Wednesday, March 25, 2009
It really does come down to a basic difference in a future-in-heaven perspective and a current-life-on-earth perspective.
The pope obviously takes the former; I take the latter. But it does seem to me his is an unconscionable position, given the authoritative influence he has on such a large percentage of the world’s people.
I could even make the case that the pope is guilty of aiding and abetting genocide — because, from his position as the ultimate religious authority to billions of people, he is telling his followers not to use a simple means of protecting their wives and unborn children from a deadly disease.
What I’m referring to is the pope’s statement that relying on the use of condoms increases the risk of HIV transmission. And to say this, as he embarks on his historic tour of Africa where HIV/AIDS is decimating the population, further marks him as out of touch with the world we live in.
The pope’s point: the most effective way to prevent HIV spread is through sexual abstinence or monogamous sexuality with an uninfected partner.
But he goes further and says using condoms actually increases the risk. It’s true that condoms are not 100 percent effective, largely because they are often not properly or consistently used.
The solution to that is education, however, not condemnation. Statistics show that, properly used, condoms are effective in the high 90 percent range.
The pope is correct — if the only two options are abstinence and monogamy.
But people are not going to stop having sex outside marriage.
History has tried everything from public shaming to public stoning, and sex just keeps on happening.
So the correct use of condoms can make the difference between an epidemic of HIV/AIDS that has left millions of orphans in some African nations, many of them HIV positive themselves — and a very effective program that has greatly reduced the spread of HIV, as in Uganda.
I can even accept the A-B-C approach that some religious groups advocate: Be abstinent, be faithful or use condoms.
This extols the abstinent-if-single/faithful-if-married approach but also recognizes that many will not — and they should use condoms.
The pope’s plan might get you into heaven — after you die from AIDS. I would rather we focus on saving your life, and that of your children, here on Earth.
Now Benedict has issued another statement in a book-length interview by a German journalist in which he makes another rather incomprehensible statement about condoms.
What he says is that the use of condoms can sometimes be justified; for example, for a male prostitute who is trying to prevent the spread of disease. Huh???
I think this is what he's saying: The church's problem with condoms is that they are used as contraception. Anything that interferes with the possibility of pregnancy is sinful. But male prostitutes are not concerned with preventing pregnancy, just with preventing disease. So it's sort of, like, . . . maybe . . . ok?
Does he know what he saying? Or am I just totally unable to understand the catholic reasoning? I mean, I think I understand the reasoning; it's the misplaced values that give me trouble.
It's better for an infected husband to come home and give his wife HIV than to use a condom; but it's ok for a male prostitute to use condoms to keep from getting HIV???
I assume he's talking about male prostitutes with male clients. Otherwise, the question of pregnancy would come into it. By that reasoning, then, a man whose wife is beyond the age when she could get pregnant, or who was otherwise infertile, could use condoms to prevent from infecting her with HIV?
Making more babies is the most important thing of all, regardless of poverty, lack of resources to care for another child, illness of the mother, etc. Married couples are not supposed to have sex just for pleasure. But if you're gay and not married, it's ok to have sex for pleasure -- although gay sex is of course a sin. But if you're going to do it, it's ok to use a condom?
Man, this guy baffles me with his phony values. And he is the spiritual father and infallible figure for 1,135,729,000 Roman Catholics worldwide?
Does anybody get this? I know Richard, who is catholic, says the pope is irrelevant and don't bother listening to him; but I'm sure there are many who do listen to him. I think it's appalling to let him run around spouting off like this, with the moral authority endowed upon him.
Ralph
The clueless pope has had to walk back his comments about condoms and male prostitutes. The Vatican has hurried to stop what was being interpreted as a revolution in church teachings about condoms.
ReplyDeleteIt certainly was not meant as that, they now say. One always has the responsibility to try to prevent infection, but this is not to condone the "unbridled exercise of sexuality." Condoms are not part of the "moral solution" but may be seen as a step toward real responsibility to prevent disease.
Man, when you try to explain something that makes no sense, it's pretty hard to make sense.
You did better than I did. When I read it, my eyes crossed and the best I could muster was, "Huh?" I wonder how many male homosexual prostitutes are devout Catholics waiting with bated breath wondering if it would be okay to use condoms? I reckon he got a letter asking?
ReplyDeleteDear Pope,
I am a 26 year old man contemplating a career change into the prostitution field. Will I be able to go to heaven if I use condoms when I have sex with my clients?
And another letter:
ReplyDeleteDear Pope,
I am a 26 year old woman, and I have a good friend -- a man -- who works in the sex trade, providing pleasures for other men. I understand that he can use condoms to prevent infection.
I am considering entering the business too. I too would be providing pleasures for men. But, if I understand you correctly, I could not ask my clients to use condoms to prevent infection, because that would constitute contraception since I am a woman of child bearing age.
Could you please clarify this for me? It doesn't seem quite fair that I could die from AIDS for doing the same work that my male friend does.