Has anybody seen the Watoto Children's Choir recently? They're amazing. A group of young children, orphaned by the AIDS pandemic and Civil War in their country. They go around the world singing to raise money for schools, medicial clinics and houses built in Uganda.

Anyway, Uganda is an interesting case in point. Most readers of the Forum will realise what Uganda did to decrease its AIDS rates by an incredible 70%. The government began to advocate safer sex practices in the same way the Australian government advocates for road safety and against drug use.

Basically the government promoted the ABC's of sexual health:
A) Abstinence until Marriage
B) Monogamy thereafter.
C) If you can't do either of the above, use a condom.

Common sense if you ask me, after all, AIDS is sexually transmitted disease.

I think the above line of thinking (which was influenced by the country's leader's Christian wife) would work well throughout Africa. The first two appease cultural and/or religious sensitivites, the last is a back up for those who choose not to follow these rules.

I realise many people blamed the last Pope for causing so much death through his no condoms policy. As was rightly pointed out, do we honestly believe that African Catholics are disobedient enough to Christian belief that they would carry out non-monogamous sex but obedient enough to the Pope that they would make sure they didn't use any condoms?

We need a compromise. Already the Pope has said condoms between married couples where at least one partner is HIV infected might be OK. We need to push this line of thinking, and embrace the Ugandan style of AIDS prevention if we want to see any real results in Africa.

www.watoto.com for those interested in what's going on there.

Its a shame that the Catholic Church will not also look at the horrific consequences of overpopulation, largely brought about by the church's mediaeval mindset on cotraception.

Bill you also say of the Pope "a willingness to open the matter for discussion is a sign of his sophistication" . This is crap.

A sophisticated person with an ounce of morality would have made the issue a priority for discussion when it became clear that condoms could prevent AIDS, and other sexuaally transmitted diseases.

The Catholic Church is a sick joke.

YngNluvinit... that choir has been to our Church, and we are sending a team to Unganda to build a house for some orphans.. They are awesome kids.

I don't see why the position of the RC church on condoms and birth control should not be challenged.

I don't really know on what it is based, because Scripture is pretty well totally absent of anything resembling a foundation. The only reference to 'God killing' a man who spilled his semen rather than impregnating a woman, was for totally different reasons than him simply trying to avoid a pregnancy. Other than that, I know of nothing within cooee of a basis for 'no' to birth control.

The 'rythm' method advocated by the RCs is exactly the same in goal as using a condom. You have sex for the intimate pleasure, but don't want a pregnancy.

I think they have painted themselves into a corner on this one, and now it's too big a thing to back down on, as it might suggest the 'fallability' of the Pope who originated the idea.

Beats me.

YngNLuvnIt, "As was rightly pointed out, do we honestly believe that African Catholics are disobedient enough to Christian belief that they would carry out non-monogamous sex but obedient enough to the Pope that they would make sure they didn't use any condoms?"

The ban is not just on non-monogamous sex but any sex outside of marriage. I suspect that a certain well known politician was not less informed or less dedicated to his faith than many africans when he was having a sexual realtionship outside of marriage but choose not to use condoms. Humans manage to be like that. They don't have to be stupid or evil, just living with the conflicts of priority that are part of life.

Add to that the difficulties in getting access to condoms if your community generally believes them to be wrong. I'd guess that in strongly catholic communities they are not the easiest item to buy unobtrusively.

Some of the blame does lie at the feet of those who promote bans on condoms.

R0bert

A sophisticated person with an ounce of morality would understand the basic human right to have children is not a sick joke.

A sophisticated person with an ounce of morality would understand that the goal of children having a right to a stable family and communal life is not a sick joke.

A sophisticated person with an ounce of morality would realise that Westerners who disproportionally exploit the Earth's resources is a very sick joke!

A sophisticated person with an ounce of morality would do better to see the inconsistency of promoting casual sex as a solution to environmental degradation or demographic decline.

A sophisticated person with an ounce of morality would...sorry, just loved the term and intellectual basis of the argument made.

An infinite Universe + rational thought - greed = no problems.

Selfish Greed, not overpopulation, is the problem.

The Catholic Church has NEVER wanted birth control for Catholics .(look at Mexico ,South America and Phillipines ,etc ) over populated,poverty,disease,misery,living on rubbish dumps, starvation and prostitution to survive.
It does not work.
The Catholic Churches reason is only to populate the world with Catholics and More Catholics

They don't give a damn who suffers and starves as long as priests and the like can rule the illiterate ones,still do ,after all the media cover on them.
A priest prevented a strict Catholic relative from using condoms 35 years ago when she had 8 kids and was in danger of losing her life if she had more kids,which put her in a mental state .They should mind their own celibate business,single men telling marrieds what to do sexually.

I find it pretentious that a bunch of childless, confirmed bachelors would claim sufficient knowledge to determine and hold sway over the reasons, emotions and purposes of sexual activities of adult, cognitively competent, heterosexual couples (acknowledging that whilst sex is a procreative act, its “purpose” is not limited to procreation, accepting that “men” and “women” experiences life is on a level above that of cattle and other animals).

However, I find it plain incredulous that anyone, blessed with cognitive skills and even rudimentary competence, should ignore their own commonsense and subjugate their sexual activities and appetites to the dictates of bunch of (supposed) childless bachelors.

As for me, no condoms here. I had a vasectomy many years ago, after the birth of my second daughter. I can thoroughly recommend it as a procedure which is simple, 100% effective and a lot less intrusive or dangerous than the equivalent for the female.

There are two debates going on here, condoms for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and condoms as a matter of birth control.
Neither is a topic which should involve any church and
neither is a topic which any church is qualified to determine the outcome of.

Reality Check, you should apply your logic to the Solomon Islands. Go to the CIA World Factbook entry for the Solomons, divide the land area in square meters by the current population. Then take the natural log and divide it by the population growth rate. This will give you the time to standing room only at current growth rates. When I did this the answer was 414 years, hardly infinite resources.

Silly me, I thought the debate was about self control and rational sexual responsibility, but, go those Bonobos - who said Darwin was wrong, plenty of proof about less developed 'species' still awaiting maturity...

Col Rouge

Thanks for your post

Cheers
Kay

Reality Check, those bonobos evolved to be smart enough to understand that sex is natural, normal and enjoyable and great
for conflict resolution!

Whats more they have no need to wear spikey chains or to whip themselves like Opus Dei do for instance, so the question arises -
who are the smarter ones? :)

Who cares.

I think some of the comments are taking the relationship between overpopulation and poverty a little one-sidedly. Of course it is true that overpopulation increases the problem of extrem poverty, but it is also true that population decreases as a society becomes richer. There are various reasons for this. First, if child mortality is reduced people can have fewer children without fearing to be left childless because of illness and malnutrition. Secondly, as women become more knowledgeable and empowered they take control of their reproductive life and choose fewer births. Thirdly, the very nature of the economy changes needing fewer "hands" for work.

If we want world-population to decrease we need to correct imbalances in the distribution of priviledge worldwide. If western states stopped certain unfair practices that would already be a good start!

Schmuck,

If you go to the Redefining Progress site you will find the environmental footprints of nations (i.e. the average consumption per person). Then try plotting these footprints against rank on the UN Human Development Index. You will find that there is a very strong correlation between consumption and human well-being up to a European standard of living. The correlation breaks down past that point, and it is then reasonable to talk about overconsumption. However, this only amounts to about 350 million people out of 6.5 billion. If all the Americans, Canadians, and Australians disappeared overnight and their freed up capacity made available to the rest of the world, population growth would restore the general level of misery in less than a decade for the places with the fastest population growth. It would take 2-3 Earths to give everyone a decent European standard of living, even if the resources were all divided equally and managed in the best possible way. Don't take my word for it, do the calculation for yourselves.

I also object to the idea that we (especially the ordinary people) are somehow responsible for the misery. First World governments and corporations are not run by angels and have certainly done bad things around the world, but it was First World governments and charitable foundations that were also responsible for the Green Revolution that has doubled food production since the 1960s. Apart from some countries in East Asia, it was the Third World people themselves who decided to put the gains into population growth rather than into development or higher living standards.

I can't recall the reference - but I believe there has been research to show that reducing child mortality does reduce the number of pregnancies, but that completed family size can sometimes become even larger.

First world governments and third world governments cannot overule the Catholic churches decrees that rule the mainly illiterate hordes of Roman Catholics who must obey their celibate priest to never practise birth control especially to wear condoms.

They (the RCC) banned them to their followers in Africa a few years ago so we now have an epidemic of AIDS as they didn't know that promiscuity spread this deadly disease with 45 million now postitive with AIDS.
The RCC should pay compensation to all who obeyed their outdated Catholic law ,demanded by so called celibate single men,of the cloth.

The Catholic church is more powerful than any government as they use fear and control,to increase Catholics worldwide with this.

