A seminarian once posed to a group of which I was a part the provocative question, "When is religion good and when is religion bad?" The resulting discussion looked at both major and minor examples of how we human beings had done great harm, in the name of religion. In the course of the discussion, contemplating harm from our beliefs was the point. I believe this is a belief which does harm, tremendous harm. I had that question in mind as I wrote this post.
From a March 2009 article in the Guardian, referring to a meeting in 2005:
"Addressing bishops from South Africa, Botswana, Swaziland, Namibia and Lesotho who had travelled to the Vatican for papal audience, he[Pope Benedict] said: "The traditional teaching of the church has proven to be the only fail safe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids.
He also warned them that African life was under threat from a number of factors, including condoms"
With all due respect, the traditional teaching of the church of abstinence and fidelity has not prevented the spread of any disease, including HIV and AIDS. It is not condom use that is the threat to the lives of people in Africa. Condoms can prevent the transmission of these and other sexually transmitted diseases.
It remains to be seen if the recent discussion about limited condom use will reflect a change in the Roman Catholic church. In the meantime, we still need to see a similar change in the policies of our government that have been dictated by the religious right.
I honestly don't get what trauma in your life led to the hatred of the Roman Catholic church and its beliefs. Whatever they were, I will pray that someday those hurts are healed. In the meantime, your post has managed to (again) insult those who consider Pope Benedict the head of their Church. The attacks on the Roman Catholic church, and its beliefs, are unworthy of this blog.
ReplyDeleteI have had no trauma which led me to hate any religion, including the Roman Catholic church.
ReplyDeleteI do not consider any set of beliefs, including religious beliefs, to be above critical thought and evaluation - abd comment.
Pope Benedict XVI has made statements which are in direct contradiction to the findings of science (and common sense) about the transmission of disease and use of condoms.
I object to that, and if you are aware of the practices of many active Roman Catholics, many of the faithful also do not follow or agree in their actions with the position of the church and the pontiff as regards engaging in contraception, abortion, divorce or masturbation, and sex outside of marriage at some time in their lives.
It is not like this is unique to those of us who are not Roman Catholic.
This is a legitimate disagreement about statements being made by a prominent religious figure who also has the same diplomatic status as secular leaders.
I would point out that I gave equal time to the terrible pain and injury, even death, caused by medical practitioners who regarded sex as evil.
My point in including the photo of the anti-masturbation device from the Victorian era was to demonstrate that even the most draconian measures didn't prevent sexual activity. Neither does the teachings of the Catholic church.
His Holiness cannot change the role of the church in world history, but if he chose, he could change the role of the church in modern times, consistent with scientific medical findings and public health policy.
He has not; rather his leadership of the Roman Catholic church does harm in the actual, rather than theoretical, effects of it's teaching regarding condoms.
It isn't doing too well in its treatment of homosexuality either.
As this affects the policy decisions in this country regarding our own educational choices, and our policy in other countries as part of our international choices, it IS a perfectly appropriate post for Penigma.
Disagreement is not an attack. I say the Pope is wrong, horribly wrong, and does harm by that error.
I do not vilify him as a terrible human being, I do not suggest any bad thing should be a consequence of his error.
If I have incorrectly represented the position of the church, or the history of the Church as it relates to the Council of Trent and sexuality and sin, or the nature of the Spanish Inquisition, please do educate me.
If not, then I believe your taking offense is misplaced.
DG,
ReplyDeleteWhile some of what you've said I agree with (such as equating divorce or the use of condoms with child abuse or incest is needless/foolish), I must disagree with this in the main.
First, masturbation is a side-show topic here This is about HIV/AIDS. As far as I know, no one has yet contracted the disease from "self gratification." Whether draconian measures have been used in the past wasn't questioned, but I think your point could have been stronger without the seeming side-step into a rather graphic display.
More importantly, the Pope isn't the inerrant word of God. If it were, the Vatican wouldn't need to reverse itself on the use of condoms (or the purpose of sex for that matter).
Here Benedict clearly makes a concession toward preventing diseases. While the Catholic church doesn't condone contraception, clearly he is making the point that use of a condom is better than transmitting fatal (or highly dibilitating) diseases. As such, it is to be applauded as a reflection of the Catholic Church moving away from a very strict and extraordinarily unhealthy stance.
ToE - I think DG can be disagreed with without needing to resort to attacking her personally as I'm sure you would agree were this another subject. I don't believe DG is right to attack Benedict, but, by the same measure, neither do I believe you are right to attack her.
