[Closed] Papal visit of Pope on Thursday, anyone going.............to protest

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62335B20100304

The condom is not the one thing that will stop the spread of HIV/AIDS. It can only help slow it down

won't deny that Catholic doctrine has a negative influence on this terrible situation

Wrong. Condoms help prevent HIV infection. That is irresponsible journalism. Also, condoms are very often re-used in many poorer countries, especially by sex workers. This drastically reduces their effectiveness. Poor quality condoms have a much higher failure rate. Storge conditions have a marked effect on their integrity. The condom is not the one thing that will stop the spread of HIV/AIDS. It can only help slow it down.

This is wrong on so many levels. Its got to be Fred

TJ; I'm not denying that the Catholic church is guilty of spreading misinformation and in some cases even lies. I'm not defending Catholicism's stance on contraception. I know people who've done aid work in Sub Saharan Africa, and they've told me one of the biggest problems they face is the negative and damaging influence the Church has on the work they are trying to do. Yes, the Vatican needs to look at it's stance here, and change it's tack for the good of Humanity. I totally agree that the Pope should have to face the reality of the damage Catholic Doctrine is causing.

BUT

To blame Catholicism for causing the deaths and the spread of HIV/AIDS is like blaming car manufacturers for road deaths in the UK, sort of. People are ultimately responsible for their own actions.

My point is that I don't think it's helpful to go round accusing and blaming. What's more productive is to engage Catholics and the Vatican in discussion about how Catholic doctrine might be moderated in certain situations, such as this one. IE, to start seeing condom use not as a way of preventing life, but preventing death, as one of the journos in your links says. To take a different perspective on matters. Many Catholic priests and Bishops worldwide have adopted this view. Hopefully, more and more will see the logic and benefit to Humanity, in doing the same. But I really don't think condemning religion in this way helps make for better relations.

I find it sad that discussions of this kind often descends into people blaming and accusing, and spouting their own prejudices without adequate thought or consideration for others, or even understanding of what it is they're attacking. I'm not religious; I disagree with many aspects of religious doctrine, and religious practices. But I see also there is a lot of good in religion too. I think it's essential to look at things with an open mind and a broader perspective. Which is why I think it's great that this thread was re-opened. Good decision by the mods.

TJ I see where you're coming from, and I think it's admirable that someone can feel passionate about something like this. There's too much apathy in our society, too much complacency. Too much looking the other way.

This is wrong on so many levels.

Oh really? Care to tell me why?

Wrong. Condoms help prevent HIV infection. That is irresponsible journalism. Also, condoms are very often re-used in many poorer countries, especially by sex workers. This drastically reduces their effectiveness. Poor quality condoms have a much higher failure rate. Storge conditions have a marked effect on their integrity. The condom is not the one thing that will stop the spread of HIV/AIDS. It can only help slow it down.

Barrier protection stops infection when used correctly. What you refer to storage, reuse etc they are Red Herrings. Condoms in correct use have an almost 100% success rate. Referring to poor quality condoms is also a smokescreen, the fact that condoms sometimes tear, come off etc doesn't mean their use is infective in controlling the spread of aids.
It is a matter of fact that the church has blood on its hands in this matter and you are dancing on the head of a pin.

Elfin. Without the Catholic churchs input many more people would be alive now that are not. Thus they are responsible for many many deaths.

Surfer; I've worked as an outreach worker in east London, giving advice on drug use and HIV/AIDS to youngsters. Had training from healthcare professionals specialised in HIV/AIDS. Met an HIV sufferer who contracted the virus through 'protected' sex (the condom failed). Learned about the reality of condom use here in the UK and in places like Africa. So, not an expert by any means, but possibly slightly more knowledgeable than some folk.

Saying that condoms are a 100% prevention from HIV infection is extremely irresponsible. Re storage and reuse; not a 'red herring' at all. Talk to HIV workers who've worked in Africa. The heat in some regions is more than enough to degrade the rubber. Re-using a condom is extremely risky.

I'm not saying they're ineffective; where did I say that? Talk about taking things well out of context, to make a point.

Pft.

I think that the Catholic Church and the Vatican are acting an an extremely irresponsible manner. But to suggest that they have 'blood on their hands' is simply sensationalist rhetoric. What is more helpful in this situation is dialogue and understanding. This is not going to be achieved through hate and anger.

If I have unprotected sex with someone in Africa, because my belief tells me that that using condoms is wrong, and I contract HIV, is the Catholic Church responsible for my actions? We are all free to make our own decisions.

Let's not forget, also, that Catholicism advocates monogamy and sex only within 'marriage'. One of the biggest problems in Africa is that people will sleep with multiple partners. Which Catholicism forbids. Going to blame Catholicism for that? That they lack knowledge and are perhaps misguided in their beliefs is the difference between that continent and Europe. So, education is the key here.

Drac - Member

[i] i'd love to see a graph showing 'population growth vs catholic population (%)'[/i]

Feel free to create one to suit your own theory, try many eyes site.

Drac, you follow blindly. Find data which counters that presented.

Data from here, http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/rel_cat_as_per-religion-catholics-as-percentage
and before you criticise the source, think about the criticism and whether or not it is plausible

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_pop_gro_ann-people-population-growth-annual

population growth

TandemJeremy - Member

Elfin. Without the Catholic churchs input many more people would be alive now that are not. Thus they are responsible for many many deaths.

What about people who would have died but did not? Perhaps due to their faith or the outreach work of the Church, the work of Cafod?

Wanna take a guess on how many lives Cafod have saved? would it be as much as 'many many'?

Well....

Being a Practising Catholic i'm looking forward to the Popes mass on Sunday, our Church is changing Sunday morning mass so we can watch it on TV.

So to answer the OP's original question I won't be making a protest.

CharlieMungus, don't try and reason with TJ. You may as well try and tell Canute he'll never turn back the tide. His sense of being utterly right is ingrained in his psyche, even when he isn't.

Canute knew he couldn't turn back the tide. It was his followers who thought he was powerful enough to...

Apologies for inaccuracy. Am pished. 😉

So wouldn't it be nice if the church could support condom use and provide help to people at the same time?

You know, a logical reason, not some utter rubbish about 'every sperm is sacred'.

So until they start doing that, then yes, they are causing unneccessary suffering, because there is absolutely no need to deny condom use. Spirituality should take a back seat when the real world is concerned.

I am no fan of the Italian theme park,but even by your standards that was pretty hysterical TJ.May we have some evidence of the millions of deaths caused by the Catholic Churches opposition to contraception.The only estimate I can find of deaths from aids on the avert site states 2 million WORLDWIDE in 2008.Since you refer to millions of deaths,does that mean they were all Catholic,and unwilling to wear a robbers mask?

Thanks for the source Charlie.. I have no reason to doubt the numbers on that website.. However, one problem I have is that I can't cross reference the dots on the many eyes chart with the data from that website. My point is the many eyes graph (and I'm making a wider point about trusting statistics rather than targeting catholic arguments) doesn't back itself up with source data that will allow the chart to be repeated. In other words I still don;t have all the data needed to reproduce that graph and then be able to verify it and therefor be confident in quoting it in discussions and debates.

When stats are brought to bear in debates it's important that we are able to verify them. No?

No I won't protest though I do hope that plenty of people do.

TJ's hysterical style as usual proves ineffective though he does have some valid points buried in there. The Catholic Church's stance on condom use does cause deaths from AIDS though it's also perfectly fair to say that they're not necessarily responsible (or not entirely at the minimum) as like Fred said, people do have a choice. They simply end up being a negative influence in this instance.

Charlie's point about other people who the CC may have helped is reasonable but since one doesn't really exclude the other it's not really valid or relevant to the debate regarding AIDS/Condoms.

As to the graph, proper source data needed, ideally corroborated beyond the Church's own as we're all well aware that people are quite happy to bend/deny/make up the truth in order to further the CC's interests.

Daily Mash bring you the good stuff:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/celebrity/queen-to-have-lunch-with-insane-criminal-201009163093/

Thanks for the source Charlie.. I have no reason to doubt the numbers on that website.. However, one problem I have is that I can't cross reference the dots on the many eyes chart with the data from that website. My point is the many eyes graph (and I'm making a wider point about trusting statistics rather than targeting catholic arguments) doesn't back itself up with source data that will allow the chart to be repeated. In other words I still don;t have all the data needed to reproduce that graph and then be able to verify it and therefor be confident in quoting it in discussions and debates.

When stats are brought to bear in debates it's important that we are able to verify them. No?

You can get the source data by visiting the nationmaster site www.nationmaster.com and selecting the parameters you want. Is this what you meant? Of course, you could also look at the data which generated the chart on the manyeyes site

As to the graph, proper source data needed, ideally corroborated beyond the Church's own as we're all well aware that people are quite happy to bend/deny/make up the truth in order to further the CC's interests.

I thought the 'Catholic hierarchy' source was a bit dodgy, but then i could see no reason why they would deliberately under[i]report their number, over report, perhaps.

And there is also the issue of scale, even if we doubled the numbers, the catholic precentages would be small. And we have to estimate what percentage of these catholics are practicing, what percentage of those don't use condoms and what percentage of those don't use them because the chucrch says. This ends up being a very small percentage.

The point of this is that if the pope stopped saying 'No!', then the percentage of people who would change their behaviour is heading towards insignificant.

Beyond raw comparisons. We also see that there is no correlation (regrdless of absolute values or percentages) between catholicism and incidence of those living with Aids.

It seems many follow Dawkins as blindly as those who follow the pope

German soldier is pursuing a Pole through Warsaw. Just as he is about to shoot, the voice of God is heard.
"Don't shoot this man, he is destined to be Pope one day"
German soldier: "OK, but what about me?"
God: "Well, you can be the one after"

Coat? ...

Is he flying in on Prayer-Force 1?

The point is the catholic church use their power and influence to stop condoms being distributed. They pressure governments to stop public health programmes using condoms as harm reduction.

Its not just adherents of the catholic faith this affects - its all people in countries where they do this.

This is why I find is so foul. I don't really care if they persuade gullible believers not to use condoms - but pressuring governments to stop harm reduction programmes by what is effectively blackmail is morally abhorrent.

Look at the link I provided above about the Philippines for an example. This is a tactic they have used for years. "If you promote condom use we will close all our orphanages and hospices" what a choice for an impoverished government.

Charlie - this is the point you miss. Its not just adherents of the catholic faith this affects.

I see your point, are you then suggesting that the pope/CC has influence on the governments of predominantly non catholic countries in Sub-saharan Africa?

Why are we not seeing epidemics in South America?

I see the phillipines case, and apart from the poor reporting of statistics (extrapolating to 30,000 is like saying half of UK will be Elvis impersonators). The Philipines is one of the most Catholic countries in the world so Papal influence (the force) will be very strong there, yet there are very few case (under 150) cases.

To call it a 'spike' is just poor reporting of statistics, numbers that small are inherently unstable.

Charlie,

Sorry but I don;t think there is any source data that is referenced on the many eyes site. That's why I was asking. Thanks for what you've provided so far. I feel I'm half way to being able to verify that graph 🙂

Look at the link I provided above about the Philippines for an example.

I did and there is no suggestion in it that they are saying "If you promote condom use we will close all our orphanages and hospices". What they are saying in that article is that the Catholic Church thinks that scarce resources should be used in fighting tuberculosis, cancer and influenza.

Now you can disagree with their prioritization of one disease prevention mechanism over another, but to suggest they are responsible for deaths is pure simplistic hyperbole. After all, is the Philippines government killing people suffering from tuberculosis, cancer and influenza because they are not allocating resources there?

Mark, I'm looking at this
http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/visualizations/catholicism-and-hiv-aids

in explorer under the graph it has the line...

Data file: Catholicism's influence on HIV? Data source: NationMaster.com and CIA Handbook This data set
has not yet been rated

I see your point, are you then suggesting that the pope/CC has influence on the governments of predominantly non catholic countries in Sub-saharan Africa?

Yes

There are many examples of them pressurising governments and NGOs in this way - and they also dilute the harm reduction message.

Evangelical American churches do the same thing.

this makes it harder to distribute condoms and to get the harm reduction message across.

In Kenya - where an estimated 20% of people have HIV - the church condemns condoms for promoting promiscuity and repeats the claim about permeability. The archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Nzeki, said: "Aids... has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms."

In Lwak, near Lake Victoria, the director of an Aids testing centre says he cannot distribute condoms because of church opposition. Gordon Wambi told the programme: "Some priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids."

Panorama found the claims about permeable condoms repeated by Catholics as far apart as Asia and Latin America.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

Mefty - did you read the link?

Her efforts to promote condom use in the poor Southeast Asian nation have raised the ire of conservative Roman Catholic bishops opposed to artificial contraception, however, threatening to worsen the already shaky relations between the government and the church.

"I will continue to distribute condoms as a tool to create awareness on HIV/AIDS prevention," Cabral told Reuters, adding she would ask the government to fund the purchase of condoms for disease prevention rather than contraception.

[b]Cabral said the government has stopped allocating funds for condoms due to church pressure. [/b]Catholic bishops helped build opposition in Congress to block a reproductive health bill that they said promoted sex education and artificial contraceptives.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62335B20100304

In many countries, political and/or religious leaders
have made public statements associating condoms with sin or sexual promiscuity,
implying that people who use condoms lack the moral fortitude to abstain from sex until
marriage. In countries with significant Roman Catholic populations, governments
frequently bow to pressure from religious leaders to censor information about condoms
in school-based HIV/AIDS curricula or other HIV-prevention programs. The Holy
See, which represents the Vatican diplomatically and exerts considerable influence over
HIV/AIDS policy in many Roman Catholic countries, explicitly objects to condom use
and at times has publicly distorted scientific information about the effectiveness of
condoms against HIV.

In June 2001, UNAIDS director Peter Piot publicly asked the Roman Catholic Church
to stop opposing the use of condoms against AIDS, saying that “when priests preach
against contraception, they are committing a serious mistake which is costing human
lives.”48
Anti-condom messages promoted by senior Vatican officials can exert considerable
influence over national and regional Catholic bishops’ conferences. In 2003, for
example, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) successfully
blocked legislation that would have authorized the use of national funds for condoms
and other contraceptive supplies.49 The CBCP issued in 1993 a statement that
condemned the promotion of condoms against HIV/AIDS as “tantamount to
condoning promiscuity and sexual permissiveness.” In 2004, the Croatian Bishop’s
Conference also opposed condom education efforts. In 2001 Catholic bishops from
southern Africa condemned the use of condoms to fight AIDS,50 a position they
reaffirmed in October of 2003.51 Bishops from southern Africa are not unanimous in
the position, however. Kevin Dowling, a bishop from South Africa, has been outspoken
in his position that opposition to condoms amounts to a death sentence for women,
particularly in Africa, who cannot insist on abstinence or fidelity

I've seen the phillipines article and responded to it above.

The Kenya / panorama one is relevant, but it is a series of case studies. It is not good data. We have no idea how representative the sample is.

I would suggest that the programme was somewhat biased, given that it was for TV. But i don't deny taht it happens. I very much doubt if it was widespread or that would have been reported.

