HIV/Aids: Catholic Church in Condom Palaver

AllAfrica ^ | Chioma Obinna

[CobaltBlue]

Thank you for your reasonable post.

However, I think we are speaking at cross-purposes.

On the one hand is the straw man of "safe sex." Probably should be called "safer sex than sex without a condom" and it should be made perfectly clear that abstinence is 100% effective if you abstain 100% of the time. Unfortunately most people don't abstain 100% of the time, not even priests.

On the other hand is the absolute cat's breakfast that is being made with the statistics. I posted way upstream that according to NIH, if one uses a condom 100% of the time, while having sex with a person who is HIV positive, the chance of seroconversion is 0.9% in 100 man years. Statistics from the NIH, CDC, and groups like that, are vetted very thoroughly by people with advanced training in statistics and epidemiology.

Nevertheless, posters who don't understand statistics, period, banty about 80% failure rates. I hope you understand that this doesn't mean 80% failure rates per act of intercourse.

I doubt very much that the priests and nuns in Africa understand statistics any better than most of the posters on the thread, but they really shouldn't be giving advice about things they don't understand.

At any rate, it's another beautiful day. Don't let it get away.

[CobaltBlue]

OK, took a look at your "statistical analysis" of HIV and condom use. I don't think epidemiology is your metier.

First of all, we're talking about vaginal intercourse here. The risk of contracting AIDS from vaginal intercourse *without a condom* is extremely low. Condoms reduce that small percentage even more.

To say that vaginal sex with a condom carries a 10-15% risk of HIV infection is just plain ignorant.

People who engage in anal sex or sex with a partner known to have HIV should use double condoms or special condoms that are thicker and stronger than ordinary condoms, and they should use spermicidal foam like Nonoxyl-9.

[Romulus]

I'm not going to be bothered defending things I never said. You're either too stupid to read plain English, or else too dishonest to care. Either way, you're a bore.

The question is not whether condoms reduce risk; it's whether over a reasonable period they reduce cumulative risk to an acceptable level. The study you cite implies that under best-case circumstances, millions of condom users in Africa can expect condom failure.

If "The risk of contracting AIDS from vaginal intercourse *without a condom* is extremely low" shouldn't someone tell the millions of AIDS cases in Africa? They'd be so relieved to know.

People who "engage in anal sex or sex with a partner known to have HIV" might as well dispense with the messy preliminaries because over the long run they're bound to become infected. As an advocate of the gay lifestyle you're no doubt aware that in many gay circles infection is actually sought after. With or without your advice, those having regular sex with infected partners, especially practitioners of gay sex, are bound to achieve this death wish.

[xsmommy]

is THIS a ping?

[Snidely Whiplash]

If you deny the Teaching Magisterium of the Church, you reject Catholicism. Just as there are some anti-Semotic Jews, there are anti-Catholic "Catholics" particularly in the obsessively materialistic and very poorly catechized liberal "Cathiolic" circles of the United States known as AmChurch.

Well, then count me in, I guess. FWIW, I would point out that the liberal circles of which you speak seem to comprise the majority of the American Church, as I'd say the overwhelming majority of American Catholics reject the Church's teachings on artificial birth control, for one, knowing full well what the Church's position is on the issue.

It'd be interesting, academically, to see just how far most Americans have drifted from the core teachings of the Church. It isn't, incidentally, the same thing as being bigoted against Catholics, as would be the KKK, for example.

Snidely

[hobbes1]

Yes, but it is a different article....

[BlackElk]

The precise problem is that so many CLAIM to be Catholic because their ancestors were, because they were baptized Catholic, because they were confirmed, because they attend what is offered by the supposedly "Catholic" parish of St. John/Bobby/Ted Kennedy; while totally rejecting important aspects of Catholic teaching just because the teachings are inconsistent with a desire for a rank materialist lifestyle.

AmChurch Catholicism: Why have more kids if you can'gt afford Harvard tuitions for them? Won't we be DIFFERENT from our neighbors (you betcha!)? We can be just as "American" as anybody else (defined as materialistic above all) and no one can MAKE us stop calling ourselves Catholic just because we birth conrol, wink at little Brucie's romance with Lance (after all, what business is that of the bishops?), drag Susie by the ear to the nearest abortion mill because she is NOT going to spoil our family reputation just because she insists on not using birth control like her responsible "Catholic" American parents, etc., etc., etc.

The Catholic Church would be better off expelling as many Americans AmChurch Catholics as possible, getting down to a hard core of well-catechized, believing, knowledgeable and FAITHFUL Catholics and re-evangelizing this nation's ex-Catholics but first they must understand that they ARE EX-Catholics. Then, if they don't want to live by the rules, we aren't drafting anyone.

The KKK could never damage the Church here as have faithless, rebellious, disobedient "Catholics", including bishops and priests and nuns, who mistake their warm fuzzies or political agendas for Church doctrine. No one is required to be a Catholic. No one should be allowed to dissent and remain one. There are plenty of spin-off churches that will provide the appearances without the substance.

Shape up or ship out.

[CobaltBlue]

The problem with the official Catholic position on birth control is that it's nonsensical.

"Every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil (Humanae Vitae 14).

Given that no form of birth control known to man renders procreation impossible, using contraception cannot be, in and of itself, intrinsically evil.

Hormonal forms of contraception carry the risk of causing a fertilized egg not to implant, which is a different form of evil. The same is true of IUDs.

Condoms, diaphragms, foam, etc., don't have this problem.

