Christopher Dickey
Paris Bureau Chief and Middle East Regional Editor for Newsweek magazine

Christopher Dickey

Dickey is Paris Bureau Chief and Middle East Regional Editor for Newsweek magazine. He was a foreign correspondent in Cairo and C. America for the Washington Post.

 ALL POSTS

AIDS, Condoms and Dogma

“Well-intentioned religious believers”? That phrase, I confess, makes me deeply uneasy. In practice the selflessness of such people can be awe inspiring. In horrible conditions, their powerful faith gives them the strength to endure, to comfort, to heal. But at a policy level when they see practical problems through the narrow prism of dogma the results can be shocking.

The example of the Catholic Church, with its vast human resources and intense convictions, is particularly striking. It is committed to honor and preserve life. But how best to do that? General principles are easy enough to pronounce, but specific cases are the source of enormous anger and misunderstanding, both inside and outside the church, and none has been more contentious than Vatican opposition to the use of condoms to fight AIDS.

So when news broke in Italy last year that Pope Benedict XVI might reconsider the church’s stand in the case of married couples where one partner is infected, a momentous change seemed to be in the offing. Some commentators, noting this pope’s background as John Paul II’s theological enforcer, made analogies with “Nixon in China.” Only someone with Benedict’s reputation for conservative orthodoxy, they suggested, could change church practice on this issue while reconciling it with doctrine that’s been firmly established since the 1968 papal ban on all contraception. But nothing like that has happened.

As with so many issues considered at the Vatican, where cardinals in past centuries were accused of debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, the condom issue is fraught with such complexities that even Benedict might have trouble sorting them out.

“This is one of those cases where it’s really anybody’s call at this point,” Father Thomas D. Williams, dean of theology at Regina Apostolorum University in Rome told me at the time. “Bishops, moral theologians -- everybody who’s seriously involved in this is really divided. I don’t know that the pope will find either side sufficiently convincing.”

The flurry of speculation began when the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers, headed by Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, decided to consider the issue as part of a broad look at several questions of bio-ethics. "My department is carefully studying it, along with scientists and theologians entrusted with drawing up a document about the subject," Barragán told the Italian paper La Repubblica.

In Africa, where the Catholic Church and its affiliated charities often play a vital role delivering health care to the poor and solace to the dying, the issue of how best to address the raging epidemic of AIDS is especially critical. The church preaches abstinence as the best prevention. Many within church organizations contend that condoms give a false sense of security while encouraging dangerous promiscuity. But non-Catholic health workers often regard that position as unconscionable, and see the debate as one in which the theoretical possibility of preventing life with condoms has to be weighed against the statistical probability of losing millions of lives without them.

According the United Nations program on HIV/AIDS prevention (UNAIDS), “Condoms are the only devices currently available that protect against the sexual transmission of HIV, and they are a mainstay of HIV prevention programs. The male latex condom is the single most efficient technology available to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.” Indeed, one of the great problems for those fighting the spread of AIDS is, precisely, finding ways to protect wives from being infected by their husbands. According to UN statistics, “only 4.9 percent of married women of reproductive age use condoms. Many women find it hard or impossible to negotiate with their partners to use condoms.”

Yet, as Williams explained, church doctrine has held that use of condoms within marriage is a particular “moral evil” equivalent to oral sex, anal sex, mutual masturbation or any other act in which sperm is released without the possibility of procreation. “One fundamental question is whether this is something that is always wrong or not -- what in church lingo we would describe as ‘intrinsically’ evil,” said Williams. “It’s almost counterintuitive, because the church sees no ‘added’ evil with the use of condoms in cases of prostitution, or casual relationships with multiple partners or homosexual relationships. Even though the church would never say this in principle, on a pastoral level anybody would say if you are going to a prostitute, it’s already a moral evil, but use a condom.”

It’s precisely because what the church calls “the marital act” is supposed to be “open to life” that the use of a condom is seen as a sin among couples who otherwise have followed church teachings about the sanctity of marriage and fidelity. “I know, you say that’s where you want to give people a break,” said Williams, an American moral theologian. “But that’s the way it is – because of the sacredness of the sexual act as something to be defended and protected in its integrity, and it is only to be protected that way within marriage.”

Thus at the Vatican a major part of the debate is about whether the condom changes the nature of marital sex so fundamentally that it is considered evil. “What makes the sexual act what it is, is the man depositing his sperm in the woman’s body,” said Williams. “When you are using a condom the man is depositing his sperm within a latex sack.” Some theologians contend this is “overly focused on the physicality of what is happening,” he adds, but if the church holds that sex with a condom is not a “marital act,” then like other forms of sex “it would be morally out of bounds for all Catholics.”

Many in the church are aware that such arguments seem “arcane,” said Williams. “Ninety percent of people, even Catholics, don’t have a clue about theses things.” Yet about one thing there is no question: these are matters of life and death.

By Christopher Dickey  |  December 13, 2007; 11:19 AM ET  | Category:  Religion & Leadership
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Muslim Dirty Laundry | Next: Faith is One Door to Good Works

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



"Sailmaker:
The Catholic Church teaches that it cannot interpose itself between one's own conscience and God. In this matter and others, do what most Catholics do in America: consider thoughtfully what the Church has said, and then act as one's own conscience dictates. In the end, my own soul will have to duke it out with Jesus over the disposition of my ultimate salvation, not with the Church."

Right you are, Sailmaker. Many Catholic theologians once taught that, based on an apparently long historical precedent. The Pope (JP Deuce) removed them all or forbid them to teach in Catholic universities.

As to being anti-Catholic – Duh! But when the last two and one half Popes trashed the consensus from the Second Vatican Council of John XXIII, weren’t they being anti-Catholic, since that is the ultimate authority of the Church?

Sorry, Zygotes are not people. If they are, then God is the great abortionist, since the great majority end up being miscarriages. No rational person can equate an abortion – spontaneous (i.e. God-given) or not – to the horrible death of a human being from AIDS.
But I take that comment to mean that you agree that that the Roman Catholic prohibition on the use of condoms to prevent disease IS genocide, just not the greatest one in your opinion. Plus, I am totally confused as to what using condoms – possibly one of the most powerful tools to prevent unwanted conceptions that are likely to end in abortion – have to do with abortion. No one is even talking about abortion here.

Incidentally, there is a long-held Catholic theological position, just like the right to individual conscience, which taught that human life (and the supposed infusion of the soul) began at quickening, that has recently been suppressed, just like the right to individual conscience.