Also for the purposes of this discussion it does not do to conflate the Evagelical churches and the Cathoilc

It is well reported - there are lots and lots of references to this if you want to see it.

\here is another

Mozambique's Roman Catholic archbishop has accused European condom manufacturers of deliberately infecting their products with HIV "in order to finish quickly the African people".

The archbishop of Maputo, Francisco Chimoio, told the BBC that he had specific information about a plot to kill off Africans. "I know that there are two countries in Europe ... making condoms with the virus, on purpose," he alleged. But he refused to name the countries.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/27/aids.international

Its clear the Catholic church is using every weapon that it has to atop governments and NGOs promoting condom use and is deliberatly spreading false information to attempt to stop people using condoms.

yes i want to see.

Tue Oct 23, 2007
TEGUCIGALPA (Reuters) - The rapid spread in Latin America of the virus that causes AIDS is made worse by the Roman Catholic Church's stand against using condoms, a U.N. official said on Monday.
Some 1.7 million people across Latin America are infected with the HIV virus or full-blown AIDS, and the epidemic is spreading swiftly with up to 410,000 new cases in 2006, up from as many as 320,000 new cases in 2004, according the UN AIDS program, UNAIDS.
"In Latin America the use of condoms has been demonized, but if they were used in every relation I guarantee the epidemic would be resolved in the region," said Alberto Stella, the UNAIDS Coordinator for Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica

I think thats enough to prove my point don't you?

I did read it and as I said it does not say that the Catholic Church are saying "If you promote condom use we will close all our orphanages and hospices". It does quote a person who disagrees with the Catholic Church's position saying pressure was applied but there is no suggestion what form that pressure took. No doubt pressure was applied by those of the opposite view as well.

As I said previously you are more than welcome to disagree with where the Catholic Church believes spending should be prioritized, and I would be minded to agree with you, but I believe that the hyperbole harms your case. Any party prioritizing one aspect of health spending over another can be accused of causing deaths to those they have chosen not to prioritize, but that is evidence of the dreadful nature of having to allocate scarce resources and no more.

Mefty - do read the quotes -

its not a case of prioritising one aspect of health spending over another. its applying pressure to stop a proven harm reduction technique that is very cheap.

[i] TandemJeremy - Member

Mefty - do read the quotes -

its not a case of prioritising one aspect of health spending over another. its applying pressure to stop a proven harm reduction technique that is very cheap. [/i]

It's stopping a proven harm reduction technique for [b]no discernible reason[/b] thats the issue. Seems to be mainly out of spite as there is no other reason to limit condom use

Logically, if the pope has a wet dream, does he have to quit being the pope for betraying the catholic faith?

Applying logic to a bunch of celibates who imagine they telepathically communicate with an invisible sky fairy,
who tells them, that being celibate makes them the perfect candidates for telling the world about family values and sexual health.
how about that for "betraying the catholic faith"?

No, that's just God moving in mysterious ways...

No, that would be Rhythm Methodists.
I came for the paypal reference and stayed for the spread of aids, oh, and shall we bring up the subjugation of half the human race? and the invention of purgatory to keep the cash flowing in?

-double post- sorry.

I think thats enough to prove my point don't you?

Not really,

You've cited the Phillipines, very high Catholic population / papal influence and low HIV incidence, same is true for Croatia, Honduras, Nicaragua and Croatia. The countries selected are those most susceptible to papal influence, and so it is unsurprisong that the church can exert pressure on public policy. But the data shows, tht in all these countries The incidence of HIV AIDS is very low.

I'm not deny the fact the the church is promoting dangerous practices. I agree they are, but it is clear that the overpopulation and incidence of HIV AIDS is not a reuslt of this, so there is some other, more dominant causal factor. And whilst we misplace our efforts blaming the pope, we neglect any investigation of the true causes, be it people or environmental, and the issues will continue. Do we want to solve the problems or not?

[img] [/img]