Pope says condoms are no good against HIV - Page 2

Imran Siddiqui · October 10, 2003, 00:18

Damn right! I think I deserve one.

(and I'd really like a cookie... chocolate chip please

)

MrFun · October 10, 2003, 00:22

Get it yourself -- or is the cookie on a shelf too high for you to reach?

Imran Siddiqui · October 10, 2003, 00:29

I'm too lazy to get it

Ben Kenobi · October 10, 2003, 01:18

Quote:

This is bad Catholic doctrine. Contraceptive devices are licit if the intent in using them is not to prevent conception, but rather some acceptable end. Thus, "the pill" may be taken by a woman to regulate her period, I am sure in the instance describe above a condom would be ok.

Shi:

There are many effects of the pill, one being that it can clear skin, as well as regulation of a menstrual cycle. If one were celebate, yet stayed on the pill for these reasons that would be licit.

Condoms have no intrinsic benefit apart from sexual intercourse, hence they always act as a contraceptive. Just sticking one on won't make you feel better.

Condoms provide a false sense of security, as Dr. Strangelove has stated. They may not when working properly, allow AIDS to pass through, but how often do condoms fail? In the meantime, the people are more likely to have sex if they feel they are safe from the consequences of AIDS.

This is why many Catholics, and Africans blame condoms for aiding the spread of AIDS. The only 100% effective way of curtailing the spread is through abstinence.

Asher · October 10, 2003, 01:24

I'm confused by DrStrangelove's numbers, because the studies I've seen are different:

I. De Vincenzi, "A Longitudinal Study of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Transmission by Heterosexual Partners," The New England Journal of Medicine, 331, no. 6 (Aug. 11, 1994), p. 341-6.
:

Out of the 124 couples (one HIV+, other HIV-) in the study, zero of the couples who used condoms correctly and consistently were infected.

12 of the couples were infected, but they did not use a condom every time.

Which is a far cry from 50%.

alva · October 10, 2003, 01:36

Quote:

The only 100% effective way of curtailing the spread is through abstinence.

There's quite a few people in both Germany and France no less that will very much disagree with you. There's is this thing called transfusions for one.
-
Asher's numbers look more realistic too me.

Ben Kenobi · October 10, 2003, 02:07

Okay, barring blood transfusions, the only 100% effective way to prevent HIV transmission is through abstinence.

Happy?

Asher · October 10, 2003, 02:09

Considering that 99.99% of people will not contract HIV while having sex with their partner with a condom, I don't see absintence as a viable option.

There's more to life than living to be impotent and senile at 60, and sex is definitely worth the minute chance.

alva · October 10, 2003, 02:13

And off course there's not only HIV, some other virii can do some damage too.

Shi Huangdi · October 10, 2003, 02:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Shi:

There are many effects of the pill, one being that it can clear skin, as well as regulation of a menstrual cycle. If one were celebate, yet stayed on the pill for these reasons that would be licit.

Condoms have no intrinsic benefit apart from sexual intercourse, hence they always act as a contraceptive. Just sticking one on won't make you feel better.

Condoms provide a false sense of security, as Dr. Strangelove has stated. They may not when working properly, allow AIDS to pass through, but how often do condoms fail? In the meantime, the people are more likely to have sex if they feel they are safe from the consequences of AIDS.

This is why many Catholics, and Africans blame condoms for aiding the spread of AIDS. The only 100% effective way of curtailing the spread is through abstinence.

Wow, looks as though RCIA and Denise have been getting through to you. Perhaps soon you will be able to take my place as Apolyton's insane papist.

Now I am not infallible, so I could well be erring here, but I don't think I am.

The Birth Control Pill can be licitly used under the teaching of the Church under some circumstances. The difference in whether it is ok or not depends on the intent? If the intent of using the Pill is to remedy a medical condition(morally licit under church teaching), it's not sinful under Church teaching. If the intent of using the pill is to contracept, then it is sinful under Church teaching.

Similarly, preventing the spreading of a deadly disease is not illict under Church teaching; and so in the case of a married couple in which one partner already has AIDS, I don't think it would be considered sinful under Church teaching to use a barrier if the intent of that barrier was to stop the disease.

You are correct of course that abstinence is the only 100% effective way of avoiding HIV(other then by blood transfusions), and were Africa to start following the Church's teaching this problem would be solved.

Asher · October 10, 2003, 02:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Okay, barring blood transfusions, the only 100% effective way to prevent HIV transmission is through abstinence.

Happy?

The only 100% effective way to prevent being run over by a car is to never leave the house.

