am not sure why you think HIV is anything to do with us at all, really. Its not us who are HIV+ and its not us who are spreading HIV.

 

That the Church is right on this matter is borne out by the best scientific opinion we have. For example Dr Edward C Green says that empirical data
supports Catholic teaching and that condoms have failed as an HIV reduction measure.

 

"The pope was right about condoms, says Harvard HIV expert"

 

"when the Pope said that the answer really lies in monogamy and martial faithfulness, that's exactly what we found empirically"

 

"empirical data supported the Pope, and (that) condoms have not worked as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/03/aids_expert_who_defended_the_p.html

 

Dr Green is a global expert on public health and advised various African Governments re public health policy, and held posts at Havard and
other universities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_C._Green#

 

Additionally, Epidemiologist René Ecochard, director of the biostatistics department at Lyon's University Hospital Center, also supported Catholic teaching, saying secular opinon "lacks realism" and "loses it spoints of reference when it addresses the issues of sexuality and the family". He says western condom policy is "ideological" not fact based.

http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/epidemiologist-pope-is-right-about-condoms

 

In conclusion here it is easy to see that popular public opinion is badly misguided and is based far more on the agenda-laden populist ramblings
of homosexual celebrities, stand-up comics etc, than it is on empirial data, scientific observation and expert opinion. Popular opinion here defies logic and ignores empirical data.

 

it is an excellent example of how anti-scientific secular societies can be, when the majority of people are happy to ignore unconfortable truths and instead
invent an alternate reality for themselves to exist in.

 

 

The Catholic church says that sex as purely a recreational activity is a sin and that to use contraception is a sin.

 

 

You are right the Church teaches against meaningless sex and says we should only have sex within exclusive and committed relationships (marriages).

 

But what concern is this to you? You are not a Catholic and so are free to follow your own conscience.

 

Given the natural result of sex is new life, it makes proper sense only to have sex in a committed relationship - unless you think a stable
family background isnt important for a child, or that unwanted human life is disposable (which the Church doesnt, because it isnt).

 

Secular society pretends that sex is a toy, that it is for pleasure only and that there are no consequences. But there are consequences -
HIV, STDs, unwanted pregnancy and so abortions, and even emotional consequences.

 

Yes there is contraception, but then no contraception is 100% effective against pregnancy or STDs - as it says on every box of condoms - and so it is at best mitigation, not a solution. This is what logic dictates, what the data shows and what the experts tell us. The current lamentable state of HIV among Africans and Western Homosexual men is the proud achievement of decades of condom policy.

 

I don't see anything wrong with two people enjoying sex without attempting to make a child

 

 

You say "not attempting to make a child" - but you ARE attempting to make a baby, every time you have sex, whether you like it or not. The production of babies is the chief and inherent purpose of sex, its natural conclusion. You say this isnt so, is to kid oneself. Contraception isnt 100% effective and so you are not preventing the chance of a baby, only reducing the chance of a baby. Yes, the risk for individual couples is small, but when you multiply this small risk up to a national or global scale then it becomes quite significant.

 

Then, when people catch the clap, or unwanted babies happen (often), people feel like they are the victim as they dispose of the new life. How is this credible? It is not.

 

It is not unreasonable for the Church to state that people should be responsible for the consequences of their own actions, is it?

 

Is not responsiblity that which freedom is about?

 

You are right that sex is fun, but its a serious business - given the possible outcomes. Accordingly to advise that sex only occurs in an environment which can cater for - and actively desires - these outcomes is only rational.

 

Additional evidence is seen when we look at the secular west - here condoms can be bought in any shop, pub toilet, petrol station, chemist, or picked up for free in clinics. You can even get them posted to you for free. Yet homosexual men in the west have similar/worse HIV rates than even africa? And the US govt says that, soon, more than half of all homosexual men will have HIV. So much for condoms them, given this reality and these type of Government predictions.

 

Already 1 in 5 US homosexual men are HIV+, (1 in 2 in San Fran) http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/26/study-20-of-homosexual-men-are-hiv-positive-but-only-half-know-it/

 

(its 1 in 20 in the UK, in in 12 in London)

 

(HIV is much less a problem among heterosexuals in the west, than Africa - in Africa, this demographic suffers excessively due to lawlessness, war and widespread rape)

 

It is not hard to see that Catholic sexual teaching is only common sense and the further removed ones sexual behaviour is from Catholic teaching, the more likely it is that you will get HIV. Both in Africa and the west we see the HIV badly affected groups are non-Catholic, those who do not follow Catholic teaching.

