bozzie, the usual suspect - does this have to be an either or?
It seems to me that the main argument is that Catholic opposition to condoms is adding to the problem. If encouraging people to keep sex within marriage works then keep encouraging people to do so but what is the problem with supporting a "plan B".

Certainly plenty of evidence throughout history (including in the Bible) that people will not always follow "plan A".

Pretty much the same as saying "Don't do drugs but if you do then use a clean needle and don't share it."

R0bert

"t.u.s.": I've looked and I can't find any articles in December's 'Lancet' that supports your claims, nor in any other edition. Could you provide the volume, edition, and article title please?

I did find several articles in The Lancet that seem to contradict your claims, however. A couple of quotes:

"Uganda is widely regarded as an HIV/AIDS success story, but the reality of this claim has rarely been critically investigated. Although evidence-based medicine is increasingly important, analysis of the Ugandan epidemiological situation shows that the so-called proof accepted for policy recommendations can be subject to creative interpretation." (Parkhurst, J. 'The Uganda Success Story?', Lancet 360(9326) 6/07/02).

"Regrettably, the verdict on the present Pope's legacy will be that he allowed a mistakenly applied principle to destroy the possibility of a common human front against AIDS. His successor must replace this ecclesiastical error with clerical compassion." (The Lancet Editorial 'The Pope's Grievous Errors' 365(9463) 12/3/05).

One hopes that "t.u.s." displays better research skills when engaged in journalism than when posting to these forums.

Garra, sorry my mistake, it was November 27 not December, out by a few days. Still though you managed to find two articles (one before and one after) that apparently disproved my claim (are you one of those who only reads things which confirm your opinion).

Okay, here is one of the quotes from the Lancet

Second, the ABC (Abstain, Be faithful/reduce partners, use Condoms) approach can play an important role in reducing the prevalence of HIV in a generalised epidemic, as occurred in Uganda.[8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13] All three elements of this approach are essential to reducing HIV incidence, although the emphasis placed on individual elements needs to vary according to the target population. Although the overall programmatic mix should include an appropriate balance of A, B, and C interventions, it is not essential that every organisation promote all three elements: each can focus on the part(s) they are most comfortable supporting. However, all people should have accurate and complete information about different prevention options, including all three elements of the ABC approach.

Robert the ABC program which i mentioned in previous posts is a kind of middle ground. Abstinence, be faithful and use condoms as a last resort.

The article goes on to say how the balance of these elements should be based on the culture it is being applied to.

But in Uganda, which has a high catholic population, the A and B have been very useful in reducing AIDS.

Like I have said previously, I am not a catholic or christian of any denomination and I happily use condoms, but the blood of AIDS victims in Africa is not exactly on this or the previous Pope's hands.

t.u.s.

the usual suspect, good post. I had missed the meaning of the C part of ABC in earlier posts.

Do you have any knowledge on the practical impacts of Catholic opposition to condoms in countries with significant catholic populations? Are they harder to get for those who want them than they might otherwise be?

If the approach is to tell catholics not to use them but not to intefer with the supply chain then I would tend to side with the view that people make their own choice about obeying the injunction. If they are harder to get because of catholic opposition then I agree with the blood theory.

One theory I heard re: the reduction of AIDS cases in Uganda was that there was nobody left to infect so consequently the figures had to go down.

Condoms may not be 100 percent effective but completely unprotected sex is virtually 100 percent effective - in contracting any form of STD. And that's why safe proponents such as myself find the official Catholic Church dangerously irresponsible when they criticise condoms. Now certainly faithfulness in any relationship will reduce your chances of getting HIV. But how do you really know your partner's sexual history? By mind reading?

And still very few people want to do sexual activities which have minimum risk of HIV. And so HIV will spread.

Wow, kinda knew this forum would be captured by hte likes of you but it all makes for interesting outlooks. I find it amazing for the people in this forum that would look toward a pope for moral guidance about a country, people and culture they don't even know and he was just on a flying visit. But if the pope says's that's what should happen, they"re happy with it be it contraception/ guided by the big guy. Meanwhile we still have this big problem about one of the most poverty driven, poorest country on the planet with the highest population rate. All tied up with the paradox of IVF in countries that can afford to walk that path. It seems a nonsence to me that in impoverished nations (due to regimes, circumstances and the Church) and the demand that western world can supply (if adoption was made easier, would there be so many peolple doing the IVF dance). But why should the Church be involved. The stance that the Church has taken in the last century has been found wanting. No amount of nuns weilding guitar al'la Vatican II will make up for it!