"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane heading to Yaounde. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."
The pope said a responsible and moral attitude toward sex would help fight the disease, as he answered questions submitted in advance by reporters traveling on the plane. His response was presumably also prepared in advance.
Source: The Washington Post
Yes, I know that condom use is contrary to Catholic dogma, but just because the use of something is contrary to Catholic dogma doesn't entail asserting that it doesn't work. Drinking alcohol is contrary to Muslim beliefs, but Muslims won't deny that drinking alcohol creates good feelings — they simply argue that it's wrong anyway. Similarly, Pope Benedict XVI could be credible if he admitted that condoms can work but that shouldn't be used. It would still be immoral, but at least it would be truthful.
Instead, he went for the worst of all possible options. It's a fact that condom use, especially proper condom use, reduces the transmission of AIDS. Even if we pretend that it's reasonable to expect people to stop all extramarital sex, there is still a lot of current AIDS infections that may be transmitted with unprotected, marital sex. The only way to prevent transmission — and thereby save lives — is the use of condoms.
Some people don't rank saving lives as very important. Robert Pigott, BBC Religious Affairs Correspondent, writes that "there is something at stake that is greater even than the fight against Aids," arguing that the Catholic emphasis on abstinence addresses the greater concerns of fighting abortion, divorce, and the "contraception mentality." Yes, it's more important to fight abortion, divorce, and the contraception mentality than it is to save the lives of people who might die of AIDS.
By opposing condom use, Pope Benedict is telling married people to either permanently abstain from sex or die for the sake of sex and unmarried people to remain celibate and single or die for the sake of sex. In effect, the pope is declaring that strict adherence to traditional Catholic dogmas on sexual behavior is more important than living itself. That's not really surprising, I'm sad to say, because it's arguably a natural consequence of putting so much more emphasis on an afterlife than on this life. Why risk an eternity of torment simply for the sake of having a decent, fulfilling life now?
I guess it’s no surprise that the pope answered the way he did. Religion teaches people to pick and choose their “facts” based on what they want to be true or untrue. I see this as similar to the way so many religious people refuse to accept evolution simply because they don’t *like* it (because it goes against the myths of their Bible). And so the pope is doing the same thing, and it’s nothing short of closed-minded denial.
Unfortunately, in this case, his denial is also very dangerous…
Ratzinger would rather have lots of poor, sick Catholics than prevent what causes their poverty and disease. Warped thinking!
Well, we already know that they think that it’s better to rape and impregnate a 9-year-old than to help said child to get an abortion to save her life, so, really, I’m not surprised. Disgusted, yes, but not surprised.
The Pope is only saying what he must say. It’s the party line. How can he change course. This is something that will take a very long time to change (if ever) and I doubt that any of us will live to see it.
Marc says:
(The Pope is only saying what he must say.) I’m confused.Is he not the boss chimp in the church?
What I personally find outrageous about all these stories RE Pope “Ratzi” (Ratzo?)…or as some of us at “God is for Suckers” recently referred to him…Pope “Vader”…is that no one in the popular media ever calls him (and, of course, the Roman Catholic Church) out on all the, albeit rather ancient, official insidious dogmatic BS.
The time for ASSUMED immunity from criticism of ALL religions, for that matter, is long past; especially considering the dangers in this Nuclear Age caused by the totally arrogance promulgation of ignorant and obviously delusional Dogmas.
As Austin often responds to many commenting trolls at this Site:
“Proove it!”
Indeed, that would make an appropriate retort on any discussions involving many controversial religious segments or interviews, on networks like CNN, etc.
Yeah…I know!…”ain’t gonna happen”!
And while I’m on that favorite topic, how many times does we see any admitted atheists on programs directly involving religion, like “Larry King Live”, f’rnstance?
HmmMM?
RARE…if any, I’d say. OK…Bill Maher! (who then, fairly often, gets preempted by the President, yada-yada.)
However, plenty of obviously moronic, completely unchallenged, often highly bigoted, Religious Preachers, are sometimes given a full hour. You guys know the names, I presume. What!…Pardon my dust?
“AARRGH”!!! Or possibly: “HARR”!!!
[By the way...when IS the official "Talk like a Pirate Day", anyway?]
^ Correction
“does we”…should be: “do we”
[Which reminds me of George Hamilton's
"Do what?" in "Love at First Bite"]
If only Ratzinger’s father had worn one…
If the pope is so against people protecting themselves, why does HE ride around in a bullet proof truck?
The pope is just unbelievably deluded.
I know the focus is on his remarks about condoms and AIDS but did anyone notice the hilarious irony of his warning of the “growing influence of superstitious forms of religion”.
