"context", huh? the popes remarks weren't "controversial": they were stupid and dangerous and arrogant.

hamilton dances around the core fact, that catholicism is handcuffed by its own obsessive approach to sexuality. it is not that that the pope simply failed to be reasonable. it is that reason is impossible if you're wedded to such god-given nonsense.

an awful leader of an awful, dangerous cult.

The impression I get from Andrew's piece is that the Pope is taking an extreme stance because anything less can and is twisted by others using cases from the margins. If that is the case we should be able to expect better from the Pope. He is not some local pastor with limited training or education, he is the human head of one of the largest religious sects in the world.

Condoms won't solve everything here or elsewhere but they are an important tool in reducing the spread of STD's. Regardless of what "values" are taught or not taught as part of campaigns there will always be those with a different set of values who are not persuaded and who will act accordingly. Not all of them will choose to use condoms but some will find that more agreeable than abstinence or fidelity.

R0bert

The Catholic church has painted itself into a corner.

It was faced with a catch 22 situation.

Either admit that previous teachings and dogma were wrong and try and save lives at the cost of the credibility of the "infallibility" of the church or:

Stick to its guns with respect to dogma and expose itself to being criticised for being cruel and inhuman.

It was a choice between shooting itself in the head or in the foot. staying true to the literal teachings rather than the meaning of the teachings.

It chose the path of genocide instead of reform.

'The more that Church leaders propound in broad terms a Gospel ethic of generous and full living, the more they and the ethic are seen as narrow and uncompassionate.' This sentence makes no sense at all - what 'generous and full living' are we talking about? Generosity to gays and lesbians? Caring about the welfare of a nine year old in Brazil who was pregnant to her stepfather? Compassion for the poor through Liberation Theology? Protecting paedophile priests at the expense of their victims? Arranging Church affairs so there are no legal entities to be sued by victims of paedophile priests?

Perhaps one day the Catholic church will get its collective mind out of our groins and get over its obsession with sex and sexuality, which is none of their business, and get on with being Christian. It might solve the problem of paedophile priests too.

Andrew,
thanks for an interesting analysis of the complicated problem. It is understandable that those who approach the question with an a priori dislike of the Pope will have "overlooked" that the Pope spoke of the DISTRIBUTION of condoms (since he thinks it will encourage promiscuity), not their USE (e.g. in "emergency situations") . One might be against indiscriminate distribution of condoms in Africa but not against their use in appropriate situations (like I am) or be against both (as the pope apparently is, since he seems to be bound by Humanae Vitae) but one should not confuse the two questions.

Everybody agrees about healthy lifestyles for an individual, but the problem of how to make physically fit a particular society with many overweight people is much more complicated. And as far as sexual behaviour is concerned, Africa is certainly "particular".

It is probably an exageration but somebody compared the distribution of condoms in a (promiscuous) African society with the distribution of bullet-proof vests at schools to solve the problem of school shooting: the vest protects the individual who is hit but the distribution of vests is not the right approach to the solution of the problem .

>> It is understandable that those who approach the question with an a priori dislike of the Pope

prior, yes. a priori, no.

>> will have "overlooked" that the Pope spoke of the DISTRIBUTION of condoms (since he thinks it will encourage promiscuity),
>> not their USE (e.g. in "emergency situations") .

george, how much sophistry can you balance on the head of a pin?

In my dictionary, "sophistry" is "the use of fallacious arguments, esp. with the intention of deceiving". My remark was addressed to the author of this article and he might or might not agree with me, but I do not think he felt deceived by it. However I am aware that "sophistry" is the usual accusation used by those who cannot understand the nuances of an argument or point of view and prefer to argue "ad hominem", be it the Pope or e.g. myself.

George it's rather hard to use what's not available.

Opposition to the distribution of condoms because it migtht encourage extramaritial sex sounds somewhat like an environmentalist with an adversion to speeding because of the extra fuel it uses arguing against seat belts in cars because it might encourage speeding. People speed, seatbelts don't create speeding nor do they save every life but they do reduce the risk both for the speeder and for others. It may be that some will feel a bit braver with a seatbelt on drive that bit more foolishly but for the most part seat belt's reduce the risk of deadly consequences from choices which are being made anyway as do condoms.

The pope speaking against condoms is likely to make them harder to obtain therefore less likely to be used when they should be. Those making risky sexual choices are unlikely to change their decision regarding the sex based on the availability or not of a condom but they might use one if it's readily available.

R0bert

The Pope's comment on condoms is often quoted (or, rather, misquoted, even by the Vatican press) out of context. It was part of a paragraph discussing AIDS which urged a holistic approach, including compassion, care, medical intervention, along with the ethical and moral reformation of society, and concluding that merely distributing condoms will not solve the problem of AIDS but "risks" making it worse [by encouraging indiscriminate sex while creating the illusion of safety from the consequences of indiscriminate sex. Several AIDS experts have written in support of this holistic stance by the Pope.

