Knee-Jerk Anti-Catholic Sentiment

[davidklecha]

In a move sure to piss off a lot of people who read my LJ, I have to say that I think the latest backlash against the RCC, regarding the condoms and AIDS thing, is misplaced.

Abstinence, when practiced consistently and correctly, is the only 100% sure method of preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS through sexual intercourse. This is not, I think, a difficult concept to comprehend. Though, I'm certain, it is a difficult concept for people who believe that sexual freedom is the supreme, inalienable right of all humanity.

Yeah, it's hard. So are a lot of other things. When it comes to your life, and the lives of those around you, though, I don't think you should fuck around. Literally.

Go ahead, hate on me all my liberal/anti-Catholic friends. It's cool.

Comments

[daveamongus.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm not anti-Catholic, and I consider myself a moderate, not a liberal, but why would the fact that you stand behind beliefs I've known you had for years make me think less of you?

It's more or less a joke. I've come to realize that a lot of my friends, and the majority of the people who have friended me (and thus see my posts on their friends page) do not agree with me when it comes to the Catholic Church. Makes it a bit intimidating to speak one's mind when one realizes that one's audience will disagree categorically. Thus, a bit of humor.

some priests are telling people already infected with HIV that using condoms when having sex with their non-infected spouse won't reduce the spouse's risk of infection

Except that that's not clear from context. That nun could have been telling that choirmaster not to have sex at all, and still used the same words to express herself. I think it's become the vogue to slam the Catholic Church, even if it could be demonstrated that they're speaking in earnest. Note the lack of discussion about abstinence, or any mention of any sort of alternative.

Because they are putting innocent lives at risk by their lies (or, at its most charitable, their appalling ignorance), and anyone who would knowingly do that is, IMHO, not fit for the holy office they hold.

And while I might agree, I'd also say that the WHO officials should likewise be removed, and be replaced by someone who will actually tell these people that they pretty much risk their lives every time they have sex, protected or not, in a country with such a high infection rate.

[pewtergryphon.livejournal.com]

I almost didn't reply to this. But then I decided that I'd give it one more try.

First, you made a major point of how the quotes for the priests, nuns, etc might have been taken out of context. Yet when you quoted me the second time above, you left out the "If" statement in the second quote, which makes me sound considerably more rigid than I am. I chose my wording very carefully to allow for the possibility the nun and priests in question had been mis-represented. I'd appreciate it if you'd try to exercise the same care in quoting people who disagree with you that you expect other people to use for those on your own side.

As for the relative moral culpability of the priests cited in the next-to-last paragraph of this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html) story and the WHO representatives likewise quoted (assuming for the moment that all parties are represented accurately) I'm afraid I can't agree with you.

I see a considerable difference between the WHO officials saying "Scientific studies show that using a condom properly will reduce the risk of your contracting AIDS" and a priest saying "Using a condom will cause you to become infected with AIDS because the condom is itself the cause of the infection."

The first is scientifically verifiable fact. The second is a flat-out lie. They are not in any way morally equivalent.

But we're obviously not going to agree on this, so I won't carry this discussion any further in this forum. If you want to continue it, I believe you have my e-mail address.