(The Pope is only saying what he must say.) I’m confused.Is he not the boss chimp in the church?
Well he does have one superior in the chain of command, and that one has a documented history of capriciousness and support of genocide..The Pope probably just thinks its best he stays on the straight and narrow.
“Well he does have one superior in the chain of command, and that one has a documented history of capriciousness and support of genocide..The Pope probably just thinks its best he stays on the straight and narrow.”
Heh. I guess he imagines his God as similar to many of his fellow priests then(ie. a god that enjoys f*cking the children in his care)?
So here’s the question. Does stating nonsense like this in the end cause more people to disregard the Catholic church? I mean, in Mexico they all claim to be Catholic, but lots of people use condoms. So does that hypocracy actually make the Catholic church less powerful than it would be if it just said, “you know what, AOK with condoms!” In other words, is this stupidity, harmful as it is to poor people in Africa, also accelerating the decline of Catholicism elsewhere?
You said: “I’m not sure where that leaves Pope Benedict XVI who basically rejected the value of science, facts, and reality when he proclaimed that not only should condoms not be used to fight AIDS, but that they might in fact make things worse.”
Actually science and facts support the Pope’s statement. Dr. Edward C. Green from the Harvard Center For Population and Development Studies told National Review Online a couple of weeks ago that “The pope is correct or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope’s comments. He stresses that “condoms have been proven to not be effective at the ‘level of population.’”
Green had recently conducted a research showing this data published in the journal Studies For Family Planning in February 2009. Interestingly, the conclusion reached there is also supported by other studies such as one published in the Lancet in 2004 by Drs. Halperin and Steiner.
These studies show that there is no evidence that a promotion strategy based on condoms works. According to the data, what has halted the spread of the disease in countries like Uganda has been the promotion of abstinence and faithfulness. Among sex workers and gay men, yes, condoms have been shown to have curbed the spread of the disease according to the data. But apparently according to the data, condom promotion has not stopped the spread of HIV in the general population.
You also said that “Even if we pretend that it’s reasonable to expect people to stop all extramarital sex, there is still a lot of current AIDS infections that may be transmitted with unprotected, marital sex. The only way to prevent transmission — and thereby save lives — is the use of condoms.”
Well, yes, if one looks at the individual effectiveness of condom use, it’s over 90%. But, even with that high effectiveness rate, public health data in Africa or anywhere else like the ones I mentioned earlier have not shown that condoms have helped, even with married couples. As the studies have shown, what has helped is abstinence.
Green added in his remarks to the National Review that “There is a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded ‘Demographic Health Surveys,’ between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates.”
Ironically science and the facts do indeed support the Pope’s words.
Have any of these studies been peer reviewed and replicated, or just reported to political rags like National Review?
Nature will stop aids, if facts and ideas don’t matter.
Green’s study, which is relatively new since it was only published last month, corroborates an earlier study from the Lancet from 2004, as I mentioned in my response above (by Halperin, Steiner). Green’s study is supported further by earlier studies from UNAIDS such as the one by Norman Hearst, et al from 2004.
The evidence showing the ineffectiveness of condom promotion is substantiated by these and other studies. So, the Pope is not at all speaking as an uninformed observer here. He would be privy to some empirical information coming from Africa since the Catholic Church, which he heads, is also the largest care-taker of HIV/AIDS patients in Africa and indeed in other parts of the world.
Just to add to my point about any reviews of Green’s study, as I had earlier indicated, in addition to the Lancet, UNAIDS, and others, Green also cites the US-funded “Demographic Health Surveys” as substantiating the conclusions of his study.
But you don’t mention that Halperin & Steiner endorse condom use. That’s the problem with simply alleging that some study exists without citing it, linking to it, or explaining its full conclusions. It’s easy to mislead people about what studies or research papers actually say and given deceptive claims about what the studies conclude.
And was this Hearst document put through the peer review process then replicated by others? UNAIDS is not a scientific body, after all. You can’t use one non-reviewed study to bolster the credibility of another non-reviewed study.
So far, it looks like you don’t have anything to offer to substantiate your claims.
Before you comment again, please wait until after you have original material you can cite rather than second-hand references you read in secondary sources and so can’t verify yourself.
I guess that their theory is that people who use condoms have more sex because they feel that they are safe. Even if the effectiveness is 90%, if the amount of increased sexual activity is great enough, the infection rate would actually go up.
