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