Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Laboratory >

Vatican says: condoms don't prevent AIDS

Page: 1(2)

00:25 / 10.10.03

We're fundamentally in agreement, then, Ganesh: the "proper protction" I mentioned was, of course, condom use (I'd just gotten very tired of typing the word "condom" over and over and over).

The World Health Organisation has, in Africa, encouraged the 'ABC' approach: 'Abstinence, Be faithful... or use a Condom'

Given my druthers, I'd replace that "or" with an "and," but that's a damned good start.

I'm pleased that the WHO is taking such an approach. Here in the States the hard ideological split manifests itself mostly in battles over school sex education, and in programs abroad funded with US government money (not the WHO, apparently). The "abstinence-only" push from religious conservatives is unsurprising: but what is surprising and disheartening is the unwillingness of safer-sex advocates to embrace any program that "stigmatizes" or passes "value jugments" on risky behaviors. Political correctness gone maaaaaaaaaaad, it is.

Disappointing and disheartening, too, are your statistics on the effectiveness of WHO programs. And interesting that Uganda is the exception—according to the CIA World Factbook, Uganda has a Catholic plurality, with some 33% of the population nominally Catholic. (And today is Uganda's national holiday! Happy Independence Day, Uganda!)

But yeah, getting the facts out, creating an atmosphere of openness and revelation, rather than superstition, misinformation and fear—that's the key. It's terribly sad to see the Church on the wrong side of this effort, when it is an institution with such a vast potential to do good.

Fuck, I'm depressed now.

00:33 / 10.10.03

Uganda has a Catholic plurality, with some 33% of the population nominally Catholic.

Possibly more fertile soil within which the abstinence component could take root, then? Feldman emphasises the importance of tailoring the message to the target demographic:

"We need to recognize that our messages need to be tailored to different segments of the African population, including sexually active persons who wish not to be either celibate or monogamous. Culture-specific, ethnographic-based social marketing is needed throughout Africa to effectively promote condom use. HIV prevention programs, especially in rural areas, need to be tailored for the BaGanda, Bemba, Lozi, Mossi, Igbo, Yoruba, Maasai, Turkana, Azande, Shona, and many others, rather than pre-packaged in the State of Texas."

03:05 / 10.10.03

there is still an underlying assumption that the Vatican isn't interested in preventing the spread of AIDS and the miserable death of millions

its not really an assumption, as far as i am concerned, more a best fit hypothesis. why else they would be so blind to the simple facts? is it blindness, or as you suggest, resistance based on ideaology?

perhaps it isnt that they arent interested in that prevention, its just that they are more interested in sticking to their obsolete guns.

i merely said that there was no reason i could think of to stick to your dogma when it seems so obvious that your message is dangerous to some of your flock and many of those who are not congregation members. no reason except the cynical propagation of the memeplex(i realise that thuis sort of natural selection is passive, and not active in most cases). in the same way that shunning birth control keeps your baby count high, shunning disease control and relying on abstinence will insure you kill a fair few unbelievers.

no, i dont necessarily think they are cynically planning the ethno-religious cleansing of the dark continent.

yes, i do think they should be aware that that is what it looks like to many, and that that is how it may well end up.

(and no, i dont mind you quoting me like that - you did know the line about killing black people was a joke, though, yeah?)

22:52 / 12.10.03

Possibly the most horrible thing ever? Check the death toll in 10 years time if you need further convincing.

The Vatican must be praying *so* hard for a cure. They must have known this would happen. They've had a 'no condom' policy for a few hundred years I think then Aids hits & they stick to their dogma. Now they must have been discussing at this point what happens if it spreads to the 'normals'. Their position on condom use is unchanged.

Aids spreads. Tens of millions are dead or dying. What do they do? Spread lies ensuring tens of millions more die.

So they must really be praying hard for a cure. Not that I think that will help them at all. Scientific research may come to the rescue. But that would just be too ironic.

23:25 / 12.10.03

I've skipped over the last few posts just to say to the person who's saying that the two ideological positions are working in opposition to one another that I think they're basically just wrong. Seems to me that there has never been any condom advocate who has argued for increased sexual relations or against greater self-control and abstinence. In fact, during my time on my University's LGB society, we spent a great deal of time passing round material from the Terrance Higgins Trust which was all about being more responsible - being aware that when you were drunk your judgment was impaired for example and encouraging people to stop undertaking high risk activities. The whole gist of the condom-use lobby has been about getting people to be more responsible about sex than they were before, thinking it through more rationally, coming to reasonable conclusions and (if they decided to have sex) knowing when they needed to use a condom.

This is TOTALLY different to the Catholic Church's approach, which has been to present only one acceptable position - total abstinence outside marriage - and to demonise or attempt to undermine all others.

I simply don't see two opposing equally irrational groups of people - I see a pragmatic group advocating a variety of different solutions for a variety of different circumstances (in which the one that's most pertinent to the discussion of condom-use is that they think condoms are an effective measure against the transmission of the disease) as opposed to a profoundly powerful group presenting only one option in return - an option that most people, including many Catholics, find too exacting and demanding - and lying to those people about simple techniques and relatively cheap supplies that might save their lives.

Our Lady of The Two Towers

05:59 / 13.10.03

Sleeperservice They've had a 'no condom' policy for a few hundred years

Possibly not. I watched Panorama last night and, though it was a little vague, it said that the Catholic church supported the Pill and contraception in the 60s because there was nothing in thw Bible to suggest it was bad. Then, a little known Bishop from Poland (guess who!) did a mini-campaign and wrote to the Pope of the day and persuaded him to move Catholicism to it's anti-contraception stance. This then solidified when he became Pope.

It was a very disheartening show, the Pope was reported as believing that women are guilty for being raped (the old 'inflaming the men's passion' idea), these bishops repeating the lie about the condoms and reports that the Vatican regularly does deals with conservative Muslim countries and countries such as Libya to defeat Women's Reproductive Health bills at the UN.

What is it about the Catholic Church that every fifty or sixty years it seems to give it's tacit consent to genocide? (grrr)

We're The Great Old Ones Now

09:09 / 13.10.03

Bringing us right back around, I suppose, to the obvious truth: that the Church believes that it is saving souls from Damnation (an interesting position theologically, given the doctrines of Grace and Confession), which is eternal. The body is, as ever with matters Judeo-Christian, getting something of the short end.

At which point the WHO could rightly say 'get your nose out of health issues', and the Vatican could reply 'once you stop jeopardising souls'. Ad nauseam. The reason I think this is criminal is that I'm not a Catholic and I believe in any case that God, if s/he's up there, is considerably less neurotic about bonking than most religions. Omnipotent, omnipresent = seen it, done it.

It's not a clash of moralities, but of priorities and ontologies.

Gah.

Spyder Todd 2008

21:45 / 13.10.03

I see what Anna is saying...
But, I can't see that as right. This is just wrong. This is endangering peoples lives. I know I could never be part of a religion that willingly hurts others. I don't care about there standing on birth control, this is just wrong.

Page: 1(2)