Are the pro-condom people saying that the end – saving millions of lives – justifies the means – using a piece of rubber that hurts no one? First, the means is harmless and does not need to be justified. Second, yeah, saving millions of lives does justify that. Assuming that the end can never justify the means is just a short cut way of not thinking, or trying to wash your hands of the moral responsibility to make choices.

And yeah, I do understand the church’s purported rationale for opposing contraception (although I think that Rae had it right and it is a modern rationalization for a primitive understanding of biology): Procreation equals co-creation. A man and a woman in a Christian (i.e. Catholic) marriage procreating engage with Christ, as they are united in Christ, in an act of co-creation with God like that which God the creator performed when he created the world. Anything that frustrates this purpose is profane. Sorry. That pretty myth doesn’t outweigh the deaths of millions.

And no, no one is saying the RC Church created AIDS. It is merely responsible for helping spread it and causing the infection of innocent men, women, and children of infected women. (For that matter, if condoms also prevent the spread of AIDS to non-innocent men and women, I am all for that too. Is someone saying that they deserve to get AIDS because they committed a sexual sin? Then how about their babies?) The person who grows the dope is to blame for drug addiction, as is the person who takes the drugs. Does that mean the middle man, who is “merely” the dope dealer, is innocent because if the user didn’t use, there would be no problem?

Posted by: Steve | January 3, 2008 2:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

REMEMBER: Voting for HilLlary Clinton, is same as re-Voting for Prez B. Clinton.

This is 'illegal' , aka PROXY President by Nepotism! Presidential 'Term-Limits' are being violated. Do not be Stupid! The Communist have infiltrated Sweet Sweet U.S.A's Government of 'THE PEOPLE!

So, Please do not vote for 'Hillary & Bill Clinton! Thank You!

IMPORTANT , Sweet Sweet America:

A Russian Communist Conspiracy in Sweet Sweet America "i" now EXPOSED!

HARK Humates of America!:

BEWARE:

Senator 'Chuck Schumer' (of N.Y., a 'Senior Senator) is been "BRIBED' by the RUSSIAN-INTERNATIONAL-MAFIA! Example:

He, Mr. Schumer et al, via "L*U*K OIL" got money from them, (via ex-'GETTY gas station(s) moguls, now turned "Russian Mafia Government Front" as Owners in America. Please call FBI & CIA!] and of Which "Chucky-Boy' Senator SCHUMER promoted , knowingly in such a great 'COMMY' Conspiracy!

Forgive me, but it is true!!!!!!!!!!

ATT: You get pais per "CLICK' , then pay 'US' [free Spirited Bloggers] for Stealing OUR ideas/Writings!

Note: You must Post [ALL & not SENSORED] or repost {hours of WORK (free, but NO more!) thinking & typing) what You-Failed to post. There was No Cuseses. Everything was acoording to 'YOUR' rules, not mine.

Yes, 34,000 people a year in AMERICA , the sweet, comit Suicide. So Better they Volunteer for Army & die Protecting the great REPUBLIC & FEDERATION of "Space-Ship" Planet EARTH against SuperStupidStitious Pre-Apocalyptic BIBLIO, QURANO, GEETAO, MANIACS.

WE "i"nellegent "i"ntellectuals "i"ndividuals. aka, HUMATES (not Humans, as JOKTANIAN, not PELEGIAN,Sporades (Wom) & Mavorites (Man)) Live on space-Ship Earth! aka S.S. GAIA, S.S. GEOID, S.S. TELLUSng Something instead!!

So please post ALL that you have sieved/selected & sensored! Not jus "i", but many many Bloggers!

NOTICE: "NEWS-WEEK" & WASHINGTON POST & CO, et al,;

IT is about your ten 'FACE's. not about our one honest Face's!

You will be sued , in 'Class' like, in Federal Court very very Soon!

not just "i" , but to many you say,

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blol owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blol owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blol owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blol owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blol owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blol owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blol owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blol owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blol owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blol owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blol owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"our comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner"


VOTE:

'NO' to News-Papers Company's owning {your Kids minds future & yours too] against them owning T.V Stations & Satellite Station!

SAY: 'NO' , via F.C.C., to News Paper Company's! 'NO' Broad Casting! Say or Vote, No!

And, Say 'NO' to allowing Religious Satellite Televangelical(s) to broadcast their 'EVIL' Anti-Society Story's & Behavior's too!

Thanks, Eclati-On (nevr Off's) American Mon's & Monsa's!

Take Back your almost Hijacked Nation! Take back Sweet sweet America! Now!


Posted by: We are taking back the World, not just America! Ya. | December 16, 2007 9:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Good bye Newsweek, Washington Post, Editor & POST et al:
Good bye every body!

Att: Washington Post, Newsweek & Company; You Suck!

Warning: Do not reproduce, deseminate, plagerize, copy, for profit or gain 'ANY of my "POST" on any onf these 'Onfaith' or "onreligion" bloggs, since MARCH.19/20th of 2007 until NOW! Dec.15th.2007!

Vote: ECLATi-ON Party for GRIDARIAN DEMOCRACY & TRANSFINITE CIVILIZATION 2012 & beyond! Bye Yo ALL!

Posted by: Anonymous | December 15, 2007 11:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

CAN'T WAIT FOR YOUR IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF ISLAM, AND WHAT, IF ANY, ABOUT THAT FAITH MAKES YOU "DEEPLY DISTURBED".

Posted by: roran55 | December 15, 2007 10:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Sentence fragment - should have been

If God gave the command to "be fruitful and multiply" and there was no such thing as death before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, where exactly would the products of all this fruitful multiplying live had Adam and Eve not eaten of the forbidden fruit and death not come into existence?

Posted by: lepidopteryx | December 15, 2007 7:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Just curious:

If God gave the command to "be fruitful and multiply" and there was no such thing as death before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, where exactly would the products of all this fruitful multiplying live? Land mass is a limited commodity. Would God have simply kept enlarging the earth to hold more living things? Or would he at some point have put a stop to the fruitfulness of the multiplicative act? And if he did so, wouldn't that be a form of birth control?

Posted by: lepidopteryx | December 15, 2007 7:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Terra:
You actually try to understand JOZEVZ's posts?
You are a better person than I am! I gave up on those a while ago.. . They will need to come up with a web version of that Star Trek "universal translator" for those.

Posted by: Dr.R.P. | December 14, 2007 11:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gabe,

We're talking about AIDS here, not stoning people for working on the Sabbath. Try to stay on point.

Casual sex, premarital sex, sex outside marriage, homosexual sex, and sex with the use of condoms have done nothing in regards to AIDS/HIV except increase the number of infected persons. These are the facts and they are not in dispute.

