Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Scotty, Oct 9, 2003.
More pseudo-science from the geniuses in Rome:
Priests don't wear condoms
So we have a bunch of guys who don't or never have sex, all of sudden know more than the CDC.
From the article:
The Archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Nzeki told the program: "AIDS...has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms."
They should really concentrate on what they know best. Covering up charges of pedophilia against priests.
Yes, priests know what condoms are good for...denying the rape center DNA evidence. (I went too far, but I don't really care).
Re: Priests don't wear condoms
Not that this is a defendable statement, but I'd like to read the rest of what he said to see if context could slightly soften the ignorance of this particular sentence.
I can speak for the italian people.
We always obey the enlightened commands of our Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, above all if they concern having sex.
And you perverted should wash your mouth before criticizing these holy men.
This is why every single condom in the automatic machines placed in every street, luxurious vehicles of the devil, is accurately sabotaged, Ratzinger himself does it with a pin.
Oh, come on, the Church knows a lot about safe sex. You never see a pregnant altarboy, do you?
So, you're saying the reason Italy has the lowest birth rate in the industrialized world is really because Italian men can't seal the deal?
Not the two Catholic Italian girls I know.
I believe he was being sarcastic.
Now that I re-read his post, I do believe you're right.
Memo to the Vatican. They work for me. No VD and no children. (But who knows, maybe I have a low sperm count and I don't know it.)
Does anybody know whether this is the sort of faith-based effort that's going to get the lion's share of the money the Bush administration has targeted for HIV work in Africa?
I didn't think of that. I know the Admin. is anti-condom, when it comes to it's HIV efforts. And I believe I read somewhere that some groups were going to be left out in the cold becuase they were pro-condom.
it is funny that out of side of the mouth the vatican is saying that condoms are unreliable while out of the other side of the mouth they say to use the "rhythem method" as reliable family planning.
Call me an American catholic because this is one area of catholocism I'll never be able to accept.
Go to Margaret Cho's blog. She has some choice words about this.
NOTE: Don't go there if you're squeamish about reading repeated instructions for the High Pontiff to attempt to reproduce with himself.
I don't have any great desire to defend the catholic church, but my superficial understanding of their teaching is that you should not have sex outside of marriage. And you should not have gay sex at all.
Liberals say that you can't be so prudish, sex outside of marriage is fun. Gay sex too. With condoms and birth control pills and abortions, let the good times roll.
Whose advice (or non-advice) was being followed when AIDS got spread so far and wide?
And why do liberals castigate the catholic church for advising practices which would be pretty effective if followed?
Actually, that's not what liberals say. They say that people are having sex, and while a condom is not foolproof it's better than nothing.
Because the Church is lying. You know, that thing the President does. They are saying that condoms are useless in stopping the transmission of AIDS, and that is not true.
What you are saying is true, but to get people to practice abstinence is like telling a dog not to eat steak. True, if they eat their dry food instead of steak, dogs will not get diarreah and will probably live longer. But the only way to make them do it is to keep them on a leash. In the case of people, that leash is the fear of hell. But most people are not held by that leash any more.
I am all for teaching abstinence as one common sense way to prevent problems associated with promiscuity such as desease and unwanted pregnancy. But we have to also realize that condoms are also part of the solution in preventing such problems. A good alternative for those dogs who can't help it but go for the steak.
In addition to Foosinho's responses, which are right on point, I'll add this.
In adjuring people not to use condoms (remember that the Catholic Church is against birth control in all forms, excepting the rythm method), they are in effect insisting that HIV+ spouses with HIV- spouses put those HIV- spouses at risk every time they have sex.
In my opinion, the motivation behind the Catholic Church's lies about the efficacy of condoms has less to do with HIV transmission than it does with trying to use the AIDS pandemic to frighten people into following their doctrine: "sex is for procreation, period."
Which is self defeating, if you stop and think about it.
1. Assuming the Church feels their anti-birth control policies are a reflection of God's will,
2. and further that God is interested in having His followers adhere to His teachings because they are, precisely, His teachings, to be followed out of love and respect for Him
3. Then the Church's coercion, through fear based on lies, of chastity/abstinence is producing behavior that is no more laudatory, in God's eyes, than is promiscuity, simply because it has nothing to do with honoring God.
How did the spouse get HIV? Not following the teachings of the church, maybe? So what you are saying is that following the wrong 50% of their teaching will end up bad. Probably so. But following 50% of the liberal's teaching (and forgetting the part about wearing condoms) has resulted in huge numbers of people with AIDS.
I'd say that you don't have much standing to be throwing stones at the pope.
Telling people that they can live life as promiscuous as they want, just wear a condom, that is as unrealistic as anything the catholics are saying. It's much more realistic to tell people that there will likely be serious consequences for such things.
You're completely ignoring reality. People here are not advocating promiscuity, they're advocating the use of condoms. Because promiscuity is unfortunately the reality in many parts of the world.
Many many people in the third world get HIV from blood tranfusions, birth, etc. There are plenty of people following the church's teaching that can get AIDS.
Before you judge every person with HIV, you should know that in many parts of Africa blood used for transfusions still goes untested.