The direct cause of AIDS is infection by a virus. The cause of its spread is engaging in sexual activity outside the boundaries of a monogamous marriage. The use of condoms in such sexual activity, all else being equal, would reduce the spread of aids. However, condoms are not 100% effective. They can leak and they can break. The use of condoms creates the illusion of safety, thus encouraging people, who otherwise would not engage in promiscuous sex because of the fear of pregnancy and the fear of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, to engage in promiscuous sex.

The stance of the Catholic Church has been the same in the US experience as it is in Africa: compassion, care, medical treatment, and moral encouragement to abstain from promiscuous sex. In America the response was not coloured by the fact that most of the victims were homosexuals or intravenous drug users, or both. Sexual orientation, whether it is inherent or chosen, is not the issue. Sexual immorality and druig abuse are the issues, and until they are recognized and addressed, AIDS will be difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate -- in the US or in Africa.

Wheatley,

Your quote of " The use of condoms creates the illusion of safety, thus encouraging people, who otherwise would not engage in promiscuous sex because of the fear of pregnancy and the fear of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, to engage in promiscuous sex." shows that the people setting policy for catholic aid to Africa have absolutely no clue as to the nature of culture in Africa.

Most African cultures have no stigma attached to multiple partners, and sexual intercourse is considered a part of normal social interaction and marriage has very little effect.

The notion that the distribution of condoms has any effect on sexual practice in Africa is laughable.

A change in culture would greatly reduce the HIV problem, but it will probably take several generations.

One effect of the Catholic church telling the local population that condoms don't always work, (as has been found in Southern Africa) is that they stop using them.

With about 2000 Africans dying a day from HIV, The catholic church should wake up to the fact that its policies are killing more people that it helps and become part of the solution and not part of the problem.

Bushbasher

Please show some respect for the leader of my Church. Pope Benedict is not "an awful leader" and the Catholic Church is not "an awful dangerous cult". I love the Pope. His visit to Australia was uplifting and inspirational. His priests throughout the world give their lives to help the poor and suffering. Have you been to Africa to help the sick and dying? Have you given 40 years of your life to run an orphanage in India? Do you spend every day visiting the sick, listening to the lonely and the suffering? Show some respect for people who do. I'm a Catholic but I don't carry on about the leaders of other religions - I try to respect that they follow what they believe to be correct. Turn your scorn to the drug pushers and porn peddlers. Mrs Pierno

mrs pierno, the pope does not limit his actions and call's just to followers of the faith he heads. He makes calls which significantly impact on those outside of your faith. On this issue by opposing access to condoms, not so long ago by supporting threats of denying communion (or similar) against catholic politicians who voted to allow access to abortions.

He does not appear to have taken any obvious action to stop the churches attempts to avoid the consequences resulting from a long and widespread history of child abuse by representatives of the church. As far as I'm aware victims still battle lawyers paid by the church instead of receiving just compensation for abuses carried out by church employee's whilst on the job and supposedly with the knowledge of the ultimate head of the church. The only action which I can see he's taken is to demonstrate that he does not understand the difference between same sex attraction and a sexual interest in children.

Whilst the pope continues to attempt to influence policy and law outside the church and limit the choices available to those who are not part of the church those outside the church have every right to comment on his public stated views.

There is no requirement to only consider the good works, commentators can consider the balance between the good done by some and the evil done by others in the name of the church. How many priests have to visit sick people to make their bishop blocking compensation to abuse victims acceptable. How many lonely people have to be visited to make it to offset each person who dies of aids needlessly because of the pope's adversion to condoms?

R0bert

R0bert,
I am not an expert on Africa but from what I have read, availability of condoms is not a problem; there are many distributors of condoms by those who do not care about what the Pope says or thinks. What he defended was in fact the refusal to distribute condoms as part of the Catholic agencies' fight against AIDS in Africa. He has no power nor legitimacy to speak on behalf of other agencies, nevertheless he has the right to express his opinion like anybody else. Yes, the Pope is envied by many for the respect he enjoys with (most) Catholics - see e.g. Stalin‘s question about the number of divisions he commands.

Truly, he should have used a more diplomatic language when replying to the (provocative) question in the plane. The Vatican expert John L. Allen Jr. suggested something like: "Of course, the Church is deeply concerned about AIDS, which is why a quarter of all AIDS patients in the world are cared for by Catholic hospitals and other facilities. As far as condoms are concerned, our teaching is well-known, but today isn't the right time for discussing it. Instead, I want to focus on my message of hope to the African people.“ Well, this Pope is a professor, not a diplomat.

In general, there are those who have local knowledge of Africa and share the Pope's assessment of the situation, and those experts who strongly disagree with him. I am aware that the second group is much larger than the first one.

Although I can see the Church's point against getting involved in an indiscriminate distribution of condoms, I disagree with those bishops who (by applying Humanae Vitae verbatim) altogether prohibit the use of condoms, including e.g. by a married couple or as a “safety net” in certain situations “beyond control“. (As far as I know this was the first time that this Pope mentioned condoms explicitly during his pontificate, though he apparently does not want/dare to rescind the strict, anachronistic, rulings of his predecessors). Otherwise I agree with what you were saying with your allegory.

George the allegry is not perfect but it fitted well enough. I don't know african cultures well enough to make informed comment either. I suspect that if church opposition to condoms carries any weight it will impact on how easily they are obtainable when needed in a rush.

As for the impact on believers I'm reminded of Tony Abbot's youthfull choices which hit the media a few years ago, have the sex but skip the condom. I don't know if the choice to not use a condom was religiously inspired or not but I got the impression that it was. Plenty of catholics have sex outside the bounds of marriage. Some appear to decide not to make the sin worse by using a condom.

Not a lot of sense toi it but when it comes to sex humans are not always at their most logical.

R0bert

W. Wheatley Wrote:

"The cause of its spread is engaging in sexual activity outside the boundaries of a monogamous marriage"

I wonder how the virus knows whether a [monogamous] couple is married?

R0bert,
>> Plenty of catholics have sex outside the bounds of marriage. Some appear to decide not to make the sin worse by using a condom.<<

Well, I certainly have never met a Catholic who would think the use of condom would make “fornication” a graver sin. What you probably mean is that carrying a condom in your pocket makes the “sinful act“ premeditated, rather than on the spur of the moment. Like when you stab a person it makes a difference in court whether you brought the knife with you, or just grabbed one lying next while losing control of yourself.

Robert - its been 10 years since I left Africa, but Shadow Minister is right: trying to apply our cultural norms in Africa is laughable. When I left there was certainly no difficulty about the availability of condoms: huge bowls of them were set out in chemist shops, workplaces, clinics - they were ubiquitous and anyone could pick up handfulls if they so wished.

The African women did so wish. But the African male considers them an insult to his manhood. No matter if a man was a professional or a laborer, in the bedroom he reigned supreme. One of the first things an African man tells you is how many children he has.

Until the time I left marital rape was not even recognised.

His sexual promiscuity - as seen by Western standards - and his children - from whatever source; and usually not supported by him in any way, shape or form - are his raison d'etre and define who he is. Which is also one of the reasons for the abject poverty in which many women and children live.

No matter what religious leaders and others would like to think, Western religions are ALWAYS underlaid by a person's...African-ness. I could give you pages of anecdotal evidence to support this and, no doubt, given time, references to many of theses, books and papers written about it.

And therein lies my own feelings about the Popes remarks: he has advisers, speech-makers, diplomatic experts and cultural advisers at his fingertips. Why was he so unprepared as to make such naive and downright silly public statements? Hell, surely the man himself has access to the Internet and could even have scouted out a bit of info for himself.

I don't want to make pronouncements on the Catholic religion per se: but the sheer stupidity of any world leader going there knowing so little that such a stupid blunder could be made beggars belief.More importantly, it undermines years and years of work pushing boulders uphill by those working against AIDS.

The Pope reportedly exerts a great deal of influence in Africa and he goes and wastes this valuable opportunity to do some real good.

The spread of AIDs is linked in some significant degree to RAPE, not condoms.

On his list of priorities of problems he must address, RAPE was not
placed higher than the use of condoms.

At least the use of condoms, though it might indicate some level of promiscuity, also implies some sense of social responsibility and consent.

If a major and influential religious leader doesn't act to condemn RAPE and to protect children (who are then infected with AIDS), who will.

<"The latest reports from the Medical Research Council, Medicins Sans Frontieres and the Treatment Action Campaign warn that most of the child-bearing age population of South Africa is now being infected with HIV-AIDS because of the rape epidemic. Rapists are seeking out increasingly younger victims, so even the smallest little girls now are getting HIV-infections from rapists.">

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/264771

Pynchme,

The article you provided the link is an author's opinion which gives no references what so ever. It also does not account for all the men that have HIV.

Also most of the women with HIV have not been raped.

Most HIV transmission is through consensual condom free sex, and the fact that condom usage is low is primarily because there are Pr*cks running around saying that they are not always effective, the pope being one of them.

Dear SM,

I didn't say "most"; I said, "...to some significant degree...".

The author refers to enough research and reports that you may check the sources yourself.

There are plenty of sources of alternative information as well that echo the same information; as well as noting the apallingly high rates of sexual assault.