The Roman Catholic Church has done great good throughout the world, likewise, it has unfortunately caused great suffering. When a Church moves toward being better, it is a time to say "finally" and "thank god", rather than "you're talking out of both sides of your face." Or at least, that's how I feel about it.
Pen wrote: "Here Benedict clearly makes a concession toward preventing diseases."
ReplyDeleteNo,quite the opposite. He has gone to great lengths to make it clear that he does not approve of condoms to prevent disease, only to applaud the desire to prevent disease rather than spreading it without concern for the person's partner. For example, there is absolutely no sympathy, encouragement or approval for the desire to prevent catching the disease oneself through use of a condom.
Pen wrote: While the Catholic church doesn't condone contraception, clearly he is making the point that use of a condom is better than transmitting fatal (or highly dibilitating) diseases. As such, it is to be applauded as a reflection of the Catholic Church moving away from a very strict and extraordinarily unhealthy stance.
That would be the case if it were true; sadly it is not true that the Catholic church is moving away in even the most minimal degree.
THAT was the point of my taking issue - they should move away, they CAN move away. Members of their own clergy take public issue with the position, but they do NOT change, in even the smallest degree.
I wish they would.
If you read the links I provided, you would see that the average age at which young girls lose their virginity is between nine and eleven, in part because of the mistaken belief in Africa that sex with a virgin is a cure for aids - but using a condom is not a prevention of it. The other version of that misinformation results in some 60 infants a day being raped - babies, children under the age of two, more often under a year of age, as an AIDs cure. Here is another one of those links: http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/april/virgin.htm
ReplyDeleteSo, I hope I may be excused my anger, my sense of empathy for those who share my gender on that continent in response to a primarily male proponent policy.
The overwhelming number of women exposed to aids are contracting the disease either through prostitution - not because they LIKE prostitution, but because they are so desperately impoverished and uneducated that it is their only option for survival. This is so very different from opposing the use of condoms because these people are simply too horny and lacking in self-discipline or sexual restraint. The other group with the steepest increase in infection rates are monogamous wives who DO practice fidelity, many of whom are victims of marital rape.
I quite literally thank God that I was fortunate to learn - in school, from a biology teacher who was the son of medical missionaries to India where he grew up, and a PhD in biology in his own right - about sex, and most of all, that factual information about sex and all subjects is tremendously empowering to each of us.
I hope this goes a bit further to explain my anger and frustration at the policy position of the Roman Catholic church -- and those who align with this policy, including the U.S. international policy and abstinence-only withholding of funds, conditional on misinformation about condom usage.
If some readers wish to see this as my attacking the pope, or unfairly picking on Roman Catholicism or Evangelical right wing christianity, I would dispute this view.
I object to major power players promoting misinformation about sex, about condom use, in service to ideology, without apparently ADEQUATE regard for the consequences to some of the poorest and most vulnerable people on our planet.
So I would respectfully suggest that this is not an occasion for 'shame on me' for presenting shocking information, but rather shame on those who contribute to this continuing, to AIDS/HIV INCREASING through factually WRONG information when this tragedy could be mitigated, when promoting condom use was SUCCESSFUL in reducing AIDS/HIV.
DG,
ReplyDeleteAgain you attackedd the Pope with your comments about HE said this then HE said that, and the that is something pretty outrageous. If you can show me the quote where Benedict, not some intermediary, but Benedict said he doesn't believe condom use prevents disease, but more over that he said " For example, there is absolutely no sympathy, encouragement or approval for the desire to prevent catching the disease oneself through use of a condom." meaning he does not approve of the DESIRE to prevent disease, perhaps I'd agree that allegations you are attacking the church and specifically the Pope, are unfounded. However, comments like the above make it appear you are.
No, dear Pen. Respectfully you are wrong.
ReplyDeleteYou asked for specific references where the Pope has come out personally, not through intermediaries, against the use of condoms.
this post, Paragraph 2:
"From a March 2009 article in the Guardian, referring to a meeting in 2005:
"Addressing bishops from South Africa, Botswana, Swaziland, Namibia and Lesotho who had travelled to the Vatican for papal audience, he[Pope Benedict XVI] said: "The traditional teaching of the church has proven to be the only [my emphasis] fail safe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids.