We've read dozens of posts by Catholics on this board explaining how condoms are not 100% effective. Well, that must mean that they aren't intrinsically evil, according to the official position of the Catholic church.

But wait - it gets better. If either the husband or the wife is sterile, either due to a birth defect, or a disease, or an accident, or menopause, they can have sex all they want without it being evil.

But? How can this be? How can it not be "evil" to have sex even though procreation is impossible? Don't ask me.

Also, it's not "evil" to prevent conception by keeping track of the woman's fertile periods and avoiding sex during them. Why not? Well, because this allows the possibility of procreation, if God wills it.

But? How does this differ from using foam, condoms, and diaphragms, which are actually LESS effective than the so-called rhythm method, or Billings method, which is highly effective if practiced 100% of the time? Don't ask me.

Oh, and what exactly is the "evil"? That you treat your spouse as a sex object, rather than cherish him/her.

It's double talk, from men who have never been married, and have no idea what it means to be married. They understand lust, which all men and women feel.

Oh, I forgot, they'll tell you that contraception leads to the "culture of death," whatever that is.

Here in America, the percentage of the population which is Catholic has held steady for many years at 28% or so. Of whom the vast majority use contraception.

In Rome, as I understand it, the churches are empty. Go figure. Could it be that they tell Catholics to go away, as many have told me on this thread? Hmmm . . . .

Anyway, it's Christ's church, not man's. Christ created it for his followers, not for the heirarchy.

These same birds will tell you in one and the same breath that the Pope is infallible but Vatican II was fraudulent. Again, go figure. That's the one that finally caused the light to dawn -- they don't believe 100% in everything Rome says any more than I do.

[CobaltBlue]

Nobody should be allowed to dissent? You wish.

The history of the Church is full of dissent. Always has been, always will be.

Dissent is good. Sometimes the Church makes mistakes. The Pope has apologized for quite a few over the years. He isn't all full of pride, he's a humble man.

[honeygrl]

I will tell you one more time, just to be nice. :) I am no longer debating with you. I find your arguments to rediculous to bother with. And I am not reading that book because anyone who says AIDS is only passed via anal sex is full of it.

Andjust so you know, I had a distant cousin that contracted AIDS when he was 10. He was in a car accident and required a blood transfusion. He got AIDS from the blood. He died at the age of 14.

Also, I think it bears worth repeating. I am not debating this any further with you, period. It's a waste of my time and yours.

[CobaltBlue]

Is Contraception Really Inherently Evil?
http://www.mcauley.acu.edu.au/theology/Issue2/John_Flanagan.htm

[honeygrl]

"I am Roman Catholic, but I don't agree with the position of the Church on using contraception. Given that contraception is never 100% effective, there is always the chance for conception if that is God's will. "

You made a good point. I've known several women who got pregnant even after having their tubes tied. If it's God's will, you can't stop it. Contraception isn't going to change that.

[honeygrl]

Your posts on this thread are impressing me. :) The more of them I read, the more I agree with you. (of course I haven't finished reading the thread yet.. )

[honeygrl]

But even if it doesn't fully stop the spread of AIDS and is only 90% effective, then that STILL means less babies actually born with AIDS.

[honeygrl]

"Then you're an ex-Roman Catholic. "

Who are you to question his faith? Is it required for him to be a Catholic to agree with every single thing that the pope says? Did you agree with the Pope when he was against the war in Iraq? If you disagreed with him on that, does that make you an ex-Catholic?

[honeygrl]

"Why have more kids if you can'gt afford Harvard tuitions for them? "

How about why have more kids if you and your spouse can't afford food for them? If you are against abortion, but still know that you couldn't feed another mouth in your household, condoms or tube tying or a vasectomy is about the best way you can go. NFP may work well for those women who have normal cycles, but those who don't may very well be taking a huge risk. And in Africa you may very well have married couples where one or both partners have AIDS. It's not a sin for them to have sex, but do you think it's right for them to purposely get pregnant or do nothing to stop pregnancy? Asking a married couple to be abstinent is going to fall on def ears.

[Romulus]

Actually, I was with the pope on the question of war with Iraq. But that's not a question of Church doctrine or discipline. OTOH I've lost count of the ways CobaltBlue rejects Catholic teaching. You can't become Catholic just by parking your butt in a pew and presenting yourself in the communion parade, you know. When you break faith with the Church's proclaimed doctrines, you're no longer Catholic, and your participation in the Eucharist becomes a lie before God and man.

[Antoninus]

Who are you to question his faith? Is it required for him to be a Catholic to agree with every single thing that the pope says? Did you agree with the Pope when he was against the war in Iraq? If you disagreed with him on that, does that make you an ex-Catholic?

There is a difference between the Pope's opinion on a subject (Iraq) and using his teaching authority (birth control). If you don't understand the difference, you need to read up on the Catechism. I can't really fault you for your ignorance on the subject. The American bishops have done an awful job teaching us the rudiments of the faith over the past 30 years or so.

For what it's worth, if you disagree with a Papal pronouncement defined as infallible, you are de facto an ex-Catholic whether you think so or not. Those Catholics who practice artificial birth control are in a state of mortal sin. I'm sorry, but those are simply the facts.

[Antoninus]

The history of the Church is full of dissent. Always has been, always will be.

Sure. Judas. Simon Magus. Montanus. Nestorius. Arrius. etc. etc. etc.

Join the parade, pal.

[honeygrl]

Well, I'm not Catholic at all. Never have been. But there are quite a few Catholic people on FR that make me very happy I'm not.