Maybe you should also promote abstinence of not leaving the house.

alva · October 10, 2003, 02:18

Quote:

and were Africa to start following the Church's teaching this problem would be solved.

I'd say they would be better of with some rational education.

laurentius · October 10, 2003, 02:52

The pope is getting more senile everyday, it would be best if he would just shut up and die

- Shut up and die!!!

Gangerolf · October 10, 2003, 03:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Article:

Quote:

In an interview, one of the Vatican's most senior cardinals Alfonso Lopez Trujillo suggested HIV could even pass through condoms.

Title:

Quote:

Pope says condoms are no good against HIV

yeah well..

but do you think one of the Vatican's most senior cardinals would say something like this if he didn't have the backing of the big boss himself? Besides, he might as well become the next pope

Ben Kenobi · October 10, 2003, 03:08

Quote:

I don't think it would be considered sinful under Church teaching to use a barrier if the intent of that barrier was to stop the disease.

Okay, let's take this one step further. Using your logic, wearing a condom to have sex if the person has a known STD is okay.

Wearing a condom to have sex if the person does not have an STD is not.

Now, I doubt the church wants to encourage Catholics to have sex with those who have STDs.

I'm pretty sure the Pope said something about this... I'll go sniffing around to see if I can't find the cyclical.

Shi Huangdi · October 10, 2003, 03:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Okay, let's take this one step further. Using your logic, wearing a condom to have sex if the person has a known STD is okay.

Wearing a condom to have sex if the person does not have an STD is not.

Now, I doubt the church wants to encourage Catholics to have sex with those who have STDs.

I'm pretty sure the Pope said something about this... I'll go sniffing around to see if I can't find the cyclical.

Good luck finding the encyclical. Of course entering into the sacrament of marriage with someone who has an STD is not a reccomended action. Most Catholics who would be willing to obey the Church's teachings on Contraception would most likely want to marry a virgin, speaking nothing of someone with an STD. But I would to think that in the case of a valid marriage already blessed by the Church, in which case sex between the partners is not something there is any problem with, that condoms for the purpose of preventing the disease from spreading would be illicit.

Ben Kenobi · October 10, 2003, 03:21

Shi:
Now I know why I'm so familiar with this material,

From HUMANAE VITAE, written by Pope Paul VI

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6HUMANA.HTM

I regularly work with this when doing Catholic prolife apologetics.

This is the passage you are thinking of,

15. The Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefore, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.[19]

"The Church is coherent with herself when she considers recourse to the infecund periods to be licit, while at the same time condemning, as being always illicit, the use of means directly contrary to fecundation, even if such use is inspired by reasons which may appear honest and serious."

A person with AIDS will not be cured from AIDS through use of a condom.

I'm not trying to be harsh, just trying to point out to an alternative for Catholics to the barrier method of birth control. I have spent a fair amount of time trying to sort this out precisely because of the differences between myself and Denise. I have no problem with barrier methods, while she would prefer to use natural family planning methods.

This ought to be the best option for Catholic couples.

Shi Huangdi · October 10, 2003, 03:35

Ouch. I should have looked at Humanae Vitae before opening my big mouth. Well, it looks as though you win this one.

If I can save face by just a little bit, I'll point out that Humanae Vitae is not an infallible document(I believe Paul VI explicity said that) and could potentially be revised on that point you mentioned. Still though, I have to congradulate you for taking the time to go through that encyclical, it looks as though it's time for me to take up the virtue of humility.

Ben Kenobi · October 10, 2003, 03:39

Quote:

If I can save face by just a little bit, I'll point out that Humanae Vitae is not an infallible document.

True.

As for saving face, I wasn't sure myself... and I've worked with this encyclical before.

And you've taught me lots of things.

Jon Miller · October 10, 2003, 03:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch
Just want to say a joke that indicates what I'm thinking:

A physicist, mathematician and engineer are on a train travelling through a beautiful English countryside. On the hill, the see a lone black sheep.

"Look!", says the engineer, "there are black sheep in this country."

"No," says the physicist. "The best you can say is that there is ONE black sheep in this country."

"No," says the mathematician. "The best you can say is that there is ONE sheep that is black on ONE side in this country."

i TYHINK HJITH IS A GOOOD JOKE

jO mILLER

Verres · October 10, 2003, 04:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

The only 100% effective way to prevent being run over by a car is to never leave the house.

Maybe you should also promote abstinence of not leaving the house.

Ah, but what happens if a car happens to crash through the side of your house and kill you? Nowhere is safe!

