People refusing to use condoms wasn't what produced the AIDS pandemic.

Nope, it was Reagan funded research in the seventies in San Francisco at the UCSF Health Sciences campus with close support at Letterman Hospital.

I could be wrong. Probably not though.

Whether people refusing to use condoms produced the AIDS pandemic or not isn't relevant. The failure to use condoms has added to the problem. People have died that wouldn't have if they'd used condoms. The disease has spread more rapidly than it would have if condoms were more widely used. The Catholic Church forbids the use of condoms. They use their moral authority to enforce that ban. They share the blame for millions that have died.

While I am an ardent fan of Norm's blog, and often use it as the grinding stone for the sharpening of my own faith, I believe there are several misconceptions and assumptions inherent in this argument that are being somewhat taken for granted.

1) The Catholic Church's so-called "ban" on contraceptives is not limited to condoms, which seem to be the main focus of this particular diatribe, thus bearing more heavily upon men than upon women in terms of sexual responsibility, nor is it meant to be contextualized outside the sexual relationship of married couples.

2) In regards to this, the Catholic Church bears just as much disdain for pre-marital sex as it does for contraception, and in that, the fullness of the Church's theological position on contraception exists for and within the marital relationship. There are forms of contraception the Church does in fact condone, such as the rhythm method and the observation of infertile periods (the mention of which has often raised many an eyebrow in scoffing sarcasm) for the sake of fostering tenderness and intimacy between the married couple. The Church's teaching holds that sex and sexuality are in themselves resplendant gifts from God, and indeed, God's first observation of humanity, in the second story of Creation in Genesis anyway, is that "It is not good for man to be alone" (Gen 2:18), however, such gifts have within themselves teleological functions, of which the willful interception is an assertion of man's own desires above the will of God for human sexuality. (And let's not fall into the trap of reading Genesis as literal history though, k? Cause, you know, ew :P). The whole of the Church's teaching on contraception can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, entries 2370-2379, the beginning of which states:

"Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, 'every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible' is intrinsically evil: Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality...The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle...involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality" (CCC 2370).

As it stands, the injuction against contraception is specifically geared towards married couples, as there is already a wholely separate injuction against pre-marital sex to begin with.

3) Because of this, within the body of the Church's formulation on contraception and sexual intercourse, there is no specific injuction against contraception for those couples engaging in pre-marital sex because there is no /need/ for one, as there is already a firmly established ideology set against pre-marital sexual relations in the first place. The Church recognizes pre-marital sex as a very real occurance, and many priests, deacons, and nuns who are themselves private counselors would rather see people who are dead-set on having pre-marital sex use various forms of protection rather than expose themselves to any number of dangers, but the Church will always encourage abstinance, marriage, and "family planning" in its refusal to see sex as "pleasure before procreation" as is so often the accomodating case to secular individualists. (Who ironically don't seem to wish to take personal responsibility for their individual actions so much as shift the blame onto a religious institution because doing so is expedient to their hatred for it). Ideologically, it must hold that if contraception is inherently sinful in its willful intercept of the fullness of God's plan for sexuality, then it is sinful both in and outside of marriage. However, it's sinfulness outside of marriage is negligeable due to the fact that the occurance of pre-marital sex becomes the primary issue, and not that of contraception. In short, the Church cannot be blamed or held responsible for the individual choices of people regarding contraception if such people are choosing to have pre-marital sex, since the Church itself already prohibits pre-marital sex, and would rather see such choices being made with a modicum of responsibility rather than merely favoring one particular point of doctrine over another. (It also logically follows that if one is educated in the prohibitions of the Church regarding sexuality, and chooses to disregard them in favor of pre-marital sexual relations, then the ban on contraception is no more sacred to him than the rest of such edicts to begin with).

