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

[pewtergryphon.livejournal.com]

Go ahead, hate on me all my liberal/anti-Catholic friends.

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?

I mean, that'd be like my throwing hissies at marnan and iclysdale because, when Bush declared war on Iraq, they started doing protest marches.

They've made no pretense to not being pacifists. You've made no pretense to not being a devout and practicing Catholic. So why would anyone who considers you worthy of friendship in the first place hate you for holding true to those beliefs?

That said, I do think that if the quotes in the articles I've read this week are true, and 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, or telling non-infected people that using condoms will cause them to get HIV because the condoms are 'spiked' with HIV virus, then those particular priests should be removed from office immediately. 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.

[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.

[dsudis.livejournal.com]

I've spent two hours, since seeing your comment on my lj, trying to be not-knee-jerk about this (and, just so you know, 'Gah! Catholics' was pretty toned down from my actual knee jerk reaction...), so.

I wanted to say that the Vatican has no particular right to be holding forth on the efficacy of condoms because, dude, they're not doctors or epidemiologists, but of course, in the process of expounding their birth control position (which... right, let's not go there), they're perfectly justified in addressing the question of 'Well, can I use a condom to prevent the spread of AIDS?' and of course their response would then be something like, 'No,' and their justification for that might be 'Even condoms don't prevent the spread of AIDS perfectly, so that's no justification and you'll still go to hell if you use them.' And that's, um, laudably internally consistent.

But the fact is: there's an AIDS epidemic in Africa - 1 in 5 adults are infected, and in many places it's 1 in 3. The stigma against AIDS is so great that people refuse to be tested, and children orphaned by the disease violently deny that their parents were infected. African men commonly believe that they simply cannot or should not or will not go without sex when separated from their wives for, e.g. economic reasons, which means promiscuity, and in the absence of condoms that means the spread of AIDS. Or in the presence of condoms, yes, because nothing is foolproof (according to Christian doctrine, not even abstinence is 100% effective birth control, after all...), but less so.

WHO is trying to tell people 'Condoms good, Condoms = no AIDS'.
The Vatican is saying 'Condoms not good'.
The message that appears to be getting communicated to individual at-risk Catholics is 'Condoms bad, Condoms = AIDS'.

Basically, what I'm saying is this: abstinence is a lovely lovely lovely theory. But no disease is going to stop people from having sex, any more than the threat of hellfire ever did. So people who live in the world, people who want to save lives, have to put their faith in 90% efficacy, and have to minimize risk. And that's what condoms do.

Or that's what they would do, if the Church weren't scaring people off using them.

[iuliamentis.livejournal.com]

Word.

[daveamongus.livejournal.com]

As much as abstinence is a theory, the proper and effective use of condoms 100% of the time is a myth. Fact of the matter is, it doesn't happen. Further fact is that even when they are used properly, there's still a 10% chance of infection.

So how is that going to stem the tide of infection? All it says is, "Condoms are some magical device that will stop AIDS." Education on proper use is fine and well, but that's only going to work, really, with people who are willing to take precautions, and they're going to be the people less at risk to begin with.

Proper education. People need to learn the risks of what they're doing and adjust their lives accordingly. Too bad if they think they're entitled to sleep around when they're away from their wives. They're in a middle of an honest-to-God epidemic. Condoms are not the magic solution.

That the Church's position on prophylactics in general coincides with the most effective means of stopping the spread of STDs is notable, and I can understand that it seems offensive to you, if you consider the Church's position on birth control to be antiquarian and inhumane. But that doesn't make isolation and avoidance of possible exposure the best way to avoid spreading the disease.

[mareklamo.livejournal.com]

Telling people not to use condoms is totally consistent with the Catholic church's anti-contraception stand. What really gets my goat is that church officials seem to be spreading misinformation about condom permeability.

Here's a link to the story I read (http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html)

[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.