It is amazing that an article like this can once more set off a round of ill informed invective.

The Catholic Church's attitude to contraceptive devices is seen as archaic which in turn leads to it being portrayed as an impediment to everything from an effective response to aids, unwanted pregnancies and allegedly out of control population growth. Sooner or later someone will undoubtedly connect its position to global warming.

Never let facts spoil a good story!

Even the most cursory inspection of major studies (including the UN WHO statistics) on subjects such as aids worldwide, especially in developing countries, and other rigorous research on teenage pregnancy rates in developed countries shows an overwhelming fact. There is no correlation between where the Catholic Church has promoted its views and high levels of aids or unwanted pregnancies. Rather, the overwhelming evidence reveals a direct relationship between poverty and lack of general education which restricts people's life choices. Indeed, on the population issue it is clear that the birthrate declines as national prosperity increases (ironically leading to less than a replacement rate in some European countries).

While commentators are quick to blame the Catholic Church over its supposedly shameful attitude to contraceptive devices, they are strangely silent on its relentless efforts to improve the socio-economic standards of the poor and to improve education in deprived areas. These efforts directly address the root cause of many problems in contrast to the cosmetic approach of those who focus on contraception.

Let's get beyond this issue and focus on the real things that help human dignity.

We all know that the Catholic Church, like various other religious and non-religious organisations, does some excellent charitable work. Although I am not Catholic, I give some modest financial support to one of these charities , because it's wonderful what they do to help disabled children.

But this does not give the Catholic Church the right to promote nonsense. The Pope is no more infallible than I am. The then Pope was wrong about basic astronomy in Galileo's time and what's changed?

The so-called rhythm method is unreliable for many people. To try and ban condoms and other forms of effective birth control is nonsense. Some of the European countries with low birthrates are predominantly Catholic. Does anyone seriously believe that millions of healthy people in loving relationships are going without sex, just to please their priests?

I don't have a problem with having a spiritual belief. But to allow one's life to be ruled by assorted priests etc who have no more idea of what "God's Plan" is than you or I or anyone else has is ridiculous.

This realisation is becoming more widespread amongst educated, thinking people. Just like any other business which has had a powerful hold on millions of people for a long, long time, the Catholic Church will continue to fight hard to keep its share of the market. But perhaps, just perhaps, the Catholic Church will increasingly see the need to modify some of its "unchangeable" rules.

"Religious ideology also contributed to the country's deepening demographic
problems. The majority of Rwanda's population were Catholic. Despite Rwanda's
evident overpopulation, those in the church and government hierarchy not only
refused to promote birth control programs, they actively opposed them. Radical
Catholic pro-life commandos raided pharmacies to destroy condoms with the
approval of the Ministry of the Interior"

http://www.du.edu/gsis/hrhw/volumes/2002/2-1/magnarella2-1.pdf

Above is what Catholic policy has done in the third world Tony.
IMHO its a total disgrace!

People will never get out of poverty, if they are forced against their will, to have far more kids then they want or can feed.
Every woman in the third world should have family planning access,
just like in the first world. The Catholic Church should finally
stop all those efforts to deny third world women that assistance. What they are promoting is totally unstainable.

We saw what happened in highly Catholic Rwanda, when simply too many people on too little space, saw Catholics killing Catholics in one huge genocide. So much for God's plan. Nature will solve it for you,
the hard way sadly.

Rex and Yabby,
AIDS is spread from one person to another by unprotected sex. If both parties have exclusive sexual relationships with only one partner how is AIDS spread?

I am not Catholic but they cetrainly do not teach fornication, buggary and adultery as acceptable practise. The spread of AIDS is caused by persons not following the Catholic doctrine, of chastity and purity. Deal with the cause stop blaming the Pope. You know I have little time for the Pope but if people followed the tenets of the faith AIDS would not spread.

Philo, I had not even mentioned HIV in my post, but am happy to discuss it. Its interesting that you don't see a problem, that if
people decide not to follow Catholic dogma, that they should receive a death sentence. Is this what Xtian love and foregiveness
are all about?

HIV can be spread in various ways. Eating chimps, as the population in Africa grows and grows, it seems is how it broke the species barrier and infected humans. Dirty needles are another and African
health budgets are such, that needles are not wasted. Forced sex
is common in Africa and alot of the third world, where women are often treated as mere chattels. Trying to force young teens and even a 9 year old to have a baby due to rape, seems part of Catholic dogma too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/3147672.stm

Lots of people in the third world would love the snip, but even that
is denied them, due to Catholic dogma. Fact is, the Vatican is in a corner. Their pope came up with his crazy humanea vitae, he was meant to be infallible, so they can't back down and admit he was wrong. So they plod on regardless, no matter how much suffering they are causing in the third world.

But then suffering seems to be ok by Catholic dogma. As a humanist
my own philosophy is to try to reduce it, not accept it as being
ok, sorry.

Yabby,

Thanks for your comments as I found your reference source to be very interesting.

The conclusions reached did not include blaming the Catholic Church for the Rwandan situation. It pointed to the terrible economic situation, including poverty and hunger as the primary cause. Tribe then picked on tribe. I think the real issue was the vulnerability of Catholicism's efforts to promote human dignity when faced with deep seated traditional tribal and ethnic violence. The distribution or destruction of condoms is irrelevant.

If anything it demonstrates the pressing need for nations, churches, international organisations and ordinary people to stand up for human dignity. It also re-emphasises the importance of policies directed towards economic growth and good education.

Thanks for your references, Yabby. They were excellent. How TonyD can believe that the Catholic Church doesn't share some of the blame for what happened in Rwanda is beyond me. Another good reference on this is an article by Joseph Gasana, Rwanda's former Minister for Agriculture and Minister for Defence, in the Sept./Oct. 2002 Worldwatch Magazine (see Worldwatch Institute site). He blames a number of factors but puts population number one on his list. He also presents a table showing the correlation between calories per person and massacres in the different districts of his country.

Keep fighting the good fight. I am reminded of Thomas Huxley, 'Darwin's Bulldog', who used to debate the creationist Bishop Wilberforce. The bishop died when he fell from his horse and struck his head on a rock. Huxley is reported to have said that at last the bishop's brain had been brought into contact with reality. I will be happy to stop criticising the Catholic Church when they stop trying to turn our lovely planet into a factory farm for people, erasing all national boundaries along the way.

Hi Philo,
Promoting abstinence, to the exclusion of other safety measures, often has a high failure rate and can result in higher rates of unwanted pregnancies and abortion. I have twice posted a website relating to this and I will do so again. As in so many matters, education is the key.

'On the topic of sex education, I posted the following link, together with a warning for those who have psychological problems regarding the human body:
http://www.clothesfree.com/pregnancy.html
[NB This website is nudist. I don't know what the attitude of On Line Opinion is to such things, but if you are offended by a very small amount of non-sexual nudity, then don't go to it.]

This is an article showing the comparative lower rates of teenage pregnancy and abortion in some Western European countries, compared to the US. And isn't that what we all profess to want in Australia too?

There's a pattern here which Australia could easily follow, provided we had politicians and bureaucrats who refused to be led by the nose by religious extremists and instead used their common sense.'

I twice invited you to comment on the points raised on this website, but you chose not to do so. Well, I'll invite you once again.

Trying to rely on everyone avoiding sexual activity both before or outside of marriage just does not work. And I'm not promoting adultery or rampant promiscuity either, but accepting [as most people do] that there is nothing morally wrong with sex outside of formal marriage, provided that the participants are honest, respectful, well informed adults.

As a former Christian (now agnostic) who has read The Bible, could a member of the Catholic church please tell me...

Where it says that contraception is a sin?

Where it says that priests/reverends/pastors can't marry?

Where it says that MARRIED couples may only have sex if they are trying to conceive?

Where it says that a fallible human (i.e. The Pope) has the authority to make rules on the behalf of God?

Looks like the only one on this thread who needs a reality check is Reality Check.

Surely the Catholic Church has realised the error of it's ways when their own priests start molestering children and then others cover it up, such as people endorsed by our own moron PM to be the Governor General.

Theocratic, lunatic, radical excuse for a political party...oh but the interest rates!

I no longer have an interest in the attempts to pin the attrocities in Rwanda on the Catholic Church's attitude to population control. Such a view is patent nonsense. The majority of informed commentators (including from recollection the UN commander on the ground) who witnessed the collapse of the country into chaos felt that the international community let Rwanda down.

I count 54 paragraphs in the article quoted by Yabby (please forgive me for any miscount). They refer to a very detailed and complex political history of tribal violence, culture, poverty, colonialism and mis-government. One paragraph, which appears completely disconected to any other part of the article, refers to the alleged failure of the Catholic Church.