I consider rape, especially of children, much more offensive than promiscuity.

Pynchme,

There are no references to any research which suggests that there are 500 000 rapes per year.

The SA bureau of statistics on rape show that there are between 20 000 and 25 000 rapes reported each year.

Surveys of women reveal that the reporting of rape is low and that the rapes are estimated to be between 55 000 and 100 000.

Worst case scenario, with 20% HIV positive males and an infection rate per rape est to be about 20% (probably closer to 10%) this would give 4000 cases of HIV in SA due to rape.

Considering that there are about 600 000 people infected per year, this number is not statistically significant.

Nearly all HIV infections in Africa are from heterosexual consensual sex.

Condoms save lives.

Links with real research:

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/global?page=cr09-sf-00

http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/statsdownload.asp?ppn=Rape&SCH=2350

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18743575

Shadow Minister -

While I agree that the figures quoted by Pinchme have no provenance and so may be spurious, I also have very little faith in the official statistics either.

As a journalist in S.A. and also as a volunteer Hospice worker there I know first hand that such statistics are unreliable. The figure of an 18% overall HIV infection rate for 2008 is, in fact, lower than the estimated rate ten years ago. Which is clearly not possible.

All HIV statistic in RSA must actually be regarded as estimates: you must acknowledge:-

a) that thousands of deaths directly attributable to HIV are entered into death certificates with cause of death given as the final illness e.g. pneumonia.

b) that many rural communities refuse to acknowledge HIV,

c) that thousands of HIV infections go unrecorded.

While I agree with you as to the main causes of infection, I also think that Pynchme has a point too.

With no rape crisis centres outside of major cities, with the societal attitudes to rape, police insensitivity, and the very real threats of further violence, the fact that rape is endemic throughout Southern Africa is virtually unknown to the rest of the world. Of the many women I knew personally who had been raped, only one - a minor who was publicly pack raped - was reported.

As journalists we were specifically instructed that rape - along with car thefts and break-ins, were not classified as "news" by the early 'Nineties. Some local papers ran a little statement which gave the weekly numbers of these crimes in a particular area: most did not bother. The rape of a black woman became "non-news" long before that.

So yes, I fully support your comments, but I also think that Pynchme's opinion is valid too, and that transmission of HIV through rape is not a negligable factor.

Romany,

I don't disagree with you at all. In fact whilst I say the figures are "statistically insignificant", it does not mean that the numbers are not horrific, and I was not trying to imply that rape and HIV subsequently caused was not a huge issue and significant in its own right.

When I took the official stats I doubled them. And when I compared them to the 600 000 HIV cases I nearly trebled them again to 10 000, and this figure is still so small comparatively that rape cannot be used as an excuse for trying to stop the distribution of condoms.

Shadow Minister - I apologise - it seems I misunderstood.

Just out of curiosity though: if you had to put a figure down to represent the probable numbers of HIV+ persons in RSA, what would your personal assessment be?

Personally, I don't think we have a hope in hell of ever knowing for sure. But I'd be interested in knowing if my experiences have led me to have an unduly pessimistic guesstimate of my own.

SM somehow we have a lapse in understanding.

You say, "...that rape cannot be used as an excuse for trying to stop the distribution of condoms." <- what do you mean?

Rape as an excuse to stop condom distribution? I can't imagine that many rapists bother wearing condoms for the event; so I don't grasp any logic in your comment.

Anyway, I am all for condom distribution; if that's at all relevant.

I didn't connect the two issues of condom distribution and rape.

My point was that on the list of separate 'evils' that the Pope could have addressed, he could have chosen to exert his influence against rape, since the recorded rate (alone) in SA is so high.

That many victims are doubly injured by contracting AIDs from the rapist was incidental to my point, though it's a significant and tragic issue as well.

(Hiya Romany - lovely to see your posts again. I'm just having a little return visit but a bit too busy to pursue anything much for long. I lurk occasionally and that's going to be about it for the next couple of months).

Pynchme,

I am sorry if I mis interpreted your meaning, but in a forum on the pope condom and aids, your comment of:

"The spread of AIDs is linked in some significant degree to RAPE, not condoms."

would appear to be open to interpreting as support for the idiotic stance of the pope.

If this was not your intention I apologise.

Pynchme -

Just a pertinent anecdote on your comment about rapists not stopping to put on condoms:

We women were all advised to carry a condom in our purses at all times specifically for that contingency! I, like most of my friends, duly did so - but we all used to have hilarious sort of gallows-humour discussions of exactly how we would persuade would-be rapists to comply.

That said however, I do know of an 84 year old woman who not only persuaded her 20 year old rapist to do so - she even drank tea with him afterwards and reduced him to tears! Truth is indeed stranger than fiction sometimes.