 

I think Stephen Fry would be better advised to consider the HIV rate among men like him, rather than tell fibs about the Catholic Church, dont you?

 

Comparisons in Asia also resoundingly support Catholic teaching here.

 

 

I don't believe in God but if there is one then surely sex is one of the best things he created in life and should be enjoyed

 

I (The Church) agrees sex is great and to be enjoyed, but we should responsible about it, realistic about it, and prepared to accept the consequences of it.

 

Catholic church is bigoted plain and simple imo, can't see how you can argue otherwise

 

 

You say the Church is 'bigoted', but do not say why, how, against whom etc?

 

Please elaborate such that I can mount a defence. Do you mean against homosexual people / women, as is often alleged?

 

 

Catholic church is a bigoted and backwards organisation

 

 

You say the Church is 'backward', but do not say why. I find this amazing, the organisation that:

 

- provides 26% of the worlds total healthcare provision (117,000 hospitals and healthcentres worldwide)
- built western civilisation, invented universities and founded many and is the largest non-governmental educational body in the world
- spends billions pa on the poor and needy, via its global CARITAS network of relief and development agencies

 

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/catholic_hospitals_represent_26_percent_of_worlds_health_facilities_reports_pontifical_council/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_school
http://www.caritas.org/index.html

 

is "backward"?

 

I contend the Church is anything but backward. How can the promotion and provision of education, health and human dignity posibly be backward?

 

 

[a1-don]

Lots of statistics but not one bit of evidence that the big beardy guy in the sky you all worship actually exists, so the church as an entity is pointless.

[AndrewW]

I don't understand how anyone can or wants to believe in God? If there is such a thing as God it is clear that it is both a cruel and vain entity.

[beef_sister]

I made it to the 2nd paragraph.

 

All catholics are paedophiles. It's been scientifically proven.

[Monkey]

I have to say that I never thought that Stephen Fry said that the Catholic Church was responsible for HIV, I am open to be educated on that, he did however observe that the Church has to accept a degree of responsibility for it's spread and this notwithstanding your post above has to be correct and in saying so I make the following observation.

 

The message most commonly used is ABC: abstain, be [faithful], [use a] condom and this has been effective in reducing the spread of the disease to varying degrees, now you have a church that actively campaigns against one of these, the condom use.

 

Now they don't just say

Don't use a condom

 

Whilst that would be bad enough given the resaerch into the effectiveness of condoms preventing infection

 

Rather the position that has been given out goes as far as having the church claim that condoms are deliberately being infected with HIV!

 

That's right, people's religious leaders, those that they look to for guidance are saying that condoms can give you HIV!

 

​That is indefensible.

 

In so undermining one of the effective ways of preventing infection the Church has to, as you say, take responsibility for it's own actions.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

I don't understand how anyone can or wants to believe in God? If there is such a thing as God it is clear that it is both a cruel and vain entity.

Lots of statistics but not one bit of evidence that the big beardy guy in the sky you all worship actually exists, so the church as an entity is pointless.

Hi chaps,

 

In this thread we are discussing Catholic teaching and its effect (if any) on HIV - if you want to discuss the existence of God, by all means start a separate thread to have a debate there.

 

I will only say here that anyone who thinks the Chruch as an entity is "pointless" is obviously ignorant of what the Catholic Church actually does. (for a start, it contributes 26% of the worlds total healthcare provision, as above - hardly "pointless".

 

Cheers

CS

[Clydeside_Sheep]

I made it to the 2nd paragraph.

 

All catholics are paedophiles. It's been scientifically proven.

 

More accurate to say that a small amount of homosexual catholics clergy are pederasts.

 

This is the reality of the "child abuse" scandal, as evidence by the John Jay report (US) and others.

 

In reality 90% of the "children" were in fact sexually mature, adolescent males, as old as 17 - not "children".

 

It wasnt child abuse, it was pedestary.

 

But lets not go into that too much here and take the thread off topic.

[StandFree1982]

RE in schools should be eradicated. It has absolutely NO benefit to the school curriculum and should be done away with.

 

If they can't do away with it, then they it should be a lesson in ALL religions and not just Christianity. I think we brushed on other religions, but we still spent the majority of the time looking through the fucking bible and going over Christian shite.

 

Just do away with it and incorporate any religions discussions within History and Modern Studies.