Let me restate the scientific evidence clearly; there is no evidence that reducing populations via policies promoting artificial contraception lead to better or more prosperous societies. Rather, the evidence is that prosperity and better education results in a deceleration in population growth. A prosperous economy also seems also to be a precondition for a democratic and truly free society.

Tony, the conclusions reached, were that an increasing imbalance of
land, food and people, caused the Rwanda genocide. Guess who was encouraging Rwandans to keep breeding like rabbits....

The Catholic Church cannot keep sticking its head in the sand over this like ostriches!

The Rwandan economy is based on agriculture, with about 90% living off the land. With plots getting smaller and smaller, with more and more people, eventually the proverbial sh*t hit the fan. If you have
8 kids to feed on less and less land, what do you think will happen?

If you are really interested, not just trying to explain away Catholic dogma with any old excuse, read what Jared Diamond wrote
on Rwanda, his his "Collapse". He is clearly at liberty to be more
explicit as to what happened there, unlike University professors,
who have all sorts of people looking over their shoulders.

Hutus landed up killing hutus, pygmies, who harmed nobody, were wiped out too. In the end people with no land, landed up killing
people with land.

More kids then a family can feed or clothe, is what leads to hunger,
suffering and a lack of education Tony. Economies can't develop either, if people are spending every last penny on kids they don't want. What is this obsession with the Catholic Church for ever increasing masses of suffering people? They are actively encouraging it! Its sad, it really is.

Kay “Thanks for your post”

You are most welcome Kay

Mr Man

Excellent post, succinct and to the point. Well said I agree with almost everything you said (I hold our PM in a different regard).

Philo “I am not Catholic but they cetrainly do not teach fornication, buggary and adultery as acceptable practise.”

Yes but what they teach and what they practice, on the evidence are representative of divergent standards.

Then again, such a disease infects most organised religions, nothing uniquely Catholic and its nothing a condom will help with.

Problems in starving third World communities is not based in the fear of the Pope and the tenets of the Catholic faith or of the Islamic faith for that matter. It is hunger!

When people are hungry they seek physical pleasure and hunger gratification. They do not behave that way because of their religion.

However religion teaches denial of self gratification and delayed sexual pleasures. Those communities that practise self denial and sexual chastity emerge by gaining pleasures in intellectual and atristic expression and become 1st world. This is why rigid discipline and delayed self gratification had developed first world communities. This has been because they have learned by denial to keep sufficient grain to plant the the next years crop, and so use their time in artistic, creative, intellectual and commercial ways to occupy their time.

Since 1st World Western society has developed the condom and pill etc they have removed the delayed need for self gratification and their drive for finding satisfaction in creative and intellectual pursuits has diminished. Beside hunger for a meal, sexual hunger is the most powerful drives we as humans have, so if both of these are met our drives for other things are reduced. The prime reason for money today is the heightened and more pleasurable pursuits of these two drives, so alcohol and drugs become part of the equasion and supposedly enhance that experience. The sheer satisfaction of work or creativity for its own altruistic purpose has diminished.

You refuse to face simple facts, Philo. The website which you resolutely refuse to comment on illustrates how US communities which encourage 'sexual chastity' and 'delayed self gratification', as you choose to call it, have a greater failure rate in terms of unwanted pregnancies than various European communities which teach young people the facts about sex without religious moral overtones.

As Yabby has repeatedly pointed out, the human female has the theoretical capacity to produce far more offspring than anyone could reasonably want, or be able to care for. We now have the means to regulate our own fertility with a high degree of certainty. If you and a minority of others believe that having sex is immoral, except under a rigid set of religiously inspired conditions, then go for it, but don't expect everyone else to follow suit.

Philo “Since 1st World Western society has developed the condom and pill etc they have removed the delayed need for self gratification and their drive for finding satisfaction in creative and intellectual pursuits has diminished.”

Really?

I would like to see what “evidence” you can bring to this forum to support such a statement.

For any measure of acquired knowledge, the rate at which “humanity”, lead by “Western society” has developed has accelerated rather than slowed or atrophied (as your claim suggests).

If you add up the number of significant inventions of the past 100 years it dwarfs all the inventions of all preceding millennia’s.

Now whilst I would be the first to suggest that no individual, in the field of music compares to Mozart, a lot of other people might suggest the Beatles and the Doors compete.
I would equally suggest that, despite the uniqueness of the works of Canaletto or Botticelli, they jostle for eminence along with Lichtenstein and Picasso. As far as sculpture, I find great difficulty in making rational comparison between the brilliance of Hepworth and Cellini.

To suggest the introduction of condoms and contraceptives has diminished creative and intellectual pursuits is complete and utter rubbish.

The only thing which diminishes human creativity is a repressive social order. On that topic we can start with the Cathars of Carcassonne, consider the Spanish Inquisition, discuss the Italian Inquisitions disproval of Galilleo and come up to the current disproval of private individuals use of condoms, all examples of a repressive religious order.

As for “sexual hunger is the most powerful drives we as humans have, so if both of these are met our drives for other things are reduced.”

How on earth does institutionalised sexual frustration and repression help meet any driving force (except for the masochistic) ?

I see, from its dogma, the Catholic church does nothing to satiate sexual hunger. It does, in fact endeavour to do the exact opposite (and maybe that explains why children are not safe in private with many men in vestments).

Col Rouge,
I've been around for 66 years and in the past 28 years our company has employed hundreds of young men. These young men have no resemblence in creative or work application to the young men I went to school with.

Many are drug additcts, alcholics, into free love and sex with perversions. They live for the present, have babies to unmarried mothers, abusive to their girlfriends children. Their total conversation is about the performance of their car or its sound system or their own sexual performance on the weekend. They are irregular at work, tired and easily distracted.

I can tell you my father employed 16 - 17 year boys during the war because his work force had joined the army. They had to start at six in the morning and were never late and were responsible workers. They had no drugs, no condoms, no unwanted pregnancies, did not touch alcohol, had no fast and powerful cars. They were boys any mother could be proud to say he is my son. Yes! These boys attended Church each Sunday with their parents, and made eyes at the girls they would ask in marriage.

Philo, you're living in a dream world. It never ceases to amaze me how intelligent, well educated people who achieve success in various fields [like you perhaps have] can be utterly illogical when researched facts come into conflict with their unsubstantiated religious beliefs.

It seems to me that you choose to ignore the researched facts outlined in the website I posted, presumably because the facts don't suit your preconceived religious beliefs. Well, am I correct?

Rex,

I suppose I do mix in a world of extremities. I assist each friday night a programme we run for kids on the street where condoms have been distributed. We no longer distribute them to boys, but to girls as this makes them responsible if they say yes/no. We found the boys made water bombs of them, and the older ones said sex did not feel the same and beside the girlfriend wanted to become pregnant.

Over 50% of these young people are sexually active, use drugs and drink alcohol too excess. Over 40% of these young women will fall pregnant outside of marriage with many opting for an abortion, or finish up in a relationship with someone not the father of their child.

I mix in Christian Churches among young dedicated people who most have made a vow of chastity before marriage. They see condoms and the pill offers them temptation to violate their vow. They are doing higher school certificate or university degrees, though 50% might drink alcohol responsibly less than 1/100 violate their vow, or become pregnant to someone they will not marry. There is over 140,000 young people in Australia who have taken the vow of chastity. They desire a pure and wholesome life that marriage is sacred to one partner as an example to their future children. They treat their body as sacred and dedicated to their vows.

"In fact, 88 percent of students who pledged virginity in middle school and high school still engage in premarital sex."

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/teensexualhealth/fact-abstinence-education.xml

Philo, methinks you are suffering from genertion gap, perhaps also
not fully aware what is going on out there :) I doubt if Aussie
teenagers are wearing your claimed halo, compared to American
teenagers.

The last teenage fundie who worked for me, told me that oral sex was fine, as you did not lose your virginity that way :)

Philo the world has changed since you were young. Forget turning the clock back, it won't happen. Kids are informed today, they can google, so won't accept as gospel, some of the rubbish that their elders tell them.

But all is not lost lol. My generation were the hippies, 70s kids who smoked the odd joint, rebelled againt the old farts, learnt to enjoy their sexuality, loved their Rolling Stones etc and were told
how the world would end because of the way we were.

Today what were so called long haired louts are successfull businessmen, usually with a family, doing their share for society.
The world has not ended, people have not become less creative, in fact the opposite actually, the big change is that society has become more tolerant. I welcome all these changes, but I am aware that some of the older generation have a problem with that change.

Thats why we need the cycle of birth and death, so that old minds can be put to rest and young minds can take a step further.
Its all part of natures cycle and if you want to think of a god,
just look at nature itself. So enjoy your heaven here on earth
whilst it lasts, every day is precious Philo! The worms will get us all in the end, that I know.