Dr Green’s article comes up time and again in defence of that horrible pope’s deplorable comments. It seems that every catholic dogmatist has jumped on the bandwagon. However, Dr. Green’s paper, as Austin has stated already, has not yet been peer reviewed. This alone leaves it open to question. Also, there is the statistic being bandied about that the fail rate of condoms is 90%. I have not seen this substantiated anywhere. This is the figure that Dr. Green uses when analyzing the benefit of using condoms in the fight against AIDS.
Surely it is understood that condoms aren’t the WHOLE solution, however, this disease is so appalling that any partial solution HAS to be better than wishful thinking.
Its not that abstinence doesnt work. Surely if no one participated in sex, be it marital, extra-marital, hetero or homosexual then AIDS would cease to spread.
That of course is a positively ludicrous proposal since in the 3rd world birth rates must be extraordinarily high to overcome infant mortality.
Will condoms alone solve the problem, of course not. What makes me curious is how one can claim that condoms make it worse, that the use of condoms increases the infection rate. Condoms are generally considered to be about 90% effective.
The increase in sexual activity required for that 10% failure rate to actually result in an increase in HIV infection seems highly unlikely.
I have absolutely no doubt that condoms alone will not stem the problem, but used in combination with effective education and yes even abstinence we may someday see a reduction.
You said, “But you don’t mention that Halperin & Steiner endorse condom use.”
Sir, Dr. Edward Green as well does not discount the individual effectiveness of condoms. The individual effectiveness of condoms (over 90%) is not being disputed here. The point which I have made from the start, which finds support in the studies by Drs. Green, Halperin, Hearst, Chen, Steiner, and others, is that there is NO evidence showing that a prevention strategy based on condoms is effective for the general population—a finding found by other researchers, a finding which has supported the Pope’s words.
The study from the Lancet by Drs. Halperin and Steiner from 2004 was endorsed by 150 AIDS experts and Nobel laureates. It supports the Pope’s words that condom-use has not been effective by stating that condom-use should be the main emphasis only in settings of concentrated transmission, like commercial sex. For the general population, Halperin and Steiner recommends abstinence and faithfulness.
You also asked, “And was this Hearst document put through the peer review process then replicated by others?”
Yes. Hearst’s study was replicated and corroborated in the aforementioned study conducted by Dr. Edward Green published in February 2009; Dr. Norman Hearst participated in this study.
You also said, “That’s the problem with simply alleging that some study exists without citing it, linking to it, or explaining its full conclusions. It’s easy to mislead people about what studies or research papers actually say and given deceptive claims about what the studies conclude.”
The abstract of these studies is easily found online for those who have no access to the full study. I wouldn’t have mentioned these studies if they actually contradicted my point.
You also said, “So far, it looks like you don’t have anything to offer to substantiate your claims.”
In addition to the three scientific finds I already mentioned earlier (by Drs. Halperin/Steiner, Green, Heart), let me add another scientific proof. The journal Science on May 2008 published the study “Reassessing HIV Prevention” by [AGAIN] Daniel Halperin, Malcolm Potts, Douglas Kirby, Ann Swindler, and others.
The study shows that the largest investments in AIDS prevention targeted to the general population are being made in interventions—namely condoms—where the evidence for large-scale impact is uncertain. It basically bolsters the point that condoms may not be as effective in the general population as some people think.
Percy F said,”However, Dr. Green’s paper, as Austin has stated already, has not yet been peer reviewed. This alone leaves it open to question.”
I don’t understand why I should repeat this the third time: Dr. Greene’s study was only published in February 2009. It will take time before a subsequent study corroborates Greene’s findings. Who knows, perhaps it is already being replicated, but we won’t know those findings until it is written and published.
But what is significant about Green’s work is that it is one of the latest studies on this issue of condom use in Africa and it actually supports earlier studies which already were saying the same thing, and which the Pope basically amplified en route to Africa.
We can argue again and again if this or that study has been “peer reviewed” and replicated. But if study after study, year after year, has been telling us that the focus on condom-use is not solving the problem, can humanity afford to turn a deaf ear on this particular life-saving scientific data just because it is being echoed by the Pope?
Then there is no reason to recommend condom use to combat AIDS in a population.
You’re citing as scientific authority for the pope’s words a study which recommends condom use to fight AIDS.
What you are failing to disclose is that Green and others recommend doing more than just use condoms, not ignore condoms completely. Ergo, they don’t support the pope’s words. Just the opposite, in fact.
Once the pope comes out recommending a comprehensive strategy that includes condoms, then you’ll be able to truthfully claim that the pope has taken a position supported by scientific research. Until then, such claims are not just false, but deliberately false.