 

No offence to anyone who believes in God. But you've been duped. Lied to. Deceived.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

he did however observe that the Church has to accept a degree of responsibility for it's spread and

 

Ive shown above - very clearly - that he is wrong. (hes knows hes wrong, he is willfully lieing).

 

Those responsible for its spread are various non-Catholics, notably (in the west), homosexuals like Fry himself. The responsibility is with them, no-one else.

 

The aim of Frys lies is to deflect attention away from the real culprits. He is likely onto a winner as most members of the public are not thinkers.

 

now you have a church that actively campaigns against one of these, the condom use.

 

 

The Catholic Church doesnt 'actively campaign' against comdon use. It teaches that Catholics should not use contraception, it recommends that people have sex with an exclusive partner. This is the best and most natural way of protecting oneself from sexual disease.

 

It also recommends that women control their fertility naturally, which gives the same level of protection from unwanted pregnancy as does artificial contraception.

Btw the "ABC" message you refer to - originates in Uganda, where the C stood for Chastity. Uganda was the first nation to include Chastity as part of its sex education.

 

Whilst that would be bad enough given the resaerch into the effectiveness of condoms preventing infection

 

Rather the position that has been given out goes as far as having the church claim that condoms are deliberately being infected with HIV!

 

That's right, people's religious leaders, those that they look to for guidance are saying that condoms can give you HIV!

 

​That is indefensible.

 

 

 

This is guff monkey, you have simply restated bogus stuff I debunked in my first post.

 

It is not Catholic teaching that "condoms give you HIV". This is the sort of ludicrous straw-man which often rears its head in these debates.

 

 

Pope Benedict said condoms can make the situation in Africa worse - causing much outrage - but he was right, as the experts said. Going back to René Ecochard (same link as above:

"People thought that the Pope was speaking of the efficacy of the plastic, the condom, when in reality he was speaking of the campaigns to spread the condom. This is very different.

 

"As is true of every technological object of prevention, the condom has a quantified efficacy."

 

But therein is not the problem, Ecochard stated, "All epidemiologists agree today that the campaigns to distribute [condoms] in countries where the proportion of affected people is very high, do not work."

 

Notice how Ecochard has to (embarassingly) point out that people do not properly understand what is being said in the first place - seemingly including you lol

 

 

 

In so undermining one of the effective ways of preventing infection the Church has to, as you say, take responsibility for it's own actions.

 

 

 

Condoms are not one of the effective ways of preventing HIV infection. Your opinion is anti-scientific and is at loggerheads with both expert opinion and empirical data,

 

 

"campaigns to distribute [condoms] in countries where the proportion of affected people is very high, do not work"

 

- Rene Ecochard

 

 

"empirical data supported the Pope, and condoms have not worked as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa"

 

- Edward Green

 

 

(same links as above, for references)

 

 

How could these guys - these scientific experts - make it any clearer for you?

 

 

You are rejecting scientific findings on ideological grounds, because you consider the findings to be inconvenient - in that they highlight the deficiencies of your opinion here.

 

 

That people are so wilfully against science here is a major reason why the problem perpetuates and why many additional lives are being blighted. It is a shame that people are such ideologues and will regard human live as expendable, before they will admit "We were wrong".

 

 

It is remarkable / jaw-dropping that educated people will suggest that a regime of sleeping around, using imperfect "protection", could possibly give a better outcome (STD wise etc) than a society where monogamous sex is restricted to within committed marriages.

 

 

Its like saying that playing russian roulette might give you less instances of head injuries, than not playing russian roulette.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

RE in schools should be eradicated. It has absolutely NO benefit to the school curriculum and should be done away with.

 

If they can't do away with it, then they it should be a lesson in ALL religions and not just Christianity. I think we brushed on other religions, but we still spent the majority of the time looking through the fucking bible and going over Christian shite.

 

Just do away with it and incorporate any religions discussions within History and Modern Studies.

 

No offence to anyone who believes in God. But you've been duped. Lied to. Deceived.

 

Id love to have a good fight with you over this, but start a new thread (if you want) so this thread doenst become a rigmarole of various different discussions.

[a1-don]

I will only say here that anyone who thinks the Chruch as an entity is "pointless" is obviously ignorant of what the Catholic Church actually does. (for a start, it contributes 26% of the worlds total healthcare provision, as above - hardly "pointless".

 

Would that be evidence-based healthcare?

 

Any religion is pointless as there is no god.

[The Hulk]

RE in schools should be eradicated. It has absolutely NO benefit to the school curriculum and should be done away with.