Paragraph 3
"He[Pope Benedict XVI himself, in person, same source] also warned them that African life was under threat from a number of factors, including condoms" [my emphasis, same source]"
Paragraph 5
"In the same address to African Bishops, Pope Benedict XVI made the statement:
"It is of great concern that the fabric of African life, its very source of hope and stability, is threatened by divorce, abortion, prostitution, human trafficking and a contraception mentality."
I can provide you more quotes where the pope speaks against contraception, including specifically condoms, in ALL circumstances without exceptions EVER, and refuses to acknowledge that the prevention of HIV/AIDS is served by condom usage, or that the prevention of AIDS transmission is sufficient justification for condom usage, if you insist, as well.
I can also provide you numerous instances where the scientific community, medical profession, epidemiologists, public health organizations and others document that this position is one of the greatest impediments to reducing AIDS infections, and that the resulting increases in AIDS infections has led to increases in marital rape, infant baby girl rapes and the increase in HIV/AIDS specifically in monogamous married women, the sexual onset in very young girls as a direct result of abstinence only misinformation and the so-called 'virgin cure' belief, and last but not least, the rising number of children infected, and orphans that also correlate to abstinence only and anti-condom propoganda.
I don't have a copy of the book the Pope himself wrote immediately in front of me, that just came out from Ignatius Press, but the quote where the Pope, himself, personally, attacks condom usage is on page 119.
Do you require me to find the specific quote for you, from the Pope? Because I will, if you insist. Or may we agree that this is the pope's position, based on the statements made clarifying that he has not changed his position, by people speaking on his behalf regarding the quote?
This is the page of the book that was the subject of the NPR interview.
Where this is the specific and personally expressed view of the pope, I am critical of the pope.
Where this is the older position of the Roman Catholic church, going back to the Council of Trent, I am critical of that religion, limited to their positions that contradict reason and fact.
I believe that makes this a legitimate criticism of Pope Benedict XVI, that he is responsible for his own words, and for the position as leader of the church that he directs - even when it goes directly against the advice of his subordinates in Africa working with AIDS/HIV.
Did you need me to document that more precisely as well? Because I can, but I think that is sufficiently well known, sufficiently well-established, to be a given for this discussion.
I am not citing factually erroroneous information. I am not suggesting the Pope should be defrocked or otherwise disciplined by the church, I am not suggesting the Pope be burned at the stake, burned in effigy, or picketed or protested.
I am simply, and clearly, criticizing the Pope, AND OTHERS, for taking a position which is tremendously harmful, and not well based directly in the scriptural foundation of Christianity and the other Abramic religions.
I don't agree, but not only don't I, neither does MSNBC, which in at least two stories has said the Pope's comments come closer to my interpretation than yours.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40455426
Please review some of these stories Your accusations of the Pope, even if true, are overly charged.
There have been Catholic aids workers in Africa for a long time who defied the dictates of the church.
ReplyDeleteThat hasn't changed that they are in defiance of the church, not following its dictates, or that many others DO follow the teachings of the church. And those who don't follow those dictates face discipline and disgrace.
While this was updated today, I believe the original article predated the interview I quoted.
From that MSNBC article
"Lots of people are adamant about not even looking at condoms, not talking about condoms, not giving out a condom, but I think on the QT (quiet), lots of other people have been doing it," Waspe said.
Among those punished by the church for their views on condom use is a German priest, the Rev. Stefan Hippler, whose "Hope" project in Cape Town hands out condoms to the HIV-positive. When Hippler last year started to care for HIV-positive priests and nuns, his diocese in Germany recalled him.
Hippler is prohibited from preaching but continues his AIDS work, now funded by the South African diocese and not the German Bishops' Conference.
"Still, Catholic AIDS workers insisted that only abstinence and fidelity can provide a long-term solution to ending the AIDS pandemic. They said condoms should not be distributed indiscriminately, for fear they might promote promiscuity and worsen the crisis.
The largest Catholic donor in the world, the U.S.-based Catholic Relief Services, has reiterated that it will not be distributing condoms."
It was never my intent to offend our Catholic or other readers - and I have done so. For that I sincerely apologize, and I will retire this article from Penigma.
I do not hate Catholicism, or the Pope, I simply feel very strongly about the result of religious doctrines on the lives and deaths of so many people. I hope you will forgive me for having offended our readers. I will be removing this post after readers have a period of time to read my apology.
DG, you say you check you facts so tell me what is the issue with this statement "The traditional teaching of the church has proven to be the only [my emphasis] fail safe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids." Are condoms 100% effective? 98%? The only 100% sure method is abstinense. Granted very few people are going to practice that but it does not change the fact that the only 100% sure way of not getting any STD is by not having sex.