Sikander · October 10, 2003, 05:20

Well if anyone should know it would be him....

Oh, wait. I'm thinking of someone else.

Sikander · October 10, 2003, 05:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
what a dope

Don't you mean,

What a Pope!

Drake Tungsten · October 10, 2003, 05:32

Quote:

Asher's numbers look more realistic too me.

You'd take Asher's word over that of an actual physician? Are you retarded?

Heresson · October 10, 2003, 07:17

Pope don't say; have sex but do not use condoms. he urges not to have sex except for married couples as well. If people get AIDS, they do not get it because they listen to him, but because they don't.

Dr Strangelove · October 10, 2003, 08:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
I'm confused by DrStrangelove's numbers, because the studies I've seen are different:

I. De Vincenzi, "A Longitudinal Study of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Transmission by Heterosexual Partners," The New England Journal of Medicine, 331, no. 6 (Aug. 11, 1994), p. 341-6.
:

Out of the 124 couples (one HIV+, other HIV-) in the study, zero of the couples who used condoms correctly and consistently were infected.

12 of the couples were infected, but they did not use a condom every time.

Which is a far cry from 50%.

My data comes from the UN / WHO conference on AIDS held in South Africa. The data used to be on the internet, it might still be if you look for it. This data is considerably more comprehensive than a small study done under ideal conditions. When I say that usage of condoms is only 50% effective I mean that it decreases the rate of transmission by 50%, not that 50% of those involved will get infected. I have a collection of NEJM, but it will take some time to locate a 9 year old article, if I still have it at all. In what little data you have given us there is no comparison of the rate of transmission between condom users and condom non-users. You could say, but only those who didn't use the thing all the time got the diseaes, but I will reply that those participants still legitimately belong in the condom user group because in the real world you would expect some non-compliance. Are you going to take everyone infected with AIDS and sew a condom over their penis? Can I point out why that doesn't work? I find it utterly incredible that there wasn't at least some rate of condom breakage, as you would expect in the real world. I think you would have to admit that in the real world breakage is going to occur. It is certainly well documented in studies of the efficacy of condoms as birth control.
Please also note that the rate of transmission in the US is much lower than that in Africa. An HIV infected homosexual in the US stands a 1:100 chance of passing the virus with each instance of anal intercourse when the infected person is the inserting partner. Among heterosexual couples in the US the probability is 1:200 - 300 if the male is HIV+. In Africa the probability of transmission among heterosexual couples is about 1:30.

Elok · October 10, 2003, 08:39

I'm too lazy to quote, but did somebody mention a choir director who had AIDS, knew it, and was planning on having sex anyway? You could have a condom made out of Tolkien's mithril and that would still be negligent and stupid.

And the Catholic church really should stop justifying moral arguments with scientific reasons like this. Whether the statistic is true or false, if they believe contraceptives are intrinsically immoral they should stick to that rather than resorting to scare tactics on the side. It only hurts their own arguments when they don't argue the point they're supposedly making.

Just for the record, the OCC has no official stance on contraceptives, but most of our priests (that I've read, anyway) agree that they are acceptable for married couples wishing to regulate childbirth. I heard some horror stories at St. Vladimir's Seminary last saturday (I had no idea that the majority of Christians-not just wingnuts-actually believe in the blood atonement, for example) that make me a little eager to point out the distinction between our doctrines and others'.

Saint Marcus · October 10, 2003, 09:12

Quote:

i TYHINK HJITH IS A GOOOD JOKE

jO mILLER

what have you been smoking?

MrFun · October 10, 2003, 09:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Shi:

There are many effects of the pill, one being that it can clear skin, as well as regulation of a menstrual cycle. If one were celebate, yet stayed on the pill for these reasons that would be licit.

Condoms have no intrinsic benefit apart from sexual intercourse, hence they always act as a contraceptive. Just sticking one on won't make you feel better.

Condoms provide a false sense of security, as Dr. Strangelove has stated. They may not when working properly, allow AIDS to pass through, but how often do condoms fail? In the meantime, the people are more likely to have sex if they feel they are safe from the consequences of AIDS.

This is why many Catholics, and Africans blame condoms for aiding the spread of AIDS. The only 100% effective way of curtailing the spread is through abstinence.

Yeah -- we should just make condoms illegal since they're only 90% effective.

Ben Kenobi · October 10, 2003, 11:03

Mr. Fun:

I suggest you read one of my posts to Shi if you think I advocate banning condoms. I also challenge you to find a post of mine where I have ever advocated banning condoms.