 

.......

 

Just do away with it and incorporate any religions discussions within History and Modern Studies.

I'd say you've solved the problem of the first sentence there with the second one I've quoted. In this secular age, it is more important than ever to be educated about other beliefs.

 

Speaking of secularism, I wont deny the statistics with regard to education and healthcare, but I find it ironic that despite that enormous contribution to education, Catholic schools remain state-funded. I don't believe at all in state-funded faith schooling. There are Catholic schools in the north-east, but very few and we are not exposed to the tribalism that feeds the sectarian beast in the central belt.

 

In my profession, I've done a little bit of work related to new school building. I have also done some work with a benevolent Catholic organisation with an education agenda. Both of these things in the central belt. This doesn't make me an expert on the subject but it gives me a bit of understanding of the dynamic moreso than it ever did while I lived previously in the North East. I remember being amazed at how much fanfare there was when Scotland's first "joint-campus" school was built. There is me thinking that what they've started to do is merge faith and non-denominational schools. Alas no, they put the Catholic and the non-denominational school next door to each other. This is progress in the world of the central belt. I have friends whose kids make friends at nursery and are then split apart because it is the done thing to put them to faith schools. Are kids old enough at age 4 & 5 to understand why they are "different"?

 

While you have this state-funded tribalism at the most elementary level, it is little wonder that the world continues to be threatened by organised religion. My view is that if any faith wishes to preach its message, it is free to do so, but if my tax dollars are going to pay for it, you are fair game to be taken to task.

[StandFree1982]

I think it is important that children learn about the different religions, I just don't believe you should be taught to believe one over another like RE in schools these days seem to do. Which is why I think History and Modern Studies would be the perfect place for it. History due to the fact that almost every problem in the world has been due to differing religious opinions and Modern Studies because of the politcal problems, terrorism for example, facing the world today.

[daytripping]

The original post was too long for me, what's this topic about in 2 lines or less?

[StandFree1982]

The original post was too long for me, what's this topic about in 2 lines or less?

Something about Aids. The bad kind.

[daytripping]

Something about Aids. The bad kind.

 

It was Africans having sex with Monkeys that created it, a fat bloke in the pub told me so it must be true.

[Monkey]

CS,

 

You claim that the catholic church is blameless when it comes to the spread of HIV and yet you accept it preaches against condom use which in studies has shown to reduce the spread of the virus by 80%

 

2009 Study 2012 study

 

Now you are aware that unprotected sex is not the only method of the virus being spread? so to claim it's the gays that are doing it is as misleading as you are claiming Fry is being.

 

Now back to the Condoms,

 

Leaving aside the re interpretation of Pope Benedict's comments about condoms aggravating the situation, although I note he never clarified what he meant.

 

In the immediate aftermath of his comments you have African Bishops proclaiming

 

 

In all truth, the pope's message which we received with joy has confirmed us in our fight against HIV/AIDS. We say no to condoms!

 

So they picked him up wrong, I wonder how many were preached the wrong message before the mistake was noticed and they apologised and rectified their mistake.

 

 

You then have Archbishop Francisco Chimoio the head of the catholic church in Mozambique

 

 

"Condoms are not sure because I know that there are two countries in Europe, they are making condoms with the virus on purpose."

 

 

The president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo

 

"The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom."

 

 

 

 

 

So there we have it, a misinterpretation for no to condoms, the claim that condoms give you aids and then the claim that Aids pass through the condoms anyway.

 

 

To Ecochard and Green,

 

Ecochard does in his opinion piece state that condoms in countries where the proportion of affected people is very high, do not work.

But what about in areas with low numbers of affected people? Following his own logic they will work there and yet the Church is against them.

 

And then to Green who accepts that condoms have worked in other parts of the world in stopping the spread of HIV goes on to observe that his opinion is

 

 

 

I believe condoms should be made available to everyone. It should be, and as you say, the ABC strategy: Abstain, Be faithful, use a Condom. Condoms may well have contributed to the prevalence decline in Uganda.

 

 

 

 

 

and then has gone on to say when asked about the Pope's prohibition on condoms

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't agree with that. And, I have said that I am not a Catholic, and I am not talking about condoms in any sort of moral-ethical sense. I am talking about what has been found to work and not work. So, yes, the article I mentioned by Hearst and Chen is very clear that condoms work in certain types of situations and certain sub-populations and condoms have had a positive national impact in certain concentrated epidemics. So, yes, I don't agree with the Pope across the board.