Abstinence and sex within the marriage would wipe AIDS/HIV off the face of the map. These are the fact and they are not in dispute.

Abstinence and sex within the marriage would virtually eliminate new cases of STDs in the U.S. Again, these are the facts and they are not in dispute.

Christianity has provided a solution to the AIDS/HIV epidemic. The only thing this solution costs to you, as an individual, is your inherent selfishness. Free will, man. Free will.

Posted by: Brambleton | December 13, 2007 5:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ahhhh, if only Christians adhered to the Bible in matters of sex. If only.

Yeah, if only they adhered to that women wouldn't be allowed to work while they were on their period, ahem, excuse me, I meant to say "monthly flow." Most of the Letivican laws governing sex and related matters were written then humans were largely ignorant of biology. The laws were also written by men with an agenda.

To me, it seems stupid for people to follow the teachings of a church that not only rejects the opinions of women but also rejects those of homosexuals and lesbians. So, only straight men are allowed to call the shots for all the Catholics. And, we've learned that many of those "straight men" are in fact child rapists. Personally, I choose not to take spiritual advice from child rapists or the Church that protects and aids them.

Message to all you Catholics: You are placing all your spiritual eggs in one truly dicey basket.

Posted by: Frank | December 13, 2007 5:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I've got bad news for the Vatican: many of us have decided that the Vatican's moral authority is suspect. I believe that "they mean well", but they've shown too many times that they just don't have a clue about how "life" really works, only (maybe) how it ought to work in an ideal world. Rome (and its branches) has been wrong about the (mis-handling of pedophile priests; Rome was wrong about Galileo; they are wrong about condoms and contraception generally. We humans are forced to use the brains that God gave us rather than let someone else do out thinking for us ... [author left in a smoldering pile of ashes, having been struck down by a lightning bolt from the sky - NOT]

Posted by: Mark In Irvine | December 13, 2007 4:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The argument that "if we only followed the Bible everything would be so much better" is an abandonment of common sense. I'm sure that if we started stoning Sabbath-breakers we would have fewer work-a-holics, fewer stress-related heart-attacks, etc. Unfortunately, we'd also behave like a bronze-age rabble. Commonsense and self-respect says that sex is enjoyable (even, dare I say it, the premarital, solitary, and, for some, homosexual varieties) And just as healthy people occasionally eat sugary foods, a portion of responsible, non-procreative sex generally only hurts those who slavishly adhere to dictates foisted on a people from a period quite different from our own modern, and vastly more equal and rational, world. Get over it; God's not going to kill you!

Posted by: Gabe | December 13, 2007 4:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Let me preface by stating that, as a Baptist, I didn't know that the Catholic church is against the use of condoms for married individuals. If that's the case, I find it to be a little absurd.

Of course, if Christians and non-Christians would adhere to the Bible in regards to sexual activity (i.e., no sex before marriage, no sex outside marriage, etc.), then what would the effect be on HIV (excluding blood tranfusions and drug users)?? My guess is that is would decrease dramatically or decrease dramatically.

What about STDs? The U.S. sees 12 million NEW cases each year, with approx. 67% of those hitting young adults (age 25 or less). Hmmmm. If we followed the Bible, what might happen to the number of cases of STDs? I'm guessing that it would either go down, or go down.

Seems like an obvious solution to me.

Posted by: Brambleton | December 13, 2007 4:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

JOZEVZ,

Your posts are very difficult for me to make heads or tails of. If you really want to be read..and I take it as much as your write you do...please do so simply so that half blind old ladies like me can read it.

terra

Posted by: Terra Gazelle | December 13, 2007 3:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Louiesully wrote:

"...why is any kind of family planning (such as the rhythm method) allowed?"

The rhythm method is pushed specifically because it DOES NOT WORK. A friend of mine was dating a nearly devout Catholic girl in college. She insisted on the rhythm method and they ended up married by their sophomore year. She stuck with rhythm, and they ended up with three children when they only wanted one.

--------------------------------------

"Suppose a wife has a medical condition where it is physically dangerous for her to become pregnant. Is contraception allowed in such a case, or does the church recommend abstinence in this case?"

NO, the Catholic Church would prefer that the woman die rather than break with Church dogma and use contraception. And the Catholic Church would prefer that she die rather than deny her husband his access to her goodies.

I think tuba ligation is acceptable. A vasectomy, which is actually a safer procedure, is not because, again, the Catholic Church is f-ed up. In most cases where there's a choice, the Church prefers that them woman die instead of the man because the man can earn more money and give it to the church to fund all that grand living in Rome.

Posted by: Frank | December 13, 2007 3:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I can only contend from all the evidence before me is that the Catholic Church and the Vatican are completely corrupt institutions. And, the Pope is a self-righteous asinine jerk. How else can you explain the church's willingness to sacrifice lives all in the name of dogma?

And, how is it that these MEN who mostly claim to have never had sex with a woman can have such intimate knowledge of it?

Yeah, Pope RAT-zinger, go ahead and let your people die. Everyone knows you're little more than a stinking Nazi anyway. Perhaps that's why you let the poor and dark-skinned people of Asia and Latin America died of AIDS while you and your white friends live it up in Italy. Yes, Nazi Pope, let the poor dark-skinned children of the world die just like you let the Jews of Europe die while your church did nothing to stop the killing. Oh, and let's not forget that you were once on the Nazi payroll because YOU certainly never forgot all that junk about the German Master Race.

Posted by: Frank | December 13, 2007 2:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Terra:

I agree with you. That is what I was implying in my comment about proceeding further in legalizing prostitution. I probably should have been more specific.

Posted by: Dr.R.P. | December 13, 2007 1:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The Catholic Church teaches that it cannot interpose itself between one's own conscience and God. In this matter and others, do what most Catholics do in America: consider thoughtfully what the Church has said, and then act as one's own conscience dictates. In the end, my own soul will have to duke it out with Jesus over the disposition of my ultimate salvation, not with the Church.

Posted by: Sailmaker | December 13, 2007 1:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I have a question about the Catholic church and family planning: if contraception and condoms are considered wrong because they are used to knowingly interfere with a couple conceiving, then why is any kind of family planning (such as the rhythm method) allowed? Don't they also have the purpose of avoiding conception, even if they are less reliable? Not trying to be sarcastic; I truly don't understand the distinction.

Suppose a wife has a medical condition where it is physically dangerous for her to become pregnant. Is contraception allowed in such a case, or does the church recommend abstinence in this case?