ReplyDeleteThe Pope is the head of a church. No Christian church claims people are perfect but all of them ask people to try to be. As the head of the church his entire job is to urge people to be like Christ even though he knows that all of them, himself included, will fail at it.
"The traditional teaching of the church has proven to be the only [my emphasis] fail safe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids."
ReplyDeleteAbstinence only sex education has failed to result in universal abstinence, nor does it apply, as the church teaches it, to sex between married people where one party is affected by the disease.
Obviously sex is not the only way to prevent AIDS transmission either.
The problem has been that for those who are not strictly following the teachings of the church, which includes a signficant number of the Roman Catholic clergy in various sex scandals, and would include all Roman Catholic readers here who, for example, might use contraception themselves, or who have been divorced, or who have ever masturbated, or who have ever committed adultry or had sex before they were married, NOT being told about the efficacy of condom use, and being actively discouraged from condom use as a sin, and being told they don't work when they do to prevent the spread of AIDS is a problem.
So, yes, given the failure of all of us as human beings to live without sin - something else the church teaches is true - the church is not honest in reflecting the need to use condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS.
In a region where the survival of so many is dependent on prostitution, this doctrine effectively puts people in the position of having two choices - dying from AIDS or dying from starvation and exposure from lack of housing and lack of clothing. Because abstinence for them, as a practical reality, is not a real choice, it is not an optional activity.
Abstinence only teaching only works when you have abstinence only behavior - and no one has that, including the clergy.
I will answer your question on the efficacy of condom use separately. It is not 100%, but it is nearly that high.
CDC:http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/condoms.pdf
ReplyDeleteand
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/organization/dmid/documents/condomreport.pdf
http://aids.about.com/od/hivprevention/a/hivprevent.htm
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) offers the following recommendation with regard to STD and AIDS prevention:
"Condoms are effective in preventing HIV and other STDs."
Facts About Condom Use and STD, HIV, and AIDS Prevention
•The correct and consistent use of latex condoms during sexual intercourse- vaginal, anal, or oral-can greatly reduce a person’ s risk of acquiring or transmitting most STDs, including HIV infection, gonorrhea, chlamydia, trichomonas, human papilloma virus infection (HPV), and hepatitis B.
The problem with condom use where it is not effective is very rarely condom breakage - I couldn't find percentage statistics for that. But a greater problem is incorrect usage and/or slippage, and of course, inconsistent use.
"Conclusions on STDs Transmitted by Genital Secretions
The published data documenting effectiveness of the male condom were strongest for HIV. The Panel concluded that, based on a meta-analysis of published studies “always” users of the male condom significantly reduced the risk of HIV infection in men and women. These data provided strong evidence for the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission in both men and women who engage in vaginal intercourse."
The primary explanation by religious groups that has been traditionally offered for objecting to condom use, other than the objection to contraception, is that by offering protection for STDs, including AIDS/HIV, it encourages promiscuity, adultery, and homosexuality. Unfortunately, in pursuing this belief, it is common for misinformation on the frequency of condom failure to be promoted as well. This belief frequently accompanies the horribly mistaken notion that ignorance equates to innocence, and that if you don't provide sex education, or at least not adequate, comprehensive sex education, no one will have sex.
Condom use doesn't have to be 100% failure free in preventing the transmission of AIDS/HIV infection to be deseving of aggressive promtion to prevent infection.
The statistics relating to increased condom use and decreased AIDS/HIV supports that position. The links I provided, or any 5 seconds of google searching on the subject, will support that correlation.
Tucker, the abstinence only approach, and the teaching of the church so far, equates to be perfect, or definitely die a horrible lingering death from AIDS/HIV. Or be ill and possibly die a horrible lingering death from some other STD, if you don't have access to adequate medical care, which is frequently the case for millions.
ReplyDeleteSo far as I am aware, the only genuine immunity to contracting AIDS/HIV is the same one that makes people immune to contracting bubonic plague - being born with a rare genetic mutation.
ReplyDeleteNow........if stem cell research makes it possible to vaccinate the rest of the world, giving them that genetic mutation, we might be on to something. I haven't looked for any research to doing that, but it would be unlikely that there is any such research, as it would have some big hurdles to get over in bio-ethics approval.
I might do that research though, now, for the next installment of the Worlds AIDS Day series.