 

 

 

So if we look the catholic church's anti condom message not just in the context of Africa but rather worldwide, it's clear that there position is harmful in any attempts to stop the spread of the virus, even the scientist you quoted agrees with that.

 

 

 

 

[beef_sister]

 

It was Africans having sex with Monkey

Have you got a penchant for darkies monkey? It's all your fault!

[chaos_defrost]

 

 

 

It is remarkable / jaw-dropping that educated people will suggest that a regime of sleeping around, using imperfect "protection", could possibly give a better outcome (STD wise etc) than a society where monogamous sex is restricted to within committed marriages.

 

 

 

 

You're talking as if everyone in the world is a Catholic. What about those that don't share the same views as you and want to enjoy sex without creating life? Surely wearing a condom should be encouraged for these people??

[Master_of_Soulls]

What's the Catholic Church's stance on the over population of the planet? And the long term effects this will have on future generations?

[dervish]

The main thing I don't understand about the Catholic church is that the man that the other men elect as pope gets to change the rules. So on the last pope did God get it wrong or did the men get it wrong? Also if a pope changes the rules, then why did God not write them correctly in the first place?

[Master_of_Soulls]

The main thing I don't understand about the Catholic church is that the man that the other men elect as pope gets to change the rules. So on the last pope did God get it wrong or did the men get it wrong? Also if a pope changes the rules, then why did God not write them correctly in the first place?

There you go! If God has a divine plan for everyone, why try and modify it? If the path has already been set, surely if it would be pointless to try and effect change

[madjockmcferson]

The state shouldn't be funding religious schools because the state ought to be neutral in matters of religion.

[Poodler]

Humans, through the power of the conscious mind, have sex for pleasure not just for reproduction. That's a very Freudian way of thinking to say we just ride for babies. We are different from animals.

[ChutneyLove]

Do the Catholic church approve of beating off? They get my vote if it's yes. Are they looking for votes?

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Hi Monkey,

 

My reply is big (sorry) so I might post it over a couple of posts:

 

 

You claim that the catholic church is blameless when it comes to the spread of HIV and yet you accept it preaches against condom use which in studies has shown to reduce the spread of the virus by 80%

 

The bottom line with condoms is as I quoted above.

The experts say they have been a failure, end of story.

You are howling at the moon.

 

Now you are aware that unprotected sex is not the only method of the virus being spread? so to claim it's the gays that are doing it is as misleading as you are claiming Fry is being.

 

It's the truth. In the west homosexual men typically comprise 2/3 of all new HIV infections, in any given nation, despite being a tiny minority group.

 

In the last five years, two-thirds of HIV transmission in Scotland has occurred in men who have sex with men http://www.hiv-wakeup.org.uk/

 

(USA) In 2010, the majority of new HIV infections was attributed to male-to-male sexual contact (63% overall and 78% among males). http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/surveillance/incidence/

 

(Aus) " Most Homosexuals Guilty of Unprotected Sex. The highest number of HIV cases has occurred among gay men who have unprotected sex with other men at 67 per cent" http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/515408/20131021/hiv-infection-rate-australia-homosexuals-gay-sex.htm

 

Note that men are actually unable to have sex with other men, (they cannot combine their sexual organs), as the misleading headlines suggest.

 

Leaving aside the re interpretation of Pope Benedict's comments about condoms aggravating the situation, although I note he never clarified what he meant.

 

His accurate comments are perfectly explained by the quotes Ive given you from Ecochard, above, who also noted that most of the public had simply failed to understand.

He shouldnt have to clarify what he meant, we should expect a quality press to report things accurately, clearly and without bias.

 

You then have Archbishop Francisco Chimoio the head of the catholic church in Mozambique

 

Who seems to be a paranoid idiot and certainly made a fool of himself with those outrageous comments. I would certainly hope he received some kind of sanction / bollocking for it.

The paranoia that westerners are trying to poison Africans seems widespread. It featured on a BBC program about Nigeria lately, but this time they were claiming the westerners were hawking poisoned vaccines. Crazy.

What the Bishop said, obviously stupid, isn't Catholic teaching, and so it would be a straw man to present it as such. Some people say stupid things at times, including some Catholics. What can one do? The Church cannot be held responsible for his personal remarks.

I actually find his comments more disturbing for the "racist murder conspiracy" angle, than for anything related to condoms.

I would honestly be shocked if anyone could have genuinely thought he was really articulating Catholic Doctrine with his absurd comments.