Posted by: louiesully | December 13, 2007 1:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LONGBOW:

Your comment indicates that you might not understand the difference between "correlation" and "cause and effect". Let me give you a hypothetical example:

***************
A study is done that shows a definite relationship between foot size and intelligence. Those having large feet are statistically shown to be smarter than those with smaller feet.

Upon further study, it is realized that children have smaller feet than adults, and are also not as smart, hence foot size does not affect intelligence, but it certainly is correlated with it. So there is no need to go out and buy that K-TEL foot stretcher (as seen on TV!).
****************

I am not commenting on whether studies like the one you mention have value or not. I am saying that these kinds of studies go on all the time, and people tend to quote the results with a lack of understanding of what the results imply. Do you also believe that a couple living together before marriage makes it more likely that they will get a divorce? Or that making your children listen to classical music will help them be better at math? Both of these commonly held beliefs started with studies that showed correlations, but later it was realized that they were just correlations, and not cause and effect (the former was used by our pre marriage counselor as a warning about living together before we were married - which we were. He was very surprised when I explained that he was talking about a correlation, and not cause and effect. I am still happily married after many years).

Your marriage counselor friend sounds like he/she might know what he/she is talking about.

Don't even get me started on that chicken and egg thing. There is a definite answer to that also!

Posted by: Dr.R.P. | December 13, 2007 1:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

As for procreation, the day the Pope comes over to babysit, then I guess he has a right to tell women how many kids to have.

MOM and DAD had better be the last word on how many kids are born because those two and those two alone will be paying for it with their time, money and sometimes health until they draw their last breath on this earth. To leave a decision like that up to people who have never so much as raised a chia pet is ignorant.

Posted by: Kay | December 13, 2007 1:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

If you are a woman, and you don't use a condom, you can expect STDs, and/or pregnancy. That's from ANY man. Your husband, your boyfriend, a stranger. It's just common sense.

What about men who infect their faithful wives because of cheating or previous relationships?
That's sin on the man's part, but his spouse is now paying the price. What's the church's stance on that? Is that fair? Does that make sense? Why don't preachers preach to men and women to go out and get tested? Why don't men hold each other to a higher standard? You'd think men would want other men to know it's not okay to go out and cheat on their wives if for no other reason but to protect THEIR wives and daughters from these sorts of men.

Teaching abstinence without teaching anything else is just plain stupid. That's like pointing to drowning kids and saying, "See? That's why you shouldn't go into the water" instead of actually teaching anyone how to swim.

The fact is, sex isn't any more wrong than going to the bathroom or sneezing. We are living beings. That's how we procreate, have fun, and show affection. Get over it. It's not evil. It's evil to perpetuate the idea that it's evil until you wear a white dress for 200 people and have a party. Then you are protected from a virus? Your brand new husband can give you HIV just as fast as a prostitute can. EVERYONE should be tested.

The church should promote abstinence and common sense hand in hand. I believe if a man will not be tested for STDs and HIV for his partner, then he does not care for her well-being. If women learned this early, we could avoid a lot of pain and illness.

Posted by: Kris | December 13, 2007 1:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It's unfortunate that Mr. Dickey uses the word "dogma" to describe the church's teaching on contraception. He's right, though, that it's treated as though it's dogma; something that is central to one's faith, such as the death and resurrection of Jesus. Frankly, dogma applies pretty much to the Nicene Creed. The rest is theological hair-splitting.

The origins of the church's teachings on human sexuality had to do with an early understanding of human biology. It was thought that the "seed" produced by the man consisted of a teeny, tiny little man--called a homunculus. The woman's uterus, where this "little man" wound up, was merely the receptacal for the "little man" to grow. Infected by prevailing Greek philosophy (the Stoics) that pleasure associated with the sexual act was redeemed only by being open to the pain and suffering (remember Eve?) of bearing a child, the Christians spun a web that is with the Catholic Church today. They also were infected by Aristotle's view that only the male could pass on the "virtues" of humanity; women were less than fully human because of their defective biology.

Since the seed of the man contained a fully human "man", spilling the male seed on the ground in a deliberate effort to keep from impregnating a woman was seen as a ghastly crime against God.

These early understandings of human biology still influence the church's understanding of the "intrinsic" evil of contraception. The teaching has been softened somewhat, to allow women to use birth control pills if the primary intent is to regulate a difficult menstrual cycle. One can infer (and some bishops have) that if the primary purpose of using a condom is to prevent the spread of a death-dealing virus, then the principle of unintended consequences (i.e., preventing impregnation) is ruled as an unfortunate consequence of condom use.

Why the majority of bishops still stubbornly insist that Catholic institutions may not provide condoms or education about preventing spread of this horrible disease beyond "don't do it," is perhaps best found in what might happen next, if they take that step.

It's the law of unintended consequences. If one can question one element of strongly held beliefs, why maybe the pope and Thomas are wrong about the suitability of women priests. After all, the first excuse for barring women from the priesthood was their supposedly defective nature.


Posted by: Rea Howarth | December 13, 2007 1:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Having noticed a lot of support for Michael Houst's post, I'll offer a criticism: I think the heart of his "greatest good" argument is that the "ends justify the means." This principle can be as dangerous in the area of human sexuality as it is in the area of medical experimentation on human beings, or a host of other individual life and public policy decisions.

Posted by: Longbow | December 13, 2007 1:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Michael D. Houst,
Very well said...

Dr.R.P.,

The prostitutes in Vegas, Germany, France and in other places where it is legal and health certified is not as hard on the working girls at all. They are protected and have a choice about their bodies and livlihood.

It is true, in the ancient days the temples of the middle east had Temple prostitutes that once or twice a year celebrated the fertility of the earth. Kedeshah is hebrew for cult prostitute...and in the bible, Tamar became a Kedeshah to get an heir from her father in law; her linage became the line of David. She became a Kedeshah in service to a Pagan deity...probably Ishtar.

Anyway...legalizeing prostitution would make sure that the girls would be healthy and safe.
I am all for it. Let the wives beat the heck out of their hubbies for visiting them. It happens and the girls are used and abused and the John's get off.

terra

Posted by: Terra Gazelle | December 13, 2007 12:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

This issue of condoms for married people with AIDS is not the main one that the Church sees.

The real issue is the whole sexual revolution.

Let me ask anyone out there who is in favor of abortion, birth control, and pre-marital sex. Is human kind better off or worse off with all the divorce, sexually transmitted diseases, broken homes, emotional problems, teenage parents, kids being raised by single parents and abortions?

Yes we had all these problems before the sexual revolution, but not as much. This is hard for us to hear in this age of "do as you please," but I think it's the truth.