Since Green is unambiguous in recommending condom use, which is the opposite of what the pope wants, I think it might be closer to the truth that you wouldn’t have mentioned the studies if you had thought anyone would check on them. That might explain your failure to provide links, citations, substantive quotes, etc.
Oh, yes, of course. You are so right. How stupid of me to think that the scientific data I have read extensively actually said something different than what I have been reading in them. And yes, I suppose when Dr. Green said that the Pope is correct, he actually didn’t mean it. Plus, how unthinking of me to perhaps suggest you could be wrong. You’re sooo right, and the data I have presented is sooo wrong.
Well, there aren’t many plausible explanations for claiming that a researcher who recommends using condoms plus other methods is “supporting” a religious leader who insists that condoms shouldn’t be used at all.
Stupidity is one, but it’s not the one I find most likely here.
then how can you go around the reality that this researcher from harvard (green) has told the washington post and national review that “the pope is correct”?
Green has not said that the pope is correct that condoms should not be used at all. What’s happening is that people are citing Green out of context — and failing to note that other researchers disagree with him — thus giving the impression both that he’s saying something other than he really is and, moreover, that his position is more mainstream that it is.
Put another way, Green is a convenient means by which apologists for the pope lie.
James appears to be rather good at cherry picking. He accepts whatever supports his preconception and ignores everything that contradicts it.
However, the issue of whether there is any science to support the Pope’s position is almost irrelevant. Even YEC are able to mine studies for data to support their faith-based beliefs. The Pope arrived at his position completely independent of any science (as Popes generally have)and would not change his position if science overwhelmingly proved him wrong (as can be seen with regard to gay rights).
but i am still perplexed on how green is being cited “out of context” when his words in the washington post (march 29) are clear: “Yet, in truth, current empirical evidence supports [the Pope]“?
honestly, from my reading green’s op-ed in the washington post and my reading what james is saying, i do not find anything “out of context” or “cherry picking.” just an honest observation.
to eric: but if we are going to say that “the issue of whether there is any science to support the Pope’s position is almost irrelevant,” then i think you have just thrown away the entire premise of this blog article.
Because Green isn’t saying that the current empirical evidence support the position that condoms shouldn’t be used at all. To cite him as if he is, which is what you and James are doing here, is dishonest.
Green isn’t opposed to condom use, as the pope is, but rather to relying entirely on condoms to fight AIDS.
For what it’s worth, before a legitimate paper gets released for public scrutiny it must first undergo peer review. One can’t claim that an already released study is too new thus peer review hasn’t yet been enacted. If it’s been released but has not undergone peer review it simply falls in the category of just another opinion.
In any case, the fact the Green attended a Catholic University in 1974 and has had numerous articles published in Christian publications causes me to smell a rat…
See:
http://weblog.sinteur.com/2009/03/harvard-researcher-agrees-with-pope-on-condoms-in-africa/
naked_ape, so a scientist went to a Catholic university so now he has an agenda?
To see if your logic works, why not check the schools of the other scientists who agree with Edward Green like Drs. Norman Hearst, Sanny Chen, Malcom Potts, Daniel Halperin, Douglas Kirby, Jeffrey Klausner, Richard Wamai, James Kahn, M.J. Steiner, M.M. Cassell, and others.
Check also the CV of the 150 AIDS experts and Nobel laureates who agrees with Drs. Hearst and Chen.
bayguy said: “but if we are going to say that ‘the issue of whether there is any science to support the Pope’s position is almost irrelevant,’ then i think you have just thrown away the entire premise of this blog article.”
Wow. You really can’t evaluate the quality of evidence when there is conflicting data?
Besides, it is quite disingenuous of you to pretend that the Pope’s opinion is based on scientific evidence. His opinion predated the supposed evidence. Do you know what cherry picking means?
stealth,
It is not uncommon for some scientists to disagree with mainstream scientific opinion. This doesn’t mean that such dissenters are correct, however. Occasionally they may be visionary (eg. Einstein, Newton) but more often they are simply wrong and/or their judgement is clouded in some way. I think Dr. Green’s educational and publishing history are very relevent to how much credence we should give his claims.
Pope Benedict is a moral leader, of course, he does not promote condoms, but rather, absentance or faithfulness to one’s partner. The secular world wants no accountable at all.
Julie said: “Pope Benedict is a moral leader, of course, he does not promote condoms, but rather, absentance or faithfulness to one’s partner. The secular world wants no accountable at all.”
You are creating a false dichotomy, Julie. Using condoms does not preclude faithfulness to one’s partner, nor does it conflict with accountability.
Furthermore, the Pope also opposes the use of condoms by married couples even if one of them is HIV positive and the other is not. Do you call that moral leadership?