 

The president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo

 

He's right. On some types of condoms - those made from animal membranes - infections can pass through them. Do you ever check any of this stuff out?

"Animal membrane condoms, made from the intestines of sheep, when used with contraceptive foam, can be effective in preventing pregnancy but may not provide proper protection against all sexually transmitted infections. This is because the pores in the animal membranes permit small organisms such as viruses to pass through.

http://www.medicinenet.com/barrier_methods_of_birth_control/page2.htm

 

So there we have it, a misinterpretation for no to condoms, the claim that condoms give you aids and then the claim that Aids pass through the condoms anyway.

 

I hope the above has clarified this stuff.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Hi again Monkey - heres the rest of my reply to you:

 

 

Ecochard does in his opinion piece state that condoms in countries where the proportion of affected people is very high, do not work.

But what about in areas with low numbers of affected people? Following his own logic they will work there and yet the Church is against them.

 

These are not "opinion pieces" I am referring you to. It is factual information, derived from raw data using scientific methods, by experts.

 

So you accept the condom approach in Africa is flawed? That it is based fundamentally on ideology?

 

I accept the importance of the background infection rate, certainly, but:

 

Australia's HIV Infection Rate Highest in 20 Years, http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/515408/20131021/hiv-infection-rate-australia-homosexuals-gay-sex.htm

 

If HIV continues to spread at current rates, half of college-aged gay men will have the infection by the age of 50 http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/03/gay-community-won-battles-on-marriage-but-may-be-losing-war-on-hivaids

 

five million abortions were performed in Britain http://www.spuc.org.uk/education/abortion/briefing

 

I wouldn't say condoms had a great record in the west either.

 

Why aren't condoms working to protect homosexual men in the west from HIV, where condoms are freely available and promoted, have been for decades?

 

Why are they not expected to work in future, if the US CDC is happy to make dire predictions for more HIV in future decades? (middle link).

 

Why have they not prevented 5 million+ unwanted pregnancies in the UK?

 

These figures - in the west and 3rd world - represent the record of condoms. It's not good enough.

 

So if we look the catholic church's anti condom message not just in the context of Africa but rather worldwide, it's clear that there position is harmful in any attempts to stop the spread of the virus,

 

I reject this out of hand; the Church says we should only enjoy sex with a single exclusive partner within a marriage. That way neither of you can catch HIV. It speaks against promiscuity and meaningless sex in circumstances where the natural results of sex would be unwanted.

 

In no way is this a harmful message. People who say Catholic arguments are harmful are alluding that the Church says "don't wear condoms, but still sleep around". But that isn't true.

 

This simple-common sense way includes the best possible defence against STDs. There is no need for condoms, or other artificial aspects, in such an arrangement . Fertility can be controlled naturally, to an equally effective extent as artificial methods.

 

Re HIV, the figures I gave earlier demonstrate that the parts of Africa badly affected are not Catholic, and in the west it is homosexual men worst affected by a wide margin. Would it not be more appropriate to consider the lifestyles and habits of these particular demographics, than put the wholly-unrelated Catholic Doctrine on trial?

 

Dr Green tells us that the empirical data supports the Catholic teaching. It could not be more conclusive - but then this topic could not be more obvious.

 

If you would not accept the word of (eg) Dr Green, based on empirical data, to show that Catholic teaching here is accurate, what exactly would you accept?

 

Cheers

CS

[Tommy]

AFC>Catholic Curch.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

 

You're talking as if everyone in the world is a Catholic. What about those that don't share the same views as you and want to enjoy sex without creating life? Surely wearing a condom should be encouraged for these people??

 

We pretend that we have managed to separate the pleasure of sex from the natural results of sex (new life).

 

But we have not. Our methods work most of the time, but not all of the time. No method of contraception is 100% effective and even layered contraception (eg condom and pill) can fail.

 

It is impossible to have sex without some small chance of pregnancy occurring. This important fact is generally absent in any discussion about contraception.

 

Of course I agree non-Catholics are to follow their own conscience on this and every matter, but they are confronted by the same facts as Catholics.

 

The large human cost of widespread promiscuity - in terms of lives permanently blighted by sexual disease like HIV, or unwanted life being destroyed in the womb on a vast scale - clearly indicates that it is a selfish / irresponsible choice for society.

 

Cheers!

[Clydeside_Sheep]

AFC>Catholic Curch.

 

Fortunately the Church doesn't have a football team, so I don't see them as being in direct competition