I don't think that the Vatican is changing its opinion based on the bickerings between those who blame Catholics for the spread of HIV in poorer countries, and those that say that the Church has the only answer to the spread of AIDS. I think pragmatism is finally reaching the Pope, that is all.

I think this is Philo's real clanger: "The spread of AIDS is caused by persons not following the Catholic doctrine, of chastity and purity".

Oh goody! Lets all go Catholic and we won't get AIDS! We really believe you Philo. Are chastity belts on sale at K-Mart, or are they still at the kinky shops in the Cross?

Don't forget, the whole Catholic church is far from agreement on this. The nuns in South America radically oppose the views on contraception imposed by the Pope. The nuns have to work with the consequences. And Philo, Brazil and South America are the same post-columbian vintage as the USA. Your theory that only the Catholic church can make a country first world didn't do them much justice at all. Per capital, they are more Catholic than the USA. And far more than New Zealand and Australia, yet our countries became first world, their countries didn't.

We are talking about a deadly virus that knows no religion, and I don't think the virus knows the Da Vinci Code, and I don't think a virus knows what promiscuous is, and it certainly doesn't know what Opus Dei is, or the knights of the Templar. Put your susperstitions aside and take another look. It is a virus. Not some entity in scripture. For the love of God, can't you see such a simple thing as a condom can save millions of lives? To only put the responsibility of holding the condom on the female partner is sexist, and misses the point in developing male responsibility.

I'm glad the Vatican is looking more pragmatically. There is hope yet. But p-lease, no more old superstitions from the Spanish Inquisition.

Philo,”I have been around for 66 years”

And I have been around for 56 years.

The “Perceptions” of most people are formulated around the fact that they remember only the sunny days of their youth and forget the rainy ones.

Nostalgia is a poor scribe for recording the real events of history.

What you thought about the stout and warm hearted lads your father inspired to work for him is, in reality, the exact same people who populate our society today. If someone were to study individually held values of any given society, I doubt you would find much difference in the numbers of baddies and the numbers of ultra-goodies across generations.

You might find “clusters” of goodies and baddies (as seems to be the case of brain tumour victims in some Victorian education campuses) but such “clusters” are a statistical aberrations and not representative of real change.

Ask yourself why anti Drug laws were enacted over 100 years ago?

Because drug addicts etc. were as big a problem and burden on the rest of society as much then as they are today.

Well Said Yabby and Rex

Finally, the difference which makes this society more vibrant and creative than those of the past is where the real revolution has occured. We have cast off the shackles of social, class and religious orthodoxy.
Everyone is less likely to be the victim of the prejudices of the class, social or religious zealots and power groups.

That is the best thing, where people are free to choose, to take responsibility for themselves and tell the Church oligarchs where to stick their dogmatic prejudices.

@YABBY;

"HIV can be spread in various ways. Eating chimps, as the population in Africa grows and grows, it seems is how it broke the species barrier and infected humans."

Thats so far from the truth, many many Africans don't eat chimps, its not the reason for AIDS !

Africa is a contient 52 plus countries.Asia which holds nations such as India,China Japan have far bigger individual populations than Africa,India & China populations are 1.2 to 1.3 billion each. So save me the breeding Africans over estimated stereotype.
52 plus countries not a billion people there.

"Thats so far from the truth, many many Africans don't eat chimps, its not the reason for AIDS !"

Amel, clearly you don't follow primatology news like I do, here is
just one link of many that has been in the press lately.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060525-aids-chimps.html

The bushmeat trade is basically a disaster in Africa, as forests
are emptied of anything that moves, for its meat value, chimps,
bonobos and gorillas included. Google the world "bushmeat" to
understand it further.

The question was always as to how HIV jumped the species barrier
and now the connection has been found in Cameroon. Once in the human population, it spread through blood transfusions, sex etc.

But still today, various primate body parts are openly sold in
African meat markets. Chimps, gorillas, bonobos and other species are all part of the African diet sadly. Perhaps only when these species are extinct, will they realise what they have lost.
Even the gorillas that people like Bill Gates paid big money to
see in their natural environment, were eventually shot for their
meat. All very sad really, what is happening in Africa.

Yabby

Your post is very interesting, and the link that you provided is quite an eye opener.

Cheers and thanks
Kay

The human race does should unite to praise the catholic faith for one of its most useful dogmas. The practice of priests and nuns being forbidden to breed, has meant that the catholic church has been for centuries genetically eradicating religious fanaticism.

Now the Vatican has come up with another great idea. Since condoms are a no no for good catholics, the AIDS virus is now doing it's bit to get rid of Africans who do not have the wit to avoid getting a Darwin Award, African Catholics are geting a bit thin on the ground. The Prots must be rubbing their hands in glee now that the catholics put dogma ahead of common sense, and are deliberately choosing to succumb en masse to a microbial life form which appears to have little respect for God or the teachings of the Pope.

That has always ben the problem for people who believe in moral absolutes. Along comes a problem which your exalted morality just can't handle. The more that you try to make it work by insisting that it is divinely inspired and therefore beyond reproach, the sillier you look.

@YABBY:

You fail to mention why theres a "bush meat crisis".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2944796.stm

http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/03-04/sep27.html

"Population growth is the primary source of environmental damage." ~ Jacques Cousteau

Amel, there are many reasons for the bush meat crisis. It became a crisis long before the EU boats started fishing off Senegal.

Hunting and eating bushmeat is a tradition in Central and West Africa. That was fine when there was a smaller population and
bows and arrows etc were used, it was small enough to be sustainable.
But with ever growing populations in Africa, AK47s etc now easily
available, the construction of roads through many of the forests,
various armies and refugees from other overcrowded areas of
growing population etc, its just become one big slaughterfield,
so forest after forest is being hunted out until nothing that
moves is left, then they move on to the next area.

Consumer demand for meat continues, bushmeat is what they offer
at various markets, so thats what people buy and actually like.
Its even smuggled into Europe for Congolese etc. living in places
like Brussels and London. Once they have shot the last of the
primates, what then? They won't even have tourism as a potential
anymore.

Are condoms really effective at mitigating the AIDS crisis? Well, I thought I would take a look at some figures on the effectiveness of condoms at this url:

http://www.medinstitute.org/health/questions_answers.html#listitem1766-7467

Technically, condoms reduce the risk of aids by between 96 to 99 percent, but practically, with 100 percent consistent condom use (which does not even happen in first world countries, by the way, with an estimated consistent use of less than 50 percent), the actual figure is 85 percent - and let's not go near the figures for other STDs! That means you have more than one chance in ten of contracting AIDS!
So, lets start with a population which has, say, one third of the population with aids (say, Botswana, for example). If half the population use a condom once a year, then after only 3 years, another 7.5 percent of the population has AIDS (50 * .15 * 3 / 3)
Admittedly, the figures are quite contrived (for example, it is unlkely that those who are sexually active will have sex once a year - or that they will be with only the one sex partner). However, 'one chance in ten' ... is anyone seriously suggesting this as a solution? Even at only one percent fatality, no medicine would ever be released on the market the way condoms have been released, especially when you consider the cumulative effect. Don't be conned by condoms! They can only cover up the problem.

Yabby,you want people to believe the major population in Africa are the reason for the "Bushmeat Crisis".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4003859.stm

http://www.seaaroundus.org/OtherWebsites/2004/Newstudylinkslowfish.pdf

Some African governments are acting

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3314529.stm

Amel, if you read the bbc link, you will see that experts agree that its more complicated then fish, which are just one issue, perhaps closer to the coast. In places like the Congo, its demand for meat
by a rising population, without livestock industries to produce that
meat. Go to Kinshasa restaurants and markets, its everywhere, openly sold. Good on Cameroon if they do something about it, but the problem is far larger then that.

Paulb, your link is to a website which promotes George Bushes radical religious right solution, the founder even advises George.
So I question their agenda. Condoms work better then abstinence alone, read up some more objective data. If the founder was so concerned about teenage pregnancy and STDs, the fact that people know little about them, perhaps he would realise that the Dutch solutioin, with only 10% of the American problem, actually works,
although it doesent fit any religious agenda.

Abstinence only is a dismal failure, as when people break their
pledges, they know nothing about stds or contraception, so bingo,
they have a problem.

Yabby, sure, question their agenda ... but when condom manufacturers themselves admit a breakage rate of 1-2 percent you have to really wonder whose agenda needs to be questioned. Maybe you have to be a mathematician to appreciate the cumulative effects of 2 percent. Let's disregard the articles effectiveness rate of 85 percent in practice for the purposes of making this point. The breakage rate alone will get you the same reduced effectiveness after using condoms only 8 times!

How is this for a scenario? If you used a condom every month for a year with someone who has AIDS, then you have one chance in four of being exposed to the HIV simply based on the breakage rate alone ... of course, in practise, after a year you would be a very lucky person to not have contracted the HIV.

It is the condom manufacturers that, maybe rightly so, claim a permability factor which is so low as to be not noticeable. When the permability is actually not the issue ... Who is conning whom?

Paulb, you'll find that when most scientific studies talk about
condom failure rate, they refer to % of couples using a method over 12 months, where she lands up pregnant, not use per time. For condoms thats around 12%.

http://sqzm14.ust.hk/condom-ratings-95.HTML

Lots of problems with condoms are in fact due to people not having a clue how to use them properly. They open the packet with their teeth, they pull them on like a sock, etc. Proper education could solve most of that.

They did a test in a Sydney brothel, where girls knew what they were doing I presume. Out of 1269 condoms, 6 broke.

http://www.embarrassingproblems.com/condoms_b.htm

Next thing, size is an issue. Penises come from tiny to huge and one size does not fit all lol. If all these things were addressed in kids sex education programmes, condoms would be a great way to reduce both hiv and stds. With preaching abstinence, the failure rate is over 50%! Keeping your legs crossed for Jesus, doesent work
in the real world.

Most scientific studies? I can show heaps showing otherwise. For example:
http://www.rho.org/html/cont-male_condoms.htm#user
Does a statement like "The total clinical failures (slippage and breakage) were 8.4 percent for the polyurethane and 3.2 percent for the latex condom." address your concern regarding method failure?
I guess any lobby group can get their own studies done (certainly, the drug industry is famous for doing this).

So, how about policy? What standard do the condom manufacturers hold themselves to? The only figure I have seen that condoms must meet (regarding breakage - not permeability!) is 1.5 percent. You get no points for figuring out which industry is lobbying to not have that reduced any further (and, in fact, to have it increased). Surely, if condoms were so good, the acceptable breakage rate would be reduced to less than .1 percent at least!

Also, how can you so blithely brush aside what happens in practice? Sure, education will be your answer ... but we cannot even educate first world countries to do it right! Government policies should be based on what actively works and what is workable ... otherwise you get such fiascos as Botswana and Swazliand.

Your implicit question about abstinence, whether it would work or not, is very important. Is it workable? We know that people used to generally think abstinence before marriage was a good thing early in the 20th century. Is it possible today? Well, Uganda shows you it is possible. Uganda actively discouraged the use of condoms, except for sex workers who were never going to change their ways. Actually, their condom usage dropped over time and they radically reduced their incidence of AIDS. Also, they experienced what has been found to be the only factor common to those countries who reduce aids ... sexually active people reduced their number of sexual partners. There was also a rise in abstinence before marrisage and faithfulness during marriage. True, it will not work while we also hand out condoms because of the mixed message. However, we know it is possible and is the only way to really address the problem.

Paulb, your url suggests exactly what I was highlighting. Failure rate is referred in terms of first year of typical use, not per use.

Sex education works extremely well, when its done in a pragmatic way.
Compare the teenage pregnancy and teenage birthrates of Holland and
America, to get the picture. America, where they preach abstinence only, is 10X worse.

The reason that sex education is so bad in many countries, is of course the religious lobby, who protest loudly about their children being taught such "evil" things. Next thing, when teenagers hormones run riot and they break their pledges, they land up pregnant or with stds.

No doubt there are companies around the world who sell badly made condoms, like any other industrial product. Govts are free to legislate quality standards, as they do with anything else.
But what we can show is that most of the time its not the condom
thats the problem, but lack of knowledge by the user. That could
easily be changed, if the religious lobby was able to see reason,
which is easier said then done.

The Economist of 8th Sept. 2005 carries an interesting story about what happened in Uganda. I can't give you a link, as its subscription based, but you might find a copy somewhere.
The large reduction in Aids was achieved through their ABC
programme, Abstain- be faithfull-use a condom. Every schoolkid
learnt about them. The aids rate dropped accordingly.

Partly under American pressure ( George and his religious right)
the C was dropped in 2003, so now the aids rate is climbing back up again.

You'll find that people thinking that abstinence was a good thing,
was largey due to girls terrified of falling pregnent. As science
let that genie out of that bottle, you have buckley's chance of putting it back in again, as US pledge failures show. Meantime
those kids who get nothing but abstinence teachings, will highly
likely land up pregnant or with an std, as they have little or no knowledge of how to use contraceptives properly, should the need arise.

I did a bit of research on Holland's teenage pregnancy and birthrate, and it seems quite obvious why this occurred ... teenagers in Holland had much less sexual partners, and started having sex much later, than their U.S. counterparts. This is laudable and necessary. Actually, what happened in Uganda was also a reduction in sex before marriage (quite often to the level of abstinence) and faithfulness during marriage. True, condoms were given to sex workers, but people were strongly and actively discouraged from resorting to condoms (for obvious reasons - the ineffectivenss of them!). Note that even the World Health Organisation has recognised that the only common factor in cases where there has been a reduction in HIV infections is, you guessed it, a reduction in the number of sexual partners amongst sexually active people. The case of Holland simply proves the point.

I guess you could make the argument that the East African nation of Uganda was uniquely positioned to hear this message due to its large Catholic population (over 50 percent, I believe). Whereas, somewhere like Botswana with the largest AIDS problem in Africa, with a Catholic population of only 4 percent, may be less likely to want to hear the message of abstinence (depending on their culture). This may be an important issue to deal with when educating people about the problems of sex before marriage.

Education may solve the current 85 percent effectiveness of the condom although that is very questionable - education has not worked so far in any country. People know the message in first world countries and still don't follow (so what hope is there for third world countries)! However, education still cannot solve the breakage rate (and don't forget that the condom manufacturers hold themselves to 1.5 percent), and in a country like Botswana the cummulative odds of 1.5 percent alone is enough to increase the HIV-infected population substantially each year, that I fear that before long the entire population will have AIDS. Condoms can only provide an illusion of safety (which encourages more risky behaviour).

"I did a bit of research on Holland's teenage pregnancy and birthrate, and it seems quite obvious why this occurred ... teenagers in Holland had much less sexual partners, and started having sex much later, than their U.S. counterparts."

Thanks for that observation, Paul. Could you post the websites appertaining to your research, so that we can evaluate them for ourselves?

The website I've previously posted also indicates something similar:
http://www.clothesfree.com/pregnancy.html
[NB This website is nudist. I don't know what the attitude of On Line Opinion is to such things, but if you are offended by a very small amount of non-sexual nudity, then don't go to it.]
The article starts:

"Teen-agers in the United States are far more likely to get pregnant and get an abortion than their counterparts in Western European countries.

Planned Parenthood officials believe that's because Europeans talk to their teen-agers about sex differently from Americans, viewing it as a public health issue rather than a moral, religious or political matter."

The indication is that young people in various European countries are given appropriate sex education. They are certainly not denied condoms. Nor are they brainwashed with religious psuedo-morality. Also in Holland and various other European countries, clothes optional beaches are far more common than in the US or in Australia, enabling people to understand that nudity is not necessarily linked to sexuality.

Paulb, there is a clear pattern as to what works regards teen pregnancy and hiv etc, all over the place. It comes down to
pragmatic and open good education. Empowering people with
knowledge, then letting them make their own decisions, will
achieve results, anything else is a dismal failure.

http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07/uk/apprend2.htm

tells you a bit about how its done in Holland.

Anywhere where aids has been an issue, condoms have played
a role in reduction of spread. Australia, with its grim
reaper campaign, is just one example. If you look at Africa,
two countries have had results, Uganda and Senegal. Both
promoted condoms as part of those campaigns, not just to
hookers either, but openly, even to schoolchildren. On billboards,
in newspapers, you name it, it was used, and it got results.
Aids has increased recently in Uganda, since the big C was dropped
out of the campaign, due to religious pressure.

Compare that to say Kenya, where things were not spoken of,
ads for condoms were removed from the press due to religious
pressure and bingo, the aids rate has kept on increasing.

Now you cannot ignore these worldwide trends in the name of
religious dogma, for all you are doing is killing more
Catholics. This is what Australia's top expat scientist
thought of Catholic anti condom policy in Africa:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/parting-shot-to-pope-get-real-on-aids/2005/12/03/1133422148025.html

Does sex education and the availability of condoms in first world countries actually reduce STD and AIDS?

"Sexual promiscuity, especially amongst adolescents, can and does have profound effects that can manifest for an entire lifetime. We now have a situation where many young women think it expected of them to offer exotic sexual favours to gain acceptance, popularity and male attention. Many young males in return come to regard women as sex toys for their own personal gratification. Young lives are scarred and destroyed in the process".

"Even ignoring the significant moral, psychological, emotional and spiritual effects that such practices can have on our young, the physical consequences can be horrific.

Despite intensive Federal and State education programs on so-called “Safe-Sex”, in excess of 52,000 Australians contract a sexually transmitted disease every year. In NSW, Syphilis has increased 15%, Gonococcal Infections 47% and Chlamydia a whopping 220% since this time in 2000. 11, 293 people, 60.7% of whom are 15-24 year olds, contracted Chlamydia alone last year in this state. This year in NSW, we are getting around 835 new reported cases of Chlamydia per month! Many more remain unreported.

The term “Safe Sex” is a misnomer that only further exacerbates the problem as our young are blinded to the dangers before them. There is no such thing as “safe sex”. It’s time our legislators began teaching children the value of personal pride, respect, dignity and ethics. Abstinence until marriage is the ONLY ‘Safe Sex’ and if educators where to start teaching that, we may just still have a chance to save some of our children from the burgeoning problems of STDs and social deterioration."

Unsafe sex is sex that allows sexually transmitted infections (STDs) to be passed on to another person, or sex that could result in an unwanted pregnancy.

Some people may be less careful if they've been drinking, and others may forget in the heat of the moment.

Safer sex means sexual contact that does not involve any exchange of blood, semen or vaginal fluids.

• It means being safer from STDs and safer from unwanted pregnancy.
• It means covering up parts of the body that could be infectious.

• It also means that sexual contact happens in a caring and respectful way, is consented to and no one feels pressured or forced into sexual contact.

Safer activities can include kissing, touching, cuddling and using condoms for sexual intercourse.

Philo is correct in saying that there is no such things as 100% safe sex.

The best way to have safe sex is to be in a monogamous relationship (only one partner) where neither partner has sex outside that relationship and are both free of any STDs.

In an ideal world this is what would happen. We don’t live in an ideal world. Therefore, at the very least, we can take appropriate measures to ensure that sex is as safe as possible.

I freely admit to having many sexual partners, however the only time I contracted anything was during my monogamous relationship with my husband who brought home genital crabs. Ex-hubby was not monogamous and I paid the price. Consequently I have always taken steps to making sex as safe as possible. And am alive and well today and free of any STD’s as a result.

We should all be careful that we do not become a pawn of the media. If we look at the first article to which Yabby referred at http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07/uk/apprend2.htm, and we look beyond the hype, we actually see the reason for the reduction in teenage pregnancies in the last line, which is “Face the facts. We have the lowest number of teenage mothers [in Europe], and Dutch students do not start having sex at a younger age than their foreign counterparts.”. It is true that, if people of a younger age are not having sex, then there is a reduction in teenage pregnancies, and further, a reduction in multiple pregnancies per teenager.

So, if younger Dutch people are having sex at a much later age ... where does condoms come in to this?

Yabby is correct to say that education is required. We need to educate teenagers about the problems of sex before marriage.

The only consistent world-wide trend in reducing AIDS is the reduction in the number of sexual partners (as per the Holland example. I am glad Yabby mentioned that one; it makes my case beautifully). Throwing condoms at people while saying to them "practise safe sex" is like throwing petrol onto a fire. Is this seriously the only reasponse we can give? Or maybe we should speak to those who care for over one quarter of all the AIDS patients in the world ... the Catholic Church (this is also in response to the second link, or should I say "news article", that Yabby gave which was quite adamantly anti-Catholic):

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0098.html

"20 years into the pandemic there is no evidence that more condoms leads to less AIDS," or "over a lifetime, it is the number of sexual partners [that matter].condom levels are found to be non-determining of HIV infection levels."

Or, maybe you just want to hear from the First Lady of the Republic of Uganda about how they constructed their program to defeat AIDS:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0106.html

"Giving young people condoms is tantamount to giving them a license to go out and be promiscuous; it leads to certain death."

This is taken from the article regarding the Dutch experience:

'“parents in the Netherlands take a very pragmatic approach. They know their children are going to have sex, and they are ready to prepare them and to speak with them about their responsibility. This is the key word,” says Mischa Heeger of the Rutgers Foundation. Contraceptives are widely used. According to a NISSO study, 85 per cent of sexually active young people use a contraceptive, and the pill is freely available. The average age of a youth’s first sexual intercourse is 17.7 years.'

Young people in Holland are taught the facts on sexuality, without recourse to religious scare tactics, and encouraged to act in a responsible manner. And 'contraceptives are widely used'.

This is not hype, this is the approach taken in Holland and it works.

You have not commented on my previous post, Paul. Perhaps because it does not fit in with your preconceived religious beliefs.

On a personal basis, during my first marriage I was very keen and so was my wife and she also got pregnant very easily when that was our intention. When we didn't want another child [which of course was almost all the time], we relied on condoms for the first several years. Not one failure in all that time. Maybe we were just lucky LOL!

Goodness knows what would have happened to us if we had been so brainwashed as to have relied on the so-called rhythm method.

Philo and Paulb, what you guys don’t seem to understand, is the minds of teenagers! They are hormonal, rebellious and think they are invincible. Your sanctimonious
preaching is not going to change that, in fact it will just encourage them to do the opposite.

What Holland has shown is that if you treat them a bit more
like adults, empower them with information of all sorts and then let them make their own more informed decisions, they will in fact be quite sensible. It disproves the claims of the religious lobby, ie they won’t all go out and fornicate like mad, as you seem to fear. Condoms, their method of proper use etc are openly discussed in Holland. According to Paulb’s theories, these kids should all be dying of aids.
Clearly that is not the case!

The grim reaper campaign worked extremely well in Australia in educating a lot of people quickly. Stds went down etc. But that’s some years ago now, the present generation have heard nothing about it, we are back to
lack of proper sex education in Aussie schools, no wonder that std rates are climbing once again. The religious lobby can be blamed for that, its them who are holding up the proper education of Aussie kids in that dept.

Paulb, nobody is better at spin then the Vatican, I grant you that! Relying on their websites for unbiased information would be like relying on Dracula to run the bloodbank :)

Museveni’s wife, a fanatical anti condom fundie, is not the first wife to earbash her husband long enough for him to
change tack, as the Economist mentions. Fact is condoms were freely handed out, even to schoolkids in Uganda, until
2003. Things changed when the US, with Barbara Bush leading the charge, provided 230 million$ as part of the new funding promoting abstinence. 30 million condoms were then left in Uganda stores unused. Since then, aids has crept up again in Uganda.

Condoms work, not as the sole solution, but as part of the solution agains aids. The Vatican ignores that at its peril.

Last night I attended the Watofo childrens choir comprised of children aged from 6 - 13 years. All these children are orphans from parents destroyed by AIDS or the war in Uganda. When you witness the hope and career opportunities given them by Christian Compassion you just have to say, "Thank God for the compassion of Christians!"

These young children all lifted from a life in the streets scavenging for food or a life of crime and prostitution or slavery. They tell their stories of their past dispair and their new hope now to follow Christ and be doctors, engineers, pilots, nurses etc. They have learned first hand the results of promiscuity. see: www.watofo.com

YngNLuvnIt,
I managed to see the Watoto Children Choir. Great inspiring message how lives are changed with love and hope. Sorry I hit the wrong key in giving the website in my previous post, it is www.watoto.com

Yabby,

I have carefully reviewed the historical evidence in relation to Rwanda and cannot reach the same conclusions as you. There is a very complex and tragic history behind the massacres, including foreign invasion. There is also a degree of local government disinformation. It would appear that this topic is worthy of debate in its own right. I respect your right to hold a different position to me.

I would merely ask you not to presume that Rwanda's people, unlike those of us in more prosperous societies, breed unthinkingly and have children they do not want. This places you inside the head of every mother and father in that country. Some would have children that were unintended, some would have children because of the mortality rate that hits families in poverty stricken societies, many will have children out of love.

Tony,you will find that alot of surveys are done in Africa, regards
"unmet needs" for contraception, by various NGOs. Here is just one
url that discusses them.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB5024/index1.html

What they all point to is one thing:- lots of women in Africa are
being forced to have far more children then they really want, due to
a lack of good family planning availability. Sadly the Catholic
Church stands condemned in doing what it can to prevent those women
having those various family planning measure available to them,
as we have in our first world.

Whichever way you look at Rwanda, it was a case of too many people
on too little space. I suggest that you read what Jared Diamond had
to say about Rwanda, in his book "Collapse".

All I am arguing for is that women have a choice. Those women that
are devout Catholics, who want 9 kids, ok, let them live with the
consequences. Those women who don't want 9 kids, should have that choice, just as Western women have.

My point is that Catholic dogma is actually responsible for hunger
and suffering in Africa. Without the Vatican's fanatical influence,
women in Africa would have more choices then they do now. They would
not need to try and feed children that they don't want and can't feed, no wonder there is so much sadness and misery there

Yabbie, you keep talking about the "Vatican's fanatical influence" in sub-saharan Africa. Since you clearly hold this as an article of 'faith', and presumably the countries with the largest Catholic populations are most easily influenced by the Catholic church, let's check out some numbers.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_by_country ... that does not explain Botswana, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, and to a lesser extent Namibia, Mozambique, Madagascar (and that is only from a cursory glance from a list which is not complete). In fact, all the countries in South Africa have a combined Catholic population of a mere 6.43 percent according to that page. What are the worst hit countries in the AIDS epidemic? Well, actually, the three with the lowest Catholic populations ... Botswana (4.94%), Swaziland (5.35%), and Zimbabwe (7.71%).

Now, let's assume that all Catholics in all countries in South Africa followed the Vatican's fanatical influence as you describe (but didn't really - because if they did, they would not have AIDS in the first place) and they all now have AIDS. That is about 2.8 million people. The total number of people with AIDS in South Africa is approximately 25.8 million. So, even assuming that the entire Catholic population in South Africa has AIDS, it still only accounts for 11 percent of the number of people with AIDS! Also, in 2005 alone another 3.2 million people were infected, which is more than the total Catholic populations of all the countries combined.

So, what was your point again?

Paulb, my point is that if you start with a flawed assumption, your number crunching is not worth the paper its written on. There are many reasons why HIV spread faster in South Africa and Botswana
for instance. The South African prez denied its existence for years,
there are large mining populations, so lots of money and hookers etc,
without condoms HIV will spread like wildfire in those places.

But back to the Vatican. Their spin and lobbying machine is enormous.
They have a seat on the UN. They influence WHO policy, US Congress,etc.
all places where funding for Africa is decided. In short, they obstruct contraception and abortion services for the third world, in any way they can. Just a few links for you, to get my drift:

http://www.religiousconsultation.org/un_talk_Dan_Maguire_Cairo.htm

http://www.cta-usa.org/watch5-99/vatican.html

http://www.population-security.org/29-APP3.html

http://www.seechange.org/media/The Case Against The Vatican.htm

Yabby,
I suppose you wish Africa reflected the same morals as Australia where condoms and the pill are readily available? Where less than 9% of the population is practising Catholics who observe chastity and fidelity in their exclusive relationship as taught by Christ.

AIDS and sexual disease is spread through the population by having multiple sexual encounters. Western immorality is not the epitome of sexual health, as disease is on the exploding increase and will leave our young girls infertile. These indulging with casual encounters young women are not following the teachings of Christ.

The fact is in Australia AIDS in primarily in the homosexual population and in migrants from Africa, and while they do not indulge with the broarder population it can be isolated; and ultimately they will die out.

Philo
I have absolutely nothing to say about this topic but want you to know a couple of things:-
1. I am a male. Priscillian is a Roman male name.
I have named myself after him because his would surely have been my fate if I had lived in the 4th century:-
From Wikipedia:-
Priscillian of Ávila (died 385) was a Spanish theologian and the founder of a party which advocated strong asceticism. He is still a mysterious figure, this first person in the history of Christianity to be executed for heresy (though the civil charges were for the practice of magic). His party, in spite of severe persecution for heresy, continued to subsist in Spain and in Gaul until after the middle of the 6th century. The first writings attributed to him, which had seemed securely lost, were recovered in 1885.

2. You are quite right. I do not write enough about what I believe and I do write a lot about what I don't believe. This is one of my sins and I do ask your forgiveness. I will try harder.

"I suppose you wish Africa reflected the same morals as Australia where condoms and the pill are readily available?"

Well Philo, I live in what you must think is an evil place, called
Western Australia. Few bother to ever go to a church, the mining
industry is booming, so there are mountains of men around, with
far more money then sense.

Brothels are common as men spend their money, condoms are virtually
compulsory. According to Paulb and his number crunching, they should
all be dying by now.

I've just looked up the HIV/Aids statistics for our State. Out of
a population of 2 million, up to the end of 2005, there had been
a total of 1800 cases, including about 200 women.

http://www.avert.org/ausstatg.htm

Perhaps you should compare those figures with Africa and then tell me what works in the real world. Or compare the figures with the US,
the most Xtian Western nation on the planet, where abstinence is preached as the only solution, but their hiv rate is 12x higher then
ours.

HIV will continue to be a problem whilst people continue to eat
chimps, continue to have blood transfusions, continue to stray
sexually. As we all well know, not even many priests are able
to keep their vows of crossing their legs for Jesus, we evolved
to be sexual beings after all.

The best preventative to that is for people to be educated as to what the options are, if they do stray. Its not compulsory,
but educates people if it should happen to them.

The other option is the Africa solution. Tell them nothing, offer
them no options, count them as they die by the millions.
It seems that the Catholic solution is a dismal failure in the
real world, as Catholics die everywhere in Africa

Yabby, it seems you are trying to avoid the numbers. Good luck!

The Catholic population of South Africa is 6.43 percent. That number consists of people who claim to be Catholic, and does not take into account that many of them may be Catholic in name only (like the Daniel Maguire that you refer to above)

Condoms are currently being distributed in Africa ... everywhere in Africa. So, any objection by 'The Vatican' regarding condoms is not the issue. The only possible influence here is influence on the people in Africa. Are you seriously suggesting that there is a massive conspiracy by the Catholic Church that, somehow, means that they are manipulating most of the population of South Africa to not use condoms (but to still have sex whenever they want) ... and they are doing this in spite of the fact that condoms are already being distributed in all parts of Africa and have been for the last couple of decades ... that, the Catholic Church has still managed to cause a massive AIDS epidemic in Africa? You know, since condoms have been introduced into Africa, the problem has, ironically enough, become much worse. But, of course, it is still the problem of the Catholic Church, right? Somehow they manipulated the other 94 percent of the country into believing half of their message - to not use condoms - but not the other half of their message, to abstain from sex before marriage.

You know, I think you have the makings of another Dan Brown conspiracy book.

I actually have the solution to your problem. If "Catholics die everywhere in Africa" as you say, and there are only 2.8 million Catholics in South Africa, and there are well over 10 times that number dying at the moment of AIDS ... well, that must mean that there are no Catholics left, and in fact, there have not been for the last couple of decades.

Maybe the real conspiracy is that there are really no more Catholics left in South Africa!

Here in Australia we can relate more easily to what happens in the US and various European countries than we can to situations in vastly different cultures.

I have asked both Philo and Paul to comment on a website I have repeatedly posted which compares different approaches to sex education for young people, but so far neither of them have been prepared to comment on it. So I'll try again:

http://www.clothesfree.com/pregnancy.html
[NB This website is nudist. I don't know what the attitude of On Line Opinion is to such things, but if you are offended by a very small amount of non-sexual nudity, then don't go to it.]
The article starts:

"Teen-agers in the United States are far more likely to get pregnant and get an abortion than their counterparts in Western European countries.

Planned Parenthood officials believe that's because Europeans talk to their teen-agers about sex differently from Americans, viewing it as a public health issue rather than a moral, religious or political matter."

The indication is that young people in various European countries are given appropriate sex education. They are certainly not denied condoms. Nor are they brainwashed with religious psuedo-morality. Also in Holland and various other European countries, clothes optional beaches are far more common than in the US or in Australia, enabling people to understand that nudity is not necessarily linked to sexuality.

Also appropriate is:

http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07/uk/apprend2.htm

'“parents in the Netherlands take a very pragmatic approach. They know their children are going to have sex, and they are ready to prepare them and to speak with them about their responsibility. This is the key word,” says Mischa Heeger of the Rutgers Foundation. Contraceptives are widely used. According to a NISSO study, 85 per cent of sexually active young people use a contraceptive, and the pill is freely available. The average age of a youth’s first sexual intercourse is 17.7 years.'

We should be using the European approach in Australia and the reason we're not is because of extremist religious interference.

Paulb, I never avoid numbers, if they are meaningful. If they are used to compare apples with oranges however, just to make a point which has no validity, due to many other variables, then I note the agenda of the person trying to make the data fit their case somehow.

No Dan Brown conspiracies either. What we do know is that a worried
pope, concerned with Catholic numbers due to modern contraception,
released his Humanea Vitae and claimed its so called infallibility.
The church is now in a corner. If they change tack they will lose
all credibility, so they plod on relentlessly with their contraception story.

What we've seen is a relentless campaign at all levels, to try to
deny Catholics and non Catholics alike, particularly in Africa,
easy access to cheap and affordable contraception. From burning
condoms in Rwanda, to Catholic bishops telling people that the hiv
virus could penetrate latex, to attempts to deny funding to various
African countries for contraception, the Catholic Chutch has done
the lot. The church seems obsessed with contraception at every level.

Condoms are certainly not as freely and easily available as you suggest. In Uganda, when the price suddenly tripled, that makes it
really hard for really poor people to even think of using them.

Enforcing Catholic agendas does not even need alot of Catholic followers on the ground, if the Church can influence a few politicians in any given country. Note how RU 486 was held up
in Australia for many years, due to the influence of just a couple.
That means that non Catholics also, are affected by Catholic politics,
which is exactly what I am protesting about.

On contraception, the Church has now shot itself in the foot one
more time. Africa meant more less educated followers who might still
believe the dogma, unlike the declining West. Now both Catholics
and non Catholics in Africa are dying, in part due to that obsession
with contraception.

Yabby,
You continue to ignore the fact that sexually transmitted disease is on the increase here in Australia and both condoms and the pill are available. Religious dogma as you claim plays no part in the sexual encounters of multiple partners in Australia. In fact it is exactly your attitudes that promote this position of "free love" with whoever whenever you feel like. Morality is not just a teenage requirement, it affects all society.

However morality covers attitudes far wider than sexual transmitted disease. Corruption in business, selfishness, and injustice are also factors affecting decline in a moral society. Standards must be put in place so less people get ripped off, injured or are treated as second class. What standards would you see represent best the desire of a great society? Holland is not a totally irreligious society, in fact the Christian Democrats have great influence there in politicts.

Yabby,

To use your own words:

"My point is that Catholic dogma is actually responsible for hunger
and suffering in Africa. "

So this is the core of your case.

You blame the Catholic Church for the misfortunes of Africa.

I have recently returned from the UK to Australia. Prior to leaving the UK I was at meetings in a local UK Catholic parish. We were adopting an African Parish to give it money for schools, health care, water, skills and education. We were placing our money and other support on the line. In other words, to raise it from poverty. We we were seeking to put people on their own feet, to be able to raise families in dignity and not make them dependant on first world handouts. The trouble is that you will never recognize the tremendous work the Catholic Church and many other Christian churches do in providing education, health care, local charitable projects and simple support for families. Catholic Priests, Nuns and lay people have given their lives, including their deaths to help people in Africa. You ignore so easily how the Vatican was a champion of the forgiveness of third world debt. Personally I had doubts about the Vatican's approach. I wanted more local government responsibility on the ground (including the current government of Rwanda of whom's effectiveness and honesty I have grave doubts).

I think local African despots have had it too easy to plunder western aid and their countries own resources. I think western governments and banks have acted irresponsibly in their loans using taxpayers and account holders money. Now both are trying to occupy the moral high ground. We conveniently overlook this.

But the Vatican for over thirty years has been more interested in the plight of poverty stricken people. Indeed, debt relief would probably never have been on the first world agenda except for its efforts. The power of the Vatican as an independant soveriegn power was instrumental in lobbying first world governments to come to the party. John Paul II was a leader in that regard.

It appears that the anti-condomists are not prepared to comment on the points raised in my posts. What's the problem? Have you no answers?

Rex,
I have no problems with the use of condoms; I've used them myself within my marriage. They are not the answer to social morality, they offer the very opposite opportunity, and do not stop STD or AIDS. They may reduce some effects, but they are not the cure that you place your whole case upon. In fact I've been involved in a programme that distributed them to teenage boys in Western Sydney. The boys attitude was it does feel the same. So we then decided to distribute them to the girls as they would act more responsible for their own health.

Thanks for your response, Philo. I know from your previous posts that you aren't Catholic, but some of the other posters seem to be and I would appreciate their responses too.

Your work with street kids is certainly commendable, but they're not representative of mainstream Australia. Nor are the young people of your church who make chastity vows and who may or may not be able to keep those vows.

I agree with you that many young people in 'mainstream Australia' exhibit some irresponsible and selfish attitudes in regard to sexual conduct [and in many other ways too]. But I believe that the sensible and workable thing to do is to give them the facts on sexuality, without any religious overtones, and teach them the importance of being responsible for their actions. This is the Dutch approach and the unwanted pregnancy and abortion figures in Holland [and also in some other European countries with similar programs] indicate that this approach works.

Here's an example from my own upbringing. My mother was a Christian woman [Anglican] all her life, but a realist and certainly not extremist.

I was encouraged to take a responsible attitude to life. I remember her telling me, as a teenager, that some parents just told daughters to be careful, but it was just as important to her that I didn't get a girl pregnant, as it was that my sisters didn't get pregnant. She was aware that I knew about sexuality and contraception and relied upon me to be responsible for my actions and to give girls the respect they were entitled to. She never lectured me, or tried to bring religion into it. This was in England and well over 50 years ago, but it sounds like the current European attitude, doesn't it?

As for the relative effectiveness of condoms, both for preventing unwanted pregnancies and STDs, well they're far more effective than the so-called rhythm method or nothing at all! Widespread abstinence outside of established monogamous relationships just isn't going to happen and we may as well accept that, just as the Dutch apparently do.

Philo, the real problem is your mindset. You think that by
lecturing religion, you can make people moral. Has it not
occured to you that the great majority simply see you as
religiously gullible and no matter how much you preach,
you will be ignored by the great majority.

So other approaches are required. Rex made many good points
about the pragmatic approach and why it works. Never forget
that we evolved to be pairbonding creatures, who practise
serial monogomy, with the occasional slip up. That is part
of our genetic make up. That is why there are plenty of couples
without a religious bone in their body who have happy family
lives. If the god approach was dropped in schools and people
learnt to think about morality, relationships, responsibility,
diseases, sex etc, with a more pragmatic approach, you would
be amazed at the results. Threatening with hellfire doesent
work anymore Philo, not in the first world anyhow.

Tony, there are plenty of lay Catholics who do a great deal
of good for others. They are not the problem, the problem
lies at head office. If the Vatican invents dogma that lands
up causing suffering and misery around the globe, you lay
Catholics can try as hard as you like, things won't get better.
You need to see the big picture here, not the little picture.

JP was probably a very nice old man with a big heart, but
sadly he was obsessed with contraception. The ramifications
of that world wide have been enormous, with much pain, hunger
and suffering because of it. When people who have had 8 kids
can't even have the snip, because of Catholic dogma, you have
to start to question it, if you can think at all rationally.
Many Catholics have in fact done so, the majority in fact
disagree with Vatican policy on this issue, yet Rome plods
on regardless. There should be less suffering in the world
Tony, not more, that is my point.

Yabby,

I have seen you say in your posts that the religious lobby is holding up education in Australia, the United States and all throughout South Africa. So, in places where there is a minority Catholic population like Botswana (4%) and Swazliand (5%), the African countries with a huge AIDS problems, it was the Vatican's fault. Funnily enough, the only place where they were not holding up education according to your posts is Uganda, a country which has a majority of Catholics and has a much reduced AIDS problem.

So, the fanatical influence of the Vatican works only in places in Africa where there is a minority Catholic population? The fact that condom usage in Uganda dropped over the time that the incidence of AIDS dropped is just an embarassing addition to this contradiction.

So now, all this talk about relentless campaigns, spin, lobbying, fanatical influence, religious dogma are moot. Such generalising, wrong, and tendentious statements like "US, the most Xtian Western Nation", and such insults like "Your sanctimonious preaching", are all moot.

Everything I have read in your posts points to one big conspiracy theory! Let me guess ... you also believe that the Catholic Church was in league with the Nazis to exterminate Jews (even though they saved over 800,000 of them), that this is proved because the Catholic Church was silent during the holocaust (even though the Allies air-dropped copies of the pope's Encyclical on Germany to raise anti-Nazi sentiment), and the Jews at the time hated the Catholic Church (even though the Israeli orchestra, who refused to play Wagner because he was seen as Hitler's composer, flew to the Vatican to give the pope a private performance in gratitude for what he did to save the Jews)

This "big picture" certainly sounds like a conspiracy. Why not write a book? Clearly the Vatican fanatical influence has got a few holes in it. Just make sure that you move to a majority Catholic country like France or Ireland, where the Vatican "spin and lobbying" machine won't work.

Paulb, personally I take no notice of what happens in Botswana or
Swaziland, as both are such tiny bits of dirt, with populations
of less then a small city, that what comes from over their
borders would have a far greater influence then anything.
Swaziland's king is more obessesed with how many new young wives he
will take on for the year and if aid money will buy him a new
plane or not. The aids debate is far larger then that.

If you want a clearer picture on aids in Uganda, you need to go
beyond Catholic spin weekly. Can't you google? Here is just
one blog which refers to a stack of news reports on what
happened in Uganda, but type in "Uganda condom usage" and see
for yourself.

http://donklephant.com/2006/05/25/abstinence-uganda-hiv-rates-suggest-failure

No need for me to write any books, others have done all that.
Google "Vatican Political influence" and you'll find heaps.

Just a couple:

http://www.population-security.org/cffc-97-02.htm

http://www.population-security.org/index.html

I don't think that the Vatican even tries to deny its political
agenda too much these days, too much has already been exposed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/3147672.stm

exposes how Catholic dogma makes peoples live in the third world
a misery. I guess they think its ok that people should suffer.