The question for us is how to get back to living lives that are stable and don't create more problems for us.

This is what the Church is wrestling with. It's not a matter of dogma trumping practical consideration. The real issue is can we support a solution to one problem (condoms for AIDS infected married people) that will most likely create more problems in the future, such as more people with AIDS because of failed condoms and promiscuity.

Posted by: Mark | December 13, 2007 12:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

DR.R.P.:

First, if you'll note, I said the subject needs more study. Do you foresee no study method by an independent group that could possibly establish or disprove a cause and effect relationship? What about looking at couples who start off contracepting and then switch to non-contraceptive methods of birth regulation? How do these couples correspond to couples who stick with contraception? I'm not sure if these are adequate, but this subject seems well worth studying, particularly given all the research on how harmful easy divorce has been to society, as a general matter.

Second, your point sounds a little like a comment a friend once made about the meaning of a potentially extremely low divorce rate among couples who use NFP. My friend, who does some marriage counseling and supports contraceptive use, accepted the low divorce rate from their own experience. But they rejected a cause and affect relationship because couples who use NFP tend to be more "mature and serious about marriage" to begin with. I still wonder whether that's like asking whether the chicken or the egg came first.

Posted by: Longbow | December 13, 2007 12:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"I note some discussion about divorce rates. There are several small-scale studies, done mostly if not entirely by groups who teach Natural Family Planning (which respects both the unitive and procreative functions of marriage), that indicate an extremely low divorce rate among married couples who do not contracept. The rate in several of these studies done in the last fifnteed years was consistently less than 2%."

LONGBOW: Before you go off and recommend behavior based on these types of studies, you have to understand the difference between "correlation" and "cause and effect".

Posted by: Dr.R.P. | December 13, 2007 11:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Michael D. Houst:

Well said. I do have reply to your comment about prositution. It does not destroy the fabric of society, but prostitution is awfully hard on prostitutes. Anyone who is on favor of legalizing it should take that into account before proceeding further.

Posted by: Dr.R.P. | December 13, 2007 11:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr Dickey:

I expect you're paying attention to economic conditions of late - "sub prime" to say the least. Once greed is factored out of the equation something rather obvious becomes visible. There's too much housing world wide, (housing problems in many countries) and too little food and energy, (oil).

Converting food, (corn) to energy is hardly the way to solve the food-energy problem. It would seem at the moment to be a poverty creator.

Before - wheat was $2.90/bu and bread was/is $2.90/loaf

Now - wheat is $9.50/bu and bread is $290/loaf

Doesn't conventional wisdom say that bread will soon be $9.50/loaf?

Off the shelf solution - "let them eat cake."

CBS did a survey asking what country is America's greatest enemy. 14% answered China. Wouldn't you like to know why China is our enemy? You don't suppose that 14% are 100% evangelicals worried about religion in China?

All issues are economic. If economic trends continue, and there's not much to say they won't, we will soon be in the condition to declare, "charity begins at home."

Posted by: BGone | December 13, 2007 11:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment

MICHEAL HOUST: You really do make some extremely broad generalizations and unsupported statements. I know you were trying to keep your post short, but if you think it through, I'll bet you could write something concise.

I address my question to your first statement, that Catholic teaching on the use of condoms is morally and ethically wrong. Can you tell me why the Catholic Church teaches what it does about human sexuality? Before you declare to the world that it's wrong, I'd like to make sure you understand it properly.

Posted by: Longbow | December 13, 2007 10:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I note some discussion about divorce rates. There are several small-scale studies, done mostly if not entirely by groups who teach Natural Family Planning (which respects both the unitive and procreative functions of marriage), that indicate an extremely low divorce rate among married couples who do not contracept. The rate in several of these studies done in the last fifnteed years was consistently less than 2%. If this could be confirmed by an independent source, it would be interesting indeed. It might make the behavior worth imitating (i.e., keeping union and procreation married together in the same act without "divorcing" them).

Posted by: Longbow | December 13, 2007 10:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I note some discussion about divorce rates. There are several small-scale studies, done mostly if not entirely by groups who teach Natural Family Planning (which respects both the unitive and procreative functions of marriage), that indicate an extremely low divorce rate among married couples who do not contracept. The rate in several of these studies done in the last fifnteed years was consistently less than 2%. If this could be confirmed by an independent source, it would be interesting indeed. It might make the behavior worth imitating (i.e., keeping union and procreation married together in the same act without "divorcing" them).

Posted by: Longbow | December 13, 2007 10:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment

First of all, I was born, baptized, and confirmed a Roman Catholic. I haven't been excommunicated, nor have I tendered a resignation to the Church, so I suppose I still can be considered a Catholic.

I'll make a straight statement without providing the support, which would take several pages.
The Catholic Church's position on the use of condoms is morally and ethically wrong. I'll go even farther and state that the Catholic Church's position on the use of birth control is also morally and ethically wrong.
The Catholic opponents to condom use and birth control have a sad ignorance of what constitutes the greatest good, and therefore have no authority to speak as purveyors of God's will.


Mr Jacob Jozevz, your postings are poorly constructed. Your absymal spelling, poor grammer, inappropriate use of capitalization, and excessive verbosity all point to a person who has poor organizational and reasoning skills. Ergo, your message is useless noise.


Pam, you're right about nature having nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is a legal and social recognition of what can be considered a mated pair. And you're right about the [evolutionary] reasons why sex is pleasurable.


Don't know why so many 'religious' people are down on prostitution. Jews, and many other religions, used to have them in their temples and other places of worship and they worked just fine. Didn't destroy the fabric of family life at all. More trouble has been caused by sexually disfunctional people branding it as wrong and imposing a guilt trip on society than was ever caused by prostitution in the first place.

Finally, everyone who thinks AIDS/HIV came into being by people having sex with chimpanzees are completely ignorant. Chimps caught Simian Immunodeficiency Virus from eating infected monkeys. (Yes, chimps eat meat.) Anyone who hunts knows that blood and fluids from the carcass get all over your hands when you are cleaning and skinning the animal. Most people who work manually outdoors have various small cuts and scrapes on their hands and arms in various stages of healing all the time. This provides a direct route into the body for infection from the other animal's fluids. Bushmeat hunters are no different from other hunters in this aspect. That's how AIDS/HIV was transmitted from chimpanzees to humans.