4) OB states: "...as is well known, there is already difficulty in getting men to use condoms, because men don't like wearing them; the more subordinated women are, the harder it is for them to insist that men wear condoms; this is especially true for prostitutes - some of whom are the very young daughters of AIDS victims and other destitute people; therefore any religious edict that could give an apparent moral or religious gloss to men's reluctance to wear them will be warmly welcomed and used by many men who will cheerfully ignore other religious edicts; such religious edicts are therefore extremely, lethally harmful to women." I believe her apparent feminist agenda inherent in this statement is blinding her to several realities that it implies. If a man were truly a religious individual, specificially one who willingly assented to Catholicism in an act of faith, then he would not be "using" any religious edict to his own advantage while conveniently ignoring others, or at least genuinely not trying to do so, since the whole of religious doctrine would have a real spiritual meaning to him. He would not be having pre-marital sex (or again, at least trying not to, since every human being is subject to sin and the making of mistakes, at which point it could only be hoped that he would find the necessary conviction in reconciliation and the satisfaction of striving not to do it again). He would not be asserting the ban on contraceptives upon his spouse simply to get out of wearing a condom, nor apathetically approaching her in this situation in the first place, because she would have a deep, loving, intrinsic value to him both as his wife and as a human being, as his sexual partner, and as a woman. (Of course, it's argueable that a man can be a strongly devout Catholic and disagree with the Church on the matter of contraception, but even then, it is entirely contradictory to claim that he could intellectually disagree with a ban on contraception only to then use that ban in support of not having to wear a condom). Conversely, if a man can simply embrace and use to his own advantage a single religious edict at the ignorant expense of others that either complement or qualify it, (let alone sleep with a prostitute), then it is obvious that religion and the morality for which it strives are unimportant to him, and he is merely building his own superficial structure of semantics in an effort to facilitate the fruition of his own desires. His own spirituality does not factor into his decisions, nor does the dignity of his sexual partner(s). In Augustinian terms, instead of perceiving his sexual partner(s) as a means to an end in God, via a conscious respect and contrite love for the sacrament of matrimony, he instead merely perceives people as means to an end in himself. He becomes the object of his own desire, and uses the wording of religion--not the substance of it--merely as a tool that accomodates the direction of his and others' actions towards himself, rather than towards God (cf. The City of God, bks 14-15). In this regard, it is not the Church's prohibition of contraception that is lethal, but rather the irreligious man's choice of making a buffet out of a system of morality and ethics, picking and choosing at will those things which he favors, and discarding those which he does not. The Church itself condemns this kind of behavior, and strongly admonishes the man who would use any of its doctrines to justify sexual misogyny (or any misogyny for that matter). It already stands to reason that any man who could consciously pick and choose religious doctrines and then use them to justify his own agenda is an intrinsically Machiavellian and manipulative man, in whom the proper love and respect for God upon which those doctrines are based do not dwell. Also, there is nothing to say that if this particular religious edict weren't in place, or any religious principle at all, that such a man could not or would not find and manipulate another form of justification expedient to his own ends. There is clearly a division between secular attitudes towards sexuality and a more ecclesiastical interpretation, yet OB seems to collapse the two in an attempt to hold the Church responsible for the individual choices and manipulations of men.

5) The "level of subordination" of which OB speaks is peculiarly ambiguous, simply because subordination consists of varying degrees, some being so darkly distorted beyond any original Pauline and Roman Catholic understanding of spiritual subordination on the part of the female, for which the consequences of rebellion are disgustingly abusive and hateful. Of course, at this point, it becomes obvious that these degrees of subordination are heinous manipulations of religious thought, as opposed to the true substance of religion itself. Regardless, in a pre-marital sexual situation, there are instances in which a woman may deny her sexual partner should he refuse to wear a condom, and plenty more in which women are educated enough to understand that if a man wishes to have pre-marital sex and yet tout the line that his Church forbids him to wear a condom, he is clearly missing the larger point, and she may thus simply roll her eyes, condemn him as an idiot whose penis is doing most of the talking, and be on her way to finding a man who will respect her simply because she deserves no less. While it is unfortuneate that this is not the case for every woman alive, it is a possibility that already begins to minimize the lethal ramifications towards women that not using contraception in a pre-marital sexual situation can bring. Similarly, it is odd that she omits those equally lethal ramifications for men, or how the roles of women are changing on the sexual-liberation front, but I suppose that I digress. She even neglects to mention those practicing Catholic women who apparently aren't expedient to her own man-hating feminist cause.

6) When OB condemns John-Paul II's theological position on contraception as superstitious and savage, she at once refuses to acknowledge faith as having any intellectual weight or bearing, that it has no association with reason, or that any of the literature and actions of John-Paul II that are firmly rooted in love, Christian compassion and charity, and a profound respect for life and the human dignity of both men and women are indeed anything but savage. She simply dismisses faith with an absolutism that she herself cannot prove, and to call the former pope a bad man in the face of his profound rhetoric on love, the dignity of the human person, and taking a stand on moral issues that were, in fact, about morality and not about politics or these conspiracies of control to which many secularists, atheists, and anti-religion rhetoricians will attempt to reduce the Church, is merely a personal diagnosis that smacks of hatred and an abandonment of intellectual critique for the sake of personal evaluations and judgements that are mere unsubstantiated opinion. The answer to her final question is, of course: No, he was not wrong about those lights. He just simply wasn't an atheist.

It's deeply unfortuneate when people such as this take an approach to the Church that claims any move it makes or any doctrines it forumlates are politically motivated or centered around this conspiratorial idea of controlling people. In the end, the Church believes itself to have a moral mission that, regardless of the critiques of its enemies, is rooted in the most profound love, compassion, tenderness, and mercy--in its master, which is Christ. The Church is an organization to which men voluntarily assent; they are not forced into doing so nor compelled to surrender their will. This voluntary assent is a choice that is continually made, and the concept of controlling people breaks down when the adherence to the teachings of the Church belongs, in the final analysis, to the individual's choices. If the Church is at all culpable in the promulgation of AIDS or the misunderstanding of its theology of contraception, it is in the fact that She herself shares a common humanity with the rest of the world, and her members fail at endeavors in which it is essential they should not. The Church is not responsible for the ways in which men twist and turn her words and edicts, or the ways in which they manipulate them for their own selfish gains. She is can only take responsibility for not having taught them better than she did.

Oh, by the bye Norm, contraceptives aren't 100% effective. It seems fallacious to state that if people had used condoms, they wouldn't have died, simply because there's no way to prove otherwise :P Of course, I'm a practicing catholic, so go figure asking for that, huh? ