All Religion is Bad.

[Herzblut]

Just one question here - how could celibacy and monogamy possibly do anything other than reduce AIDS?

I wouldn't know how anybody could justify such claim.

While I agree that the idea of monogamy and celibacy is totally unrealistic, there's no question that if it were implemented, new infections would stop.

You find the idea more realistic to talk the majority of married couples into consistently using a condom? More so in a country where condoms are not readily available or only for an extremely high price. How would you sell the condom idea to them?

And if you talk to a prostitute in Southafrica dealing with unprotected sex to make some money, and she tells you "Well, AIDS might kill me in two decades. But hunger kills me right now." What would you answer to her?

Herzblut

 

[RandFan]

Yes it does. It convincingly refutes the fantastically simplistic idea that Vatican edict = AIDS in Africa and consequently denies the naive plan that by just having the Vatican change its policy all will be good and fine.

Setting aside your strawman, declaring that "it does" doesn't make it so.

It is demonstrable that there is much ignorance in this part of the world. Your article attempts to make racists of those who would acknowledge the facts. Those who do are not attacking any inherent lack on the part of Africans but on the state that they currently find themselves in.

It says the problem is much more complex than that and a more holistic view on the HIV/AIDS situation is required. You don't seem to agree.

I think you have this backward. It is the world health organizations and UN that is stating that abstinence and monogamy are simplistic and NOT a comprehensive solution. Holistic is pure BS BTW.

 

[andyandy]

this thread has morphed quite a great deal since its inception

I believe ceo-esq has been unfairly treated for asking simply for evidence for a statement - but leaving that to one side, with regards to AIDS and contraception, my opinions....

Sub-Saharan Africa is the region of the world that is most affected by HIV & AIDS. An estimated 25.8 million people were living with HIV at the end of 2005 and approximately 3.1 million new infections occurred during that year. In just the past year the epidemic has claimed the lives of an estimated 2.4 million people in this region. More than twelve million children have been orphaned by AIDS

Pope John Paul II during his life was vehemently anti-contraception. At an International Congress in 1988 he decreed that an even an AIDS sufferer cannot use condoms to have intercourse with his wife. He stated that the condom is a method of contraception and "no reason, however grave" will allow its use. This viewpoint is still held amongst many African catholic bishops - and is not challenged by the Vatican. The Archbishop of Uganda, Christophe Pierre, has called on the country's youth to resist the use condoms and Roman Catholic bishops in southern Africa last year condemned the use of condoms to fight Aids- arguing that the battle against HIV/Aids should be fought on moral grounds and saying that condoms help spread the disease.

The catholic church have also been guilty of a campaign of misinformation with regards to the safety of contraception. In 2003, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, speaking on behalf of the Vatican's "Council for the Family" announced that "scientific studies" have shown that the latex of the condom is permeable to the HIV virus. However this interpretation was drawn a report by Dr. Lyttle who had concluded in his report that condoms are "essentially impermeable" to the HIV virus. The World Health Organization have also confirmed the findings of Dr. Lyttle and other experts, that condoms reduce the risk of HIV infection by 90%.

The president of the international council for MSF (Doctors Without Borders), has stated that the Church's position on condoms " was totally unacceptable from a moral, ethical, and medical perspective ...the ban was helping the spread of the deadly disease." He added that the Catholic Church is now part of the problem.

It was reported in 2001, that the overall provision of condoms to sub-Saharan Africa is only 4.6 per man per year. So another 1.9 billion condoms need to be provided if all countries are to have the same amount as the highest six countries in Africa. Botswana, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Togo, Congo and Kenya are supplied with about 17 condoms per man aged 15 to 59 years. It would cost an estimated $47.5 million (£34m) a year to fill the 1.9 billion condom gap excluding service delivery costs and production. Relative to the enormity of the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa, providing condoms is cheap and cost effective.

So it’s pretty clear that the catholic church anti-contraceptive stance is not helping tackle AIDS….the only question that remains is to what extent it is culpable? Africa as a continent is poor - the education system for Sub-Sahara is massively under funded - and education often stops at junior school level. The Catholic Church is an important focal point for many local communities and a important source of education. It’s incomparable to the position of Catholics in the US. The Catholic church does not have the same power over the country. The use of contraception has been stigmatised by the church - as “a sin” - and telling people that a possibly life saving action is “a sin” purely for dogmatic purposes is pretty reprehensible. Besides which, in the US you can go out to your local store, and buy a pack of jonnies….no problem. It not quite that simple in Africa - Sub-Saharans have on average 4.6 condoms a year…..so it’s no wonder that they often have unprotected sex. Again the Church is culpable in refusing (along with the Bush admin) to fund, or work with organisations who advocate, promote or provide condoms as a first line of defence against the virus. Despite this position of authority - and ability to have a positive influence on the fight against AIDS, the Catholic church actively discourage the use of contraception - because of out-dated religious arguments and this is pretty reprehensible.

It's a valid argument that if everyone followed church doctrine then there would be no rapid spread of STDs....but this ignores societal and physical realities....young women in the sub sahara are generally in a very vulnerable position - and there is often great pressure to have sex in order to secure a marriage...this isnt simply about "morals" - but socio-ecconomic realities....from a physical perspective, men and women have sex, they desire sex, they will have sex - it's a natural urge - and all the christian "moral teaching" in the world is not going to stop this....it's naive to think it could.

There should be nothing to stop the catholic church to say
"we believe that sex should only take place between a man and his wife....but if you do have sex outside marriage then you should use contraception."
but they don't....and as a result they must bear some responsiblity for the AIDS crisis in Africa and elsewhere. We can quibble as to what extent they are culpable....but the fact that they must share some responsibility is pretty irrefutable....

 

[RandFan]

*Methinks you mean exacerbate rather than exasperate! The latter applies to Arti, but not the issue.

Point taken. I'm humble enough to admit that vastly superior intellect isn't without a hiccup now and again.

Just one question here - how could celibacy and monogamy possibly do anything other than reduce AIDS? While I agree that the idea of monogamy and celibacy is totally unrealistic, there's no question that if it were implemented, new infections would stop. I've always seen opposition to the RCC's stance based around its unlikelihood, not that it wouldn't work.

You've got it right. celibacy and monogamy should be taught and stressed in any comprehensive program. However, focusing only on celibacy and monogamy actually makes the problems worse. It has been shown by the CDC and the WHO that when those who believe in celibacy and monogamy from a religious perspective fail to live up to their ideals they are more likely to not practice safe sex.

I should note that when I first came to this forum I was a proponent for abstinent only programs.

 

[Herzblut]

It is demonstrable that there is much ignorance in this part of the world.

Except, of course, to Vatican edicts, right?

Herzblut

 

[Herzblut]

The Archbishop of Uganda, Christophe Pierre, has called on the country's youth to resist the use condoms and Roman Catholic bishops in southern Africa last year condemned the use of condoms to fight Aids- arguing that the battle against HIV/Aids should be fought on moral grounds and saying that condoms help spread the disease.

But you are aware that Uganda is one of the most successful countries in the area regarding fighting off HIV/AIDS? You should be more cautious about whom you refer to if you wanna avoid the risk of being self-refuting.

In 2003, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, speaking on behalf of the Vatican's "Council for the Family" announced that "scientific studies" have shown that the latex of the condom is permeable to the HIV virus.

That's no Vatican "campaign" at all. Also, what actual damage has Trujillo caused?

The World Health Organization have also confirmed the findings of Dr. Lyttle and other experts, that condoms reduce the risk of HIV infection by 90%.

Again, be cautious. WHO said that "consistent and correct" usage of condoms reduces the risk by 90%. This is called "perfect use effectiveness" which is often drastically lower than the "typical use effectiveness". See Wikipedia:condom:

The typical use pregnancy rate among condom users varies depending on the population being studied, ranging from 10–18% per year.[30] The perfect use pregnancy rate of condoms is 2% per year.

The failure of your argumentation is made up of comparing perfect-use effectiveness of one method with typical use effectiveness ("social reality...") of the other.

It was reported in 2001, that the overall provision of condoms to sub-Saharan Africa is only 4.6 per man per year.

Now, that is a problem for a "condoms-only" campaign, isn't it?

We can quibble as to what extent they are culpable....but the fact that they must share some responsibility is pretty irrefutable....

You mean that seriously? Blaming somebody to cause damage without having any idea about the magnitude of said damage? Sorry, but that's not my style.

Herzblut

 

[qayak]

Just one question here - how could celibacy and monogamy possibly do anything other than reduce AIDS? While I agree that the idea of monogamy and celibacy is totally unrealistic, there's no question that if it were implemented, new infections would stop. I've always seen opposition to the RCC's stance based around its unlikelihood, not that it wouldn't work.

Remember though, all agencies promote abstinence and monogamy as the best way to avoid HIV. It isn't that the idea alone isn't good theoretically but there are too many other factors that it does not take into account. The prevention systems that are effective account for the other factors.

The surprising thing for me is that the RCC depends on the weakness of humans for its very existence and yet on something so important it refuses to admit that humans are weak and cannot follow such rigid rules.

Confessionals are set up to address human weakness. You sin, confess to a guy in a box, offer a token of remorse and you are cleaned. It is an industry based on the fact that humans are easily tempted to do things that are not always in their best interest. However, when it comes to sexuality and the spread of disease, a hierarchy of celibate males decides there is no room for human weakness. Of course they defend and protect those celibate males that stray and molest children. Pretty hypocritical in my book.

Interesting perspective from a moderate catholic: http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/news/op-eds/2005/20050622studyincatastrophe.asp

Responsible prevention models include compatible messages and evidence-based strategies that integrate the A, B and C approach (Abstain; Be Faithful; Use Condoms) — a model rejected by the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[qayak]

But you are aware that Uganda is one of the most successful countries in the area regarding fighting off HIV/AIDS? You should be more cautious about whom you refer to if you wanna avoid the risk of being self-refuting.

You should be careful to get your facts right.

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/news/op-eds/2005/20050622studyincatastrophe.asp

Using Uganda as an example of the success of "A and B" is mystifying: A 2002 study conducted by U.S. and Ugandan researchers found that the "single greatest factor" in Uganda's declining HIV prevalence rate was premature death among HIV-positive people who died of AIDS-related causes during the study. The second factor was condom use.

ETA: The "A and B" referred to is Abstinence and Be Faithful. "A, B,and C" model includes Abstinence, Be faithful and use Condoms.

 

[qayak]

Except, of course, to Vatican edicts, right?

Herzblut

With catholic priests preaching to them everyday, I am sure the people of Africa are fully aware of vatican edicts.

 

[ceo_esq]

Yeah, I'm familiar with the definition. It's a throw away definition. Simply stating that one's approach is concerned with the complete system tells us absolutely nothing.

You misunderstand. I did not say that the Church's approach is holistic. I queried whether it might be sensible or fair for us to take a more holistic approach (not in the holistic-medicine sense) to evaluating the Church's sexual teachings. By that I meant considering the effect of the teaching of the whole sexual model promoted by the Church (married monogamous sex without artificial contraception) rather than focusing on what is arguably the least important element of the whole and considering it in isolation. This was the point of my anti-automobile campaign reference. I would justifiably object if someone suggested that I was morally responsible for highway deaths because my campaign refused to sanction the use of safety belts (which have been proven to save lives, etc.), when in reality I refused to sanction the use of cars in the first place. Perhaps it would be better (or at least more justifiable) if we considered the effect that promoting only monogamous marital sex without artificial contraception has on the incidence of AIDS, rather than dissecting the elements and considering them in isolation from one another in a way the Church's teaching does not envisage. The reasonableness of approaching the Church's teaching in this way for critical purposes (which is obviously a different matter than the reasonableness of the teaching itself) ought to be apparent to anyone who does not have some vested interest in skewing the result of the analysis against the Church. I have no interest in skewing it in any direction. Do you?

 

[RandFan]

Except, of course, to Vatican edicts, right?

Herzblut

I'm sorry? Could you expound or explain?

 

[RandFan]

You misunderstand. I did not say that the Church's approach is holistic. I queried whether it might be sensible or fair for us to take a more holistic approach (not in the holistic-medicine sense) to evaluating the Church's sexual teachings. By that I meant considering the effect of the teaching of the whole sexual model promoted by the Church (married monogamous sex without artificial contraception) rather than focusing on what is arguably the least important element of the whole and considering it in isolation. This was the point of my anti-automobile campaign reference. I would justifiably object if someone suggested that I was morally responsible for highway deaths because my campaign refused to sanction the use of safety belts (which have been proven to save lives, etc.), when in reality I refused to sanction the use of cars in the first place. Perhaps it would be better (or at least more justifiable) if we considered the effect that promoting only monogamous marital sex without artificial contraception has on the incidence of AIDS, rather than dissecting the elements and considering them in isolation from one another in a way the Church's teaching does not envisage. The reasonableness of approaching the Church's teaching in this way for critical purposes (which is obviously a different matter than the reasonableness of the teaching itself) ought to be apparent to anyone who does not have some vested interest in skewing the result of the analysis against the Church. I have no interest in skewing it in any direction. Do you?

If a prohibition of the use of cars led to a decrease in the use of safety belts and an overall increase in deaths and stigma of those who used cars and therefore intolerance then I would have to say that it was quite appropriate to criticize the prohibition of wearing seat belts.

I'm perfectly happy to look at the entire aspects of this issue. As one who used to argue in favor of the Church's program I can say that I see both sides and find the Church's position wanting.

I find zero value at best and negative value at worst in the use of the term "holistic". It does not convey any meaninful information but is simply a buzz word that can cause confusion but can't illuminate. Ultimatly the only thing we should give a damn about is what works. Prevention is often far better than the cure but not always. Let's just look at the facts and pick the best course of action. Whatever that is.

 

[andyandy]

But you are aware that Uganda is one of the most successful countries in the area regarding fighting off HIV/AIDS? You should be more cautious about whom you refer to if you wanna avoid the risk of being self-refuting.

and perhaps you should be cautious about glibbly tossing out points without understanding the reasons behind them. The decline in HIV is a success, dating back to the mid 1980s - based on a message of abstinence and significantly condom use. The comment I referenced from Christophe Pierre was made last year - and from that context it is clear that his position is certainly not what is responsible for that decline - indeed it is a position that threatens that rate. Some details on Uganda....

The core of ACP's anti-AIDS message was abstinence from sex, faithfulness to one's partner and use of condoms. "More people are now using condoms and there has been a decline in casual sex," said Dr. Musinguzi.
In 1986, the same year Mr. Museveni came to power, the government launched the ACP to spearhead the struggle against HIV/AIDS. The programme's objectives, according to Dr. Musinguzi, were to prevent further transmission of HIV, create mechanisms to care for the infected and their families and create the capacity to contain the epidemic. "The backbone of our programme was information, education and communication. We had to make people aware of the problem and translate this awareness into behavioural change," said Dr. Musinguzi.

The core of ACP's anti-AIDS message was abstinence from sex, faithfulness to one's partner and use of condoms. "More people are now using condoms and there has been a decline in casual sex," said Dr. Musinguzi.


The ACP alone distributed 80 mn condoms last year, and the number is expected to rise to 120 mn this year, compared to only 4 mn in 1990. A June 2000 report shows an increase in condom use across the country. In Kampala, 51 per cent of those surveyed used condoms in 1998 compared to 42 per cent in 1995. The report also records a slight decline in non-regular sex partners from 14.1 per cent in 1995 to 13.7 per cent in 1998. However, condom use with non-regular partners increased significantly, from 58 per cent to 76 per cent.

http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol15no1/151aid12.htm

Also, what actual damage has Trujillo caused?

He misrepresented scientific studies for dogmatic purposes in order to discourage people from using condoms. I am surprised you don't believe that this is damaging.

Again, be cautious. WHO said that "consistent and correct" usage of condoms reduces the risk by 90%. This is called "perfect use effectiveness" which is often drastically lower than the "typical use effectiveness". See Wikipedia:condom:

The typical use pregnancy rate among condom users varies depending on the population being studied, ranging from 10–18% per year.[30] The perfect use pregnancy rate of condoms is 2% per year.

The failure of your argumentation is made up of comparing perfect-use effectiveness of one method with typical use effectiveness ("social reality...") of the other.

It is bizzare that you think that this refutes what I wrote - unless you wish to argue that condoms have no effect in helping prevent HIV, then whether we take a 90% reduction or an 80% reduction is moot.

Now, that is a problem for a "condoms-only" campaign, isn't it?

Nice strawman. I believe there should be an integrated approach - teaching people the health dangers associated with promiscuity is certainly one element of that. If condoms are to be successful in helping stop spread the virus then they need to be freely available - and Catholic and religious motivated governmental/NGO (eg Bush admin) involvement actively places blocks in the way of this happening.

You mean that seriously? Blaming somebody to cause damage without having any idea about the magnitude of said damage? Sorry, but that's not my style

.

What a strange comment. How would you like me to rate it? On an platonic objective scale of harm? Anti contraceptive rhetoric, misinformation and resistance is undoubtably part of the problem - why pretend otherwise?

 

[Herzblut]

The decline in HIV (in Uganda, Herz) is a success, dating back to the mid 1980s - based on a message of abstinence and significantly condom use.

Wrong. The steep decline in HIV prevalence was during the mid- and late-1990s. The reasons for that is under hefty investigation. Strange you already know the result today.

The comment I referenced from Christophe Pierre was made last year - and from that context it is clear that his position is certainly not what is responsible for that decline - indeed it is a position that threatens that rate.

Proove your weird silent assumption that the publicized notion of the RCC in Uganda has drastically changed in the last 10 years.

He misrepresented scientific studies
for dogmatic purposes in order to discourage people from using condoms. I am surprised you don't believe that this is damaging.

His statements were completely distorted by the BBC. Trujillo gave an interview of more than an hour from which BBC broadcasted around 90 seconds.

It is bizzare that you think that this refutes what I wrote -

You say: when comparing the effectiveness of different prevention methods it is legimate to apply perfect use measures to one method and typical use to another?

If condoms are to be successful in helping stop spread the virus then they need to be freely available -

This ignores societal and physical realities.

What a strange comment. How would you like me to rate it?

By comparing HIV/AIDS rates in Catholic and Non-Catholic countries, obviously.

Herzblut

 

[The Atheist]

And if you talk to a prostitute in Southafrica dealing with unprotected sex to make some money, and she tells you "Well, AIDS might kill me in two decades.

this thread has morphed quite a great deal since its inception

Well, I would have picked the arrival of ceo and RF along with the return of your good, simian, apologist self, the standard of discourse would improve immeasurably.

Looks like it so far.

However, focusing only on celibacy and monogamy actually makes the problems worse. It has been shown by the CDC and the WHO that when those who believe in celibacy and monogamy from a religious perspective fail to live up to their ideals they are more likely to not practice safe sex.

Yep, I certainly wouldn't argue for the RCC approach, I've thought anyone anti-condom is an idiot since I caught the clap at age 21!



The only danger with what you're suggesting - education, abstinence, use of condoms, no HIV+ prostitutes - would be considered a holistic approach, where I come from!

I understand your problem with the word, it is often used by the idiot brigade, but it does have a real usage. I think it's just a semantic issue. I actually try to use it myself, just to try to wrest the word back out of the mouths of the fraudsters. Why let those pricks have our language? Let 'em stick to making crap up along with their legends - garbage like "neuro-linguistic programming", "parapyschology" and other obvious BS. Don't let 'em use real English!

Remember though, ...

This is where I start to really get a good kick out of it.

Yet again, I wouldn't dispute and have never disputed that position and in fact I doubt that I've ever written such a mild criticism of the RCC. I'm usually much more vitriolic than "pretty hypocritical", yet I'm a christian apologist! Jesus, Andyandy had to get me to downgrade my posthumous charges against Theresa of Kolkata from murder to manslaughter!

In the case of AIDS and Africa, if it were possible to punish the church for its sins by burning a few churches down, I'd be providing the lighter, but the facts don't stack up.

Apart from condom abstention being largely ignored in RSA at the moment, you will note that the RCC is among the nation's leading providers of antiretroviral drugs, HIV counseling and hospice care . Would you care to hazard a guess as to which atheist charities are in RSA dishing out drugs and care right now?

That doesn't make the RCC a "good" organisation any more than the Pope's condom position makes it "bad", but you can't escape the fact that the RCC is fighting against AIDS at the front end while large sectors of the world wish the images of Africans dying would just go away.

Some parts of the RCC are good, some are bad and some downright evil.

The RCC's position on condoms is stupid, dangerous, archaic BS dressed up as some kind of message from god, but has it actually done a great deal of harm?

As Herz has pointed out, if you live in rural Kenya, it's not as easy as thinking you're about to get lucky, so pop down to the dairy and grab a box of your favourite latexy, ribbed-for-pleasure things.

My understanding is that the vast majority of prostitutes in Kenya are HIV+ - over 80% reportedly. How many of 'em do you reckon are Catholics?

Two of the countries with the highest rate of teenage pregnancy (and therefore unprotected sex) are USA and NZ. Now, I don't know how hard condoms are to obtain in USA, but here, schools give them away, yet our kids have even more kids than Yank kids have kids.

People have sex, and condom usage isn't the cure on its own. You jump up and down about the left-footers, then when you even mention men raping virgins and you don't utterly scream about ridiculous witch-doctor-inspired beliefs? Do you think many Catholics subscribe to that belief?

Then again, is that a fact about AIDS in Africa, or simply white man's myth?

Even the vice-President of South Africa didn't know what condoms are used for! (not RCC, btw)

 

[andyandy]

Wrong. The steep decline in HIV prevalence was during the mid- and late-1990s. The reasons for that is under hefty investigation. Strange you already know the result today.

please don't be contrary for the sake of objectionability - the program i was refering to was that which was embarked upon from the mid 1980s - and had achieved qualitative success by the mid 1990s.

Proove your weird silent assumption that the publicized notion of the RCC in Uganda has drastically changed in the last 10 years.

what are you refering to? Publicised notion of what?

His statements were completely distorted by the BBC. Trujillo gave an interview of more than an hour from which BBC broadcasted around 90 seconds.

In his own words;

Cardinal Lopez Trujillo, President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, made the controversial claim on Panorama's "Sex and the Holy City" programme last year.

He was asked if it was the Vatican's position that the HIV virus can pass through a condom.

Significant risk

"Yes, yes, because this is something which the scientific community accepts, and doctors know what we are saying," he replied.

"You cannot talk about safe sex," he added, insisting that holes in condoms are a significant health risk..

snip

"Leading people to think they are fully protected is to lead many to their death," the document says.

Cardinal Trujillo claims that condoms have a "ten to fifteen per cent inefficacy" - or failure rate - because tiny "AIDS viruses are much more able to pass through" condoms than the sperm.

There could be "millions of leaking condoms," he says.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3844985.stm

The comment that HIV passes through condoms is simply not true - it is ascientific, at best disingenous and at worst simply deceit. It's probably also worth clearing up what "failure rates" actually mean - they are not directly transferable to HIV infection - when we say that condoms have a "5% perfect use failure rate" that does not mean that every time you use a condom correctly you will have a 5% chance of the condom failing - but that in a year of typical use, 5% of people will have had such an experience. Immediately it should be clear as to the difference with HIV - using a condom correctly with someone you have a one night stand or brief fling with is overwhelmingly likely to be an effective method of preventing HIV infection and as it is through multiple sexual partners through which HIV can very rapidly spread through populations, this is an absolutely essential part of the fight against HIV/AIDS.

some sex eduation about condoms. I reckon Cardinal Lopez didn't get any at school. Or any sex education for that matter

The WHO has condemned the Vatican's views, saying: "These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million."

The organisation says "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%. There may be breakage or slippage of condoms - but not, the WHO says, holes through which the virus can pass .

Scientific research by a group including the US National Institutes of Health and the WHO found "intact condoms... are essentially impermeable to particles the size of STD pathogens including the smallest sexually transmitted virus... condoms provide a highly effective barrier to transmission of particles of similar size to those of the smallest STD viruses".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html

there is no absolute strawman here, though you seem to wish to keep building one - condoms are not an absolute answer but they are according to all the overwhelming scientific evidence, a substancial part of an integrated answer. Disinformation spread for dogma which seeks to undermine that effectiveness is pretty reprehensible.

You say: when comparing the effectiveness of different prevention methods it is legimate to apply perfect use measures to one method and typical use to another?

please. We weren't comparing different methods - I referenced the WHO scientific study that was misrepresented.

This ignores societal and physical realities.

No - ignoring societal and physical realities is what the abstinence only programs do.

By comparing HIV/AIDS rates in Catholic and Non-Catholic countries, obviously.

So is your argument going to be conducted along the lines of, "Italy's a Catholic country and that has a low rate of HIV"? Sub Sahara is not western europe, religious influence is far more pronounced. Remember I'm not saying that the Catholic church is 100% culpable - but that there is some culpability. That means somewhere between 0% and 100%. You are arguing with me, so can i presume you regard culpability for the AIDS epidemic at 0%?

 

[ceo_esq]

If a prohibition of the use of cars led to a decrease in the use of safety belts and an overall increase in deaths and stigma of those who used cars and therefore intolerance then I would have to say that it was quite appropriate to criticize the prohibition of wearing seat belts.

Well, when you speak of a prohibition on the use of cars, I assume you mean a private policy, which is the case with contraception, rather than a public mandate. As for whether it led to a net increase in number of deaths due to the use of cars without safety belts, that seems to me to be somewhat challenging - though of course not necessarily impossible - to establish (you'd have to consider, among many other things, the number of fatalities avoided as a result of the anti-car policy influencing people's decisions about whether to drive). As for "stigma" and "intolerance", I think we can assume that the stigma, if any, associated with driving in the first place would be greater than the stigma of using a safety belt specifically, so that a person whose choices are guided by fear of stigmatization by anti-car campaigners will simply take the subway or ride a bike.

But let's assume adequate statistical controls, etc., enabling us to reliably reach the conclusion, however counter-intuitive, that a private anti-automobile campaign actually does increase highway deaths. In that case, I agree that one might reasonably challenge whether the campaign was of public benefit. But even then, the fact that one might legitimately question the benefit of the campaign would not mean that one could legitimately attribute moral culpability for highway deaths to the architects of the anti-car campaign. There are simply too many intervening private choices involved, and the campaigners would have recourse to the fairly compelling defense - and in my line of work I've seen every kind - that no one (or virtually no one) who heeded the call not to drive perished on the highway or killed someone else there.

As one who used to argue in favor of the Church's program I can say that I see both sides and find the Church's position wanting.

It may be that having once argued in favor of the Church's program confers on you an advantage of perspective. If so, it is an advantage that I, never having done so, do not enjoy. All I can do is try to approach the question in the most objective way possible, and let the chips fall where they may.

I find zero value at best and negative value at worst in the use of the term "holistic". It does not convey any meaninful information but is simply a buzz word that can cause confusion but can't illuminate.

Isn't that assertion countered by the mere fact that the term enables us to distinguish between an approach that tackles the effect of the Church's model as a whole and one which considers a single element of the model in isolation? There's a valid and real distinction between those two approaches (regardless of their respective merits), and to the extent the term holistic helps capture that distinction - which I think it does - then it's arguably serving a useful purpose. My only regret in using the term is that it has become weighed down with (justifiably) negative connotations in the context of medicine and healing, but that has nothing to do with how I used it. If I take a holistic view of, say, a contract, it means I look at the entire package being proposed, rather than only considering a certain clause in isolation (for example, the clause where my client promises to pay a sum of money to a counterparty). That said, I think I will try to make a better choice of words in the future, because as you point out, my previous choice has apparently led to some confusion.

 

[articulett]

The problem with the Popes issue with condoms is that many married women are infected by their husbands or rape... the men work in cities much of the year and visit prostitutes, but still expect their wives to service them. War is rampant with the rape of village females the reward to soldiers doing battle... they believe that having sex with virgins can cure AIDS... that anal sex is fine if the woman is menstruating. Women and young girls pass on the disease to their children. Nobody admits to having the disease and treatment is expensive. The misinformation and shame is horrific. And I don't care if it's supposed to be about family values. I am disgusted by "higher ideals" with immeasurable supposed benefits when the horrific concrete suffering and costs are so evident.

