I tend to believe the analysis of experts in the field of HIV and epidemiology.

That is my whole problem with your argument, it is based on belief, rather than hard evidence.

As a statement defending the catholic church, that is brilliant 🙂

But, putting that aside, i don't understand how this statement can be false:

'A reduction in condom use is likely to correlate to an increase in sexual transmissions'

Less condom use = more chance of fluid transfer = more chance of disease transmission

THUS

Catholic Church scaring people off condoms = % of people who might have otherwise used them now don't.

If a % of those people are infected, then there is a % chance that they will infect their partners.

Additionally…less condom use = greater chance of pregnancy = chance of more childbirths = increases difficulty to escape from poverty

The actual figures will be borderline impossible to ascertain, but that doesnt change the immoral nature of attempting to remove something (condoms) that could potentially massively help.

If the Catholic church was not morally bankrupt, they would be actively endorsing and encouraging condom use as it would reduce infections and unwanted pregnancies, allowing people a better way of life.

But they aren't, they are actively dicouraging it – and i can't really fathom way. There is NO good reason to do so. You can promote good ethics at the same time as sexual awareness – they go hand in hand.

For me rates of infection and whether it's an epidemic or not are completely inconsequential and a fanstastic argument for apologists to hide behind.

The only way to be able to safely draw a statistical conclusion is if there is a dramatic change in number of Catholics in one of the populations in question and then monitoring the effect of the CHANGE on the HIV infections data.

Sort of. But we can make a statistical inference, using techniques such as correlation. We are unable make or observe the change in number of Catholics so all we can observe is comparable countries with varying numbers of Catholics. The graphs linked, show a large number of countries but one would be hard pushed to show any relationship between the prevalence of Catholicism and the incidence of HIV.

We can also look at the original hypothesis. Which is that if papal influence had any effect on incidence of Aids it would appear in the data. The hypothesis might be questioned, but we need a good causal alternative.

i.e. Papal influence has an effect on incidence of Aids, but htis does not appear in the international data because…

Lifer… I agree.. Common sense dictates the argument on a statistical level is purely an academic excercise. The point I'm making is that bringing stats to an argument better be bloody robust before you start using them to defend a position that involves mortality rates.

That is my whole problem with your argument, it is based on belief, rather than hard evidence.
As a statement defending the catholic church, that is brilliant

You misunderstand. I am not defending the Catholic church. My engagement with this argument is that in targeting the Catholic church in our effort to combat the spread of AIDS we are misdirecting our efforts. I couldn't careless about the church, but blaming it for things which it is not responsible for, undermines valid criticisms for the bad things it does and it also means that the real causes for the spread of HIV remain addressed and the solution stays farther away.

I'm not defending the moral stance of the church. But that stance is irrelevant. My point is that if you want to change the stance then sure beak on about it, but if you want to do something about human suffering, then find out the causes of that suffering. In this case and that of overpopulation, it doesn't look like it is because of the teachings of the catholic Church

CharlieMungus – Member

That is my whole problem with your argument, it is based on belief, rather than hard evidence.
As a statement defending the catholic church, that is brilliant

You misunderstand. I am not defending the Catholic church. My engagement with this argument is that in targeting the Catholic church in our effort to combat the spread of AIDS we are misdirecting our efforts. I couldn't careless about the church, but blaming it for things which it is not responsible for, undermines valid criticisms for the bad things it does and it also means that the real causes for the spread of HIV remain addressed and the solution stays farther away.

I was being flippant – it made me laugh coming from the 'other-side' as it where. But yes, appreciate the position you are arguing and that there are other factors, but i don't think that changes the viewpoint that what the Catholic Church is doing is wrong, as stated above 🙂

There now seems to be some birth rate data associated with that original graph

I'm not defending the moral stance of the church. But that stance is irrelevant. My point is that if you want to change the stance then sure beak on about it, but if you want to do something about human suffering, then find out the causes of that suffering. In this case and that of overpopulation, it doesn't look like it is because of the teachings of the catholic Church

I don't think anyone is saying its all their fault, that would be ridiculous. But potentially they could help instead of hindering, if they could pull their heads out of their arses and realise that its not the 1st century anymore

Tim, thanks for engaging. I see your point about 'any number' being more than necessary, but I guess we differ in the scales we are looking at. If the Church changed its teaching, I think the percentage of people who changed their behaviour would be inconsequential in terms of the spread. And so at the risk of repeating myself 😛 there seems little point in concentrating our efforts on the teachings of the CC.

How much is effort is required on the part of the CC to simply change the doctrine. It's a policy change. That's a piece of paper. Some words, written down, could save lives. It's not 'all our efforts'. It's a change that is the easiest one to make that could make some difference. Tackling one issue is not mutually exclusive with tackling others.

The pope could do that today. He is infallible by CC accounts. His word matters. he could simply utter some words and lives could change. It's the fact he doesn't see that or that he does but still chooses not to that in my eyes and those of many millions, including members of the CC itself that marks him as a poor human being.

Would save them a lot of efort and embarrassment as well!

Trouble is, just simply changing doctrine that has stood for hundreds of years or longer isn't very easy, not for the CC. Might seem easy to us infidels, but as with our Laws, doctrine can't just be changed on a whim. Otherwise Popes could just change things to suit themselves, and the CC has had enough with the Borgias and others. I'd imagine it would have to go before some sort of committee, but maybe lower order members would need to vote or something. I din't really understand how it works, perhaps I'm wrong.

Does it say, 'thou shalt not use condoms' in the Bible? No, it talks about the sanctity of Human life. Surely the condom/contraception is a relatively very recent part of the doctrine? So, it could be changed?

The Pope's stance on this matter is extremely negative and damaging. Will he change his stance? Surely it's up to Catholics to pressure/lobby for change, no? For Catholic theologians (theologists? You know, the blokes what study scripture and that. Clerics?) to come up with something that would say that condom use at least is ok.

But then, as I've said; it's down to the individual how they choose to act. The problem in Africa is that knowledge of HIV/AIDS is very poor amongst populations of people who have little or no access to education and even basic healthcare. Superstitions and traditional beliefs are very influential, fear and mistrust of outside influences means that many will simply ignore health advice. Then there's access to condoms; how many can readily get cheap or free condoms? This is one of the biggest issues. To blame Catholicism for the entire problem is to ignore the big picture.

Yes, the Catholic Church needs to change it's stance. But hating Catholics isn't going to help.

He is infallible by CC accounts.

not really, not most of the time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Also, I'm not sure, but the ruling on condoms contraception etc. Is not so much a policy on its own, more like one of the offshoots 🙂 of doctrinal thought. I imagine that just changing that ruling, might meant that it is inconsistent with a whole load of other ideas, which might not be so easily changed. I know, I know, Church, hypocrisy, etc. but hey. I don't make the rules.

But hating Catholics isn't going to help.

On this point:

I don't explicitly hate Catholics, but I feel that organised religion is an immoral and cruel concept and the aforementioned stance of the Catholic Church is one clear example of why I feel this way.

It makes no sense to me why someone would keep actively supporting and lauding the figurehead of a body which has so much that is deeply wrong at the core of its belief system – there is no question that mysogny, homophobia, the concept of purgatory and the restriction of contraception/sexual protection are disgusting concepts…yet they seem to be able to be actively supported by The CC (and in fairness, many other religions) in modern society.

Papal influence has an effect on incidence of Aids, but htis does not appear in the international data because… educated catholics ignor ehis advice and use condoms?
Does the data include condom usage amongst catholics for example in coutries with high and low rates?…I have not kept up with thread so hope I am not going over old ground.

There is also the possibility that some people are not registered as catholic but are under their suggestion…

perhaps