Posted by: Michael D. Houst | December 13, 2007 9:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Ooops, Here is another Article from "AFRICA's first Science [http] Magazine.

http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2006/june/hiv.htm

Posted by: Ja Joz | December 13, 2007 8:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

(((((((( Peace Love Rockn Roll nRap, Mitt_ROMNEY for Prez, 2008! YEA! )))))))))))))))

Posted by: Anonymous | December 13, 2007 7:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment


JJ:

"A.I.D.E.S., is come from Coochy poochying with CHIMPANZEZ!"

No, it comes from *butchering and eating them*

This is what is done in those places.

Nothing to do with what Republicans somehow always manage to imagine gay people do, even while legalizing bestiality in the same law as they marginalize gays.

They keep saying, 'Allow gay marriage, and people will be marrying barnyard animals,' ...but look at Texas: they *legalized* barnyard animal sex in the *same law* as they hurt gays.

Go figure.

But, no, JJ. The HIV vector in Africa was not monkey sex (I'd like to see someone *try*) ...but ...they eat monkey meat in some places. Sharp objects, blood, monkey carcasses.

Vector.

Posted by: Paganplace | December 13, 2007 2:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Kudos to Mr. Dickey for an insightful, though brief, investigation of the church's thinking on the theology of marriage, HIV and condoms. Really, this is an exceptional essay that speaks openly about religious issues within the context of a non-religious publication. And because you present the issues of the debate (a hopeful sign that there is indeed room for discussion and insight) in clear and lucid prose, you encourage thoughtful reflection (though, sadly, some of the responses on this site do not reflect this).

But it is disheartening to see such a crude understanding of sexuality laid bare where moral approbation is assigned only by virtue of the complementary parts. What struck me is not so much the theology, but the crude and debased understanding of the sexual act itself. Is this truly a Christian approach to human flourishing?! It's as if complementarity (and a dumbed-down approach to sexual intimacy) trumps all other concern for the actual lives of flesh and blood human beings. This is worth getting upset about because here the church seems to have abandoned the care of the faithful in favor of a reified notion of the good that is discrete from actual, lived human experience. What a tragedy! As you note, 90% or more of the faithful will ignore or avoid the church's input on the matter - though who can blame them – because they see the church's teaching as obtuse, ineffectual and dishonest. In upholding a rigid and unwavering approach to sexual morality, the church betrays its own principles and causes scandal to the very people who look to it for guidance, some of whom will surely die as result of its teaching. The bishops should find the courage to act without further delay.

Posted by: Didimus | December 12, 2007 10:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mother T. went to the black hole while the pope stayed at the Vatican. All that "awe inspiring good work" is done by a precious few.

The Catholic church has a strategy of conquering the world by increased numbers. While all other religions practice birth control Catholics breed more Catholics - as many as possible. It's a matter of policy with a definite goal independent of "life" which is just an excuse.

The amount of money the church collects that actually goes to charitable efforts is miniscule percentage wise. Do you have any idea how much imported Italian stained glass windows cost?

Posted by: BGone | December 12, 2007 9:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I mean, hey, among evangelicals who treat 'the sanctity of marriage' as 'The only way you can have sex without being an outcast,' thedivorce *rate* is 50 percent.

In the only state where it's legal for gays to be married, it's fourteen.

Sanctity?

Maybe it's 'prostitution.' Or a 'liberal canard.'

Not seeing the sanctity, though.

Posted by: Paganplace | December 12, 2007 8:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"There is more divorce etc. with religious groups because there is MORE MARRIAGE..."

But not *better,* apparently, yes?

"High rates of divorce do not signal hypocrisy but, rather, simple statistics....if you don't get married (ie liberal groups) you cant get divorced."

Maybe getting married just for permission to have sex doesn't have the social benefits promised, then, presuming your proposition meets statistical reality?

Come on now....really!

Posted by: Paganplace | December 12, 2007 8:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

PS - good one Pam, you got me!

Ha!

Posted by: speed123 | December 12, 2007 7:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Warning :-) Liberal canard below:

PaganPlace states -

"but it is a simple fact of life that you have more domestic abuse, divorce, and family desertion among those who believe that sex is only for procreation"

There is more divorce etc. with religious groups because there is MORE MARRIAGE...

High rates of divorce do not signal hypocrisy but, rather, simple statistics....if you don't get married (ie liberal groups) you cant get divorced.

Come on now....really!

As for sex, it is revered as a Catholic to the highest act because they unify the physical and procreative meanings. I am not brushed up on the theory, but that is the basic idea.

Liberal sex on demand and sex without purpose is the equivalent of our vapid materialist culture ... which I am sure you all rail against on other forums.

PS- you can have sex for pleasure as well when married....and there are natural forums of planning available.

Posted by: speed123 | December 12, 2007 7:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Amazing how these feminist extremists can really lower contributions of women to society/family ...their contributions are no longer stability, intelligence, life, grace....it is now only Brittney Spears-style "fun" to get us to "stick around"

Ummm...did you all not realize that I was talking about the time when evolution brought about the enhanced sexuality of humans (or proto-humans), and not the women of today??

You are truly even less intelligent than I thought... hard to imagine.

And what in that makes you think I'm a "feminist extremist"?

Posted by: Pam | December 12, 2007 7:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It's not the same thing as 'prostitution' to enhance pair-bonds with sexuality as is human nature, Christians.

I'll disagree that it's solely to 'get the man to stick around and provide food,' ... but it is a simple fact of life that you have more domestic abuse, divorce, and family desertion among those who believe that sex is only for procreation and otherwise shameful and bad, (perhaps that's why *they* go to prostitutes or treat their wives like they treat prostitutes.)

What she's speaking of really, is about se being part of life, something good, interpersonally-involved, and, (I would say, sacred, in a good way) Not a base thing filled with shame about 'being animals,' but a goodness between people.

When it's treated as something displaced through religious and state power and permission, then it becomes something negative, and oppressive to all.

We can do better.

Posted by: Paganplace | December 12, 2007 7:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

When you are sick, you go to see a doctor,
when you have tooth ache, you go see a dentist,
when your dog has a problem, see a vet,
when the car has broken down, bring it to the garage,
for education you go to a teacher,...
etc,

when you want to know about sexual and marital health, you go to a secretive society of old bachelors?????!!!

Hahahahaha

Posted by: WImom | December 12, 2007 6:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Typical liberal reactionary, pseudo-science from Pam.

Amazing how these feminist extremists can really lower contributions of women to society/family ...their contributions are no longer stability, intelligence, life, grace....it is now only Brittney Spears-style "fun" to get us to "stick around"

Great liberation you have going on here...Catholics revere women and life and you degrade them as animals and playthings.

Posted by: speed123 | December 12, 2007 6:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Thus, a woman has something to offer her mate (fun - yes, sex is FUN) in order to have him stick around to provide food while she's pregnant and caring for small children."