These people need real information about sex, the sex drive, condoms, how it does protect against AIDS--about knowing one's HIV status --especially pregnant women... and women must be encouraged to not get pregnant... because that is the surest way out of poverty. Abortion in the cases of rape should be encouraged. The churches may take in some of these kids orphaned by war and AIDS and malaria-- but at a price... they pass on their superstitions to these kids. And life isn't precious when it's painful suffering upon more painful suffering.

 

[ceo_esq]

OK, well, if nothing else we've succeeded in narrowing the scope of concern here.

The problem with the Popes issue with condoms is that many married women are infected by their husbands or rape... the men work in cities much of the year and visit prostitutes, but still expect their wives to service them. War is rampant with the rape of village females the reward to soldiers doing battle... they believe that having sex with virgins can cure AIDS...

Let's see: rape, prostitution, solicitation of prostitution, war, the notion that soldiers may legitimately rape civilians, the notion that sex with virgins can cure AIDS, etc. ... These are unquestionably grave problems, and not just from a public health perspective. Yet it is not at all clear that they are problems with the Church's teachings on sexuality as such, or the Church's teachings generally for that matter. Indeed, the observation that Church teachings seek to repress and refute such things does not seem amiss here.

 

[RandFan]

In that case, I agree that one might reasonably challenge whether the campaign was of public benefit. But even then, the fact that one might legitimately question the benefit of the campaign would not mean that one could legitimately attribute moral culpability for highway deaths to the architects of the anti-car campaign. There are simply too many intervening private choices involved, and the campaigners would have recourse to the fairly compelling defense - and in my line of work I've seen every kind - that no one (or virtually no one) who heeded the call not to drive perished on the highway or killed someone else there.

There is a fatal flaw to your argument. The example makes the Catholic Church look like Mothers Against Drunk Driving when in fact the Church claims moral authority and claims to speak on behalf of god. It is this moral authority that causes the inconsistent moral decisions of the adherents.

It may be that having once argued in favor of the Church's program confers on you an advantage of perspective. If so, it is an advantage that I, never having done so, do not enjoy. All I can do is try to approach the question in the most objective way possible, and let the chips fall where they may.

Fair enough. Having been a true believer I understand how such proscriptions can lead to the conclusions found by the CDC and WHO. People accept that the church is the moral authority and it is their intent to follow all of the rules. However, when the do make a mistake they don't make reasonable decisions at that time. It's very morally confusing. If a person in a moment of weakness fornicates should he or she wear protection?

It's a question that can't be easily answered from a religious POV.

Isn't that assertion countered by the mere fact that the term enables us to distinguish between an approach that tackles the effect of the Church's model as a whole and one which considers a single element of the model in isolation?

No, because you are setting up a false dichotomy and the church's model creates moral dilemmas for fallible humans when they make a mistake.

If a Catholic falls, and commits adultery or fornication should he or she then practice safe sex?

There's a valid and real distinction between those two approaches (regardless of their respective merits), and to the extent the term holistic helps capture that distinction - which I think it does - then it's arguably serving a useful purpose. My only regret in using the term is that it has become weighed down with (justifiably) negative connotations in the context of medicine and healing, but that has nothing to do with how I used it. If I take a holistic view of, say, a contract, it means I look at the entire package being proposed, rather than only considering a certain clause in isolation (for example, the clause where my client promises to pay a sum of money to a counterparty). That said, I think I will try to make a better choice of words in the future, because as you point out, my previous choice has apparently led to some confusion.

I do not accept that the Church has a comprehensive solution. I think that it is misleading to assume so. On the contrary, it's the CDC and WHO that have a comprehensive solution. They point out the benefits of monogamy and abstinence but also point out that in the event a person isn't monogamous or engages in premarital sex then that person should practice safe sex.

Again, holistic is a non-sensical term. It assumes that there is something besides the objective methods of modern medicine and health care. If holistic simply meant that we should focus more on preventive medicine and healthy living as a complete package then I would agree but it doesn't and modern health practitioners do not preclude prevention and healty living and are advising it more and more. Our government is prescribing it more and more and they don't need to use the word to acomplish their goals.