So, in your mind, prostitution is the law of nature. Way to go, Pam.

Posted by: sj | December 12, 2007 6:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"If the "marital act" is supposed to be 'open to life', is it morally evil to have sex with your husband after menopause ?"

Simple answer, Lynn, is "No."

Posted by: sj | December 12, 2007 6:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Longbow writes:
"Nature, not the Pope, put union and procreation (marriage and children) into the same act. The Catholic Church is simply studying nature and then protecting what it observes. I am glad that someone looks beyond passion to see what humans ought to be and not just what we are. "

B.S.
Nature has nothing to do with marriage - marriage is an invention of humans from start to finish.

If nature wanted humans to have sex solely for procreation, we would come in heat like dogs and cats and allow sex only at that time, each season inevitably resulting in pregnancy. Nature gave humans the ability (and desire) to have sex at any time, whether fertile or not, because recreational sex enhances the pair bond (not the same thing as marriage). Thus, a woman has something to offer her mate (fun - yes, sex is FUN) in order to have him stick around to provide food while she's pregnant and caring for small children.

According to the Catholic Church, I suppose married couples should discontinue sex once the woman reaches menopause, eh? What utter assininity!

If you Catholics weren't so completely brainwashed by never being allowed to hear a dissenting opinion throughout your formative years, you would realize how stupid you appear to the rest of the world.

Posted by: Pam | December 12, 2007 6:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Steve: "is nothing more or less than the greatest genocide since WWII."

What do you call the 45 million lives terminated through "population control" and abortion/eugenics in the US since the 1970s?

Genocide, holocaust...

PS - you anti Catholic bigotry shines through as you blame the AIDs epidemic entirely on one group.

Some demonize homosexuals for this disease and you demonize the Catholics....you are in good company, buddy.

PS - Condoms are not the silver bullet because they are NOT USED much of the time. Human nature for ya...

Posted by: speed123 | December 12, 2007 6:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Steve: Before your argument can acquire an ounce of persuasive force you need to anwer a question: On what evidence do you rely to support your claim that "millions [will] die because of the Catholic Church's opposition to condomns..."? This sounds like a version of the unsupported fearmongering that got the U.S. into the Iraq War.

Posted by: Longbow | December 12, 2007 6:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

If the "marital act" is supposed to be "open to life, is it morally evil to have sex with your husband after menopause ?

Posted by: lynn peterson | December 12, 2007 6:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The only thing I can take from this is that Catholics just want all sex to be unprotected in order to make more Catholics.

Posted by: kl | December 12, 2007 6:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

If the "marital act" is supposed to be "open to life, is it morally evil to have sex with your husband after menopause ?

Posted by: lynn peterson | December 12, 2007 6:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hooray! Hooray! Hooray! This needed to be said!

The Catholic Church’s pretense to be pro-life is exposed by its willingness to condemn millions of people to death through AIDS (and other STDs) so that it can preserve its absurd prohibition against condoms. This reveals its supposed moral stands to be – not pro-life – but mere prudery to the point of being pro-death. It is time someone called them on it.

Although the article seems to imply that the Church does not oppose (or implicitly approves) the use of condoms in illicit sex (Hey, it’s already a sin, so go for it!), that message never gets out, and I am sure that Catholics performing outreach to homosexuals or sex workers never say, “Illicit sex is wrong, but if you are determined to commit that sin, for God’s sake, use a condom to save your life and that of your partner!”

Of course, the insistence that married couples not use condoms, so that the “marital act” not preclude procreation, means that the Catholic Church is willing to condemn to death not only guiltless wives of infected husbands, but also the AIDS-infected children that they conceive perforce.

It has to be said. The millions that die because of the Catholic Church’s opposition to condoms – and the church’s influence in the resulting anti-condom policy of governments such as the Bush regime domestically and internationally and other African and South American governments – is nothing more or less than the greatest genocide since WWII. This is not pro-life.

Posted by: Steve | December 12, 2007 5:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I am not sure where I come down in this abstinence vs. condoms debate, but I am sure that the way that you folks speak to one another does not represent the ideals that God has set forth OR the secular humanist moral ideals that you claim to espouse. The vitriol I see here I would expect to find in a prison, not from those who claim to know what the correct moral behavior is. Wow.

Posted by: Andrea | December 12, 2007 5:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Edward, you are an idiot...

PS - do you know the sexual abuse rate in your beloved secular public schools is at 10%.

4.5 millions children abused by secular teachers before they hit the 12th grade.

Hows that for some context you hypocrite...

Posted by: Anonymous | December 12, 2007 4:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

So small minded, Victor: "That viruses have come and gone in cycles for millennia poses an intellectual conundrum for a religion that specializes in identifying its signature brand of sin rather than offering comfort and rationale to its subscribers."

The Catholic Faith give much more comfort and a rational, healthy way of life than does the meaningless secular, scientific determinists.

It has been proven that condom use fails in Africa because of male-dominant culture where condoms are available BUT they are not used.

In light of this fact of human nature, isn't it more rational to promote fidelity in marriage and abstinence outside of marriage....than unrestricted "safe sex" - which most likely will not happen.

You are blinded by science and liberal dogma ..

Posted by: Anonymous | December 12, 2007 4:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Superstitious self serving hypocrites - Raping small boys while sanctimoniously spreading AID among poor fools who believe their drivel.

When will mankind grow up and think think for itself without having a bunch of Illuminati (including Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.) telling it what is right and wrong and to not forget the tithe on the way out!

Let's grow up!

Posted by: Edward | December 12, 2007 4:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It boggles the mind to think that the Catholic Church claims superiority and judgement over the HIV virus, or any virus, for that fact, that chooses to infect living beings, human and otherwise. Recent discoveries by independant bio-genetic laboratories have now established that viruses that have occured over the ages, and outbreaks of even newer ones, are ANCIENT IN ORIGIN, and have been around millions of years even before dinosaurs roamed the earth. The very mutations that have been(and are)occuring in them were also accompanied by immune responses that were (and are) developing in host bodies of the infected. Vaccines and preventive medicines do not totally eradicate viruses; they fragment them to the point of having too little strength to increase their numbers in the body of their victims. When the mutations of these victims alter their physical makeup and changes a body's chemistry, certain viruses can again become virilent, and history repeats itself. The problem with HIV and attempts to develop a vaccine or a palliative for it is the ability of HIV to mutate so rapidly that epidemiologists have been unable to keep pace with developing multiple medicines to halt its progress. That HIV is predominently spread by an exchange of body fluids between or among human beings, the window of infection targets sexual intercourse and ancillary behavior thereto. The problem with the Catholic Church is its believing it is the supreme and ultimate arbiter for anyone who chooses to subscribe to its dictums. That viruses have come and gone in cycles for millennia poses an intellectual conundrum for a religion that specializes in identifying its signature brand of sin rather than offering comfort and rationale to its subscribers.

Posted by: Victor Kelley | December 12, 2007 4:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

As a person who grew up in the Protestant and Catholic Churches with liberal parents, I'm often at odds with myself on how some issues should be handled. Catholicism is an old machine and one that has helped bring countless people to God. The fact that it is willing to investigate and consider science and how its beliefs fit into that, is a huge admission that religion often changes with the times. Because Catholic doctrine is well documented, it is easily susceptible to attack. If the Church was easily swayed (even on issues that some people see as obvious), then it wouldn't be the firm religious ground that so many people count on.

Posted by: Conflicted | December 12, 2007 4:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jacob,
I actually understand what you're saying without the code...
SHOCKED, see the bottom,

On the subject:
Science and research has shown that the origin of AIDS is primate bushmeat, and then the virus is passed on through bodily fluids or open wounds. So the natives should not be poking monkeys, anymore than Europeans should be shagging sheep. The bible also says that the marrige bed is undefiled. So whatever you and your missus do with each other is not anyones business. There are some things that can be considered not "normal", but if both are happy and making each other happy so what. I am a conservative christian who lives in a real world with real issues, one of which is AIDS. I would that everyone stay pure until marrige, that husbands and wives cheat not, and that people would not kill, steal, rape, and the such. Unfortunatly, that is not the real world. People are dying of AIDS, men, woman, hetero, homo, and lesbo alike. So for anyone, religious or political, to not include condoms as part of the solution have their heads in the sand, awash in the tide of total ignorance. It is not my place to legislate family planning so that more "Conservative" Protestant members can be born into my church. Why have them (children) if you can't nurture, support, or give the attention they deserve in a day that is much more demanding than 30-40 years ago? When 50% of all marriages in North America end in divorce, and when birthrates are down due to shacking up, abortion, or living loose and single (my unscientific opinions), the issues that face society morally cannot be held captive to my morality, or church dogma. We all hold positions pro and con and cannot fully empathize with issues until the calamity is at our door, then we want everyone to be compassionate, understanding, and the like. And to SHOCKED, you don't need religion as it is organized to believe in something. If you believe that your giving up on it has changed anything for you for the better or worse, you are no different than the religious who are hypocrites. What is really "Gods Will" is for every person to choose how they wish to live their lives acknowleding that there is someone-something that is more than an abstract idea of what should be right about our world and how we treat each other (run on sentence). You "WILL" that in your everyday life I suspect.

Posted by: walterrock | December 12, 2007 4:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Shocked: "Science and facts, that is what this discussion should be about - not opinions on latex."

Human behavior is more than "science and facts" and this is the reason for the continued spread of AIDS.

You secularists think you know it all...utopians like yourself are part of the problem, not the solution.

Posted by: speed123 | December 12, 2007 3:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Nature, not the Pope, put union and procreation (marriage and children) into the same act. The Catholic Church is simply studying nature and then protecting what it observes. I am glad that someone looks beyond passion to see what humans ought to be and not just what we are.

There are reasons nature put those two aspects into the sexual act that the world does not properly respect and are all paying the price for those who want to pollute sex the way others pollute the environment.

Finally, it is unjust and patently absurd to imply that the Catholic Church is responsible for HIV. The Catholic Church did not cause HIV, and if society respected the natural law instead of trying to reengineer it there would be no AIDS epidemic. Moreover, as has been documented countless times, Catholics follow their culture rather than the Church. How many HIV-positive couples choose not to use condoms because they want to follow Catholic teaching as opposed to cultural or personal reasons?

Posted by: Longbow | December 12, 2007 3:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Harry - Nicely put!!!


Jacob Jozevz = you clearly have too much time on your hands.

Speed123 - clearly, you are not using your mind.

The catholic's issue should not be the world's issues - let them infect each other as 'gods will' would have it. Then, they'll eventually be less of them to try to rule the world.

Science and facts, that is what this discussion should be about - not opinions on latex.

So silly, I am ever so glad I was not raised catholic, and even more glad that I gave up religion 20+ years ago.

Posted by: Shocked | December 12, 2007 2:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Liberals and secualarists love to use the condom issue to bash catholics (an easy way for them to express their bigotry); however, the fact of the matter is that in most male dominated cultures in Africa and S. America you could not get a man to use a condom if his life depended on it....

so, the question becomes: is it better to promote loose sexual morals and condom use, as liberals do, or to promote abstinence and moral consequences that cause people to try to avoid casual sex?

Liberal are hypocrites....they claim the Church is superstitious and backwards when, in fact, their teachings save more lives than the free sex and condoms of the libs.

As for an infected married couple, this is a tough case, and one that is not the majority.

Posted by: speed123 | December 12, 2007 2:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

As with the garments that the Pope wears, or the smoke out the chimney when the Pope is elected, or the manner of celebration of the Holy Mass ...., none of this is part of Christ's teachings. I think believing in anything without evidence is irrational, but believing in organized religion is simply immoral. Why should some ex-Hitler Youth who has perhaps practiced a life of celibacy be decreeing what is allowed in sexual relations anyway? If he couldn't see the immorality of the Nazis, what moral compass does the Pope possess?

Posted by: awed in grace | December 12, 2007 2:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Absolutely ridiculous! Complete idiots with their heads stuck in the ground. This is simple Common Sense that does not require all this Theological, bureaucratic debate. Those that folow this non-sense I'm almost tempted to say they get what they deserve. These minions sitting around waiting for the Pope to tell you its OK to wear a condom?? Ridiculous!!

Posted by: Harry | December 12, 2007 12:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I guess according to the Vatican then, married couples where one partner is infected just shouldn't have sex. But from my admittedly limited understanding of Catholicism, that's no good either - marreid couples aren't supposed to be celibate, and in some circles, the wife doesn't have the option of refusing her husband access to the goods - that whole submission thing. But if one partner is infected and they don't use a condom, the other will become infected - it's a question of when, not if. And if a pregnancy results, then you have a third infected person. Isn't it a greater sin to risk infecting any progeny that might result than to avoid conceiving that progeny? Or should infected people have their marriages annulled and spend the rest of their lives celibate without even the release of masturbation?

Posted by: lepidopteryx | December 6, 2007 12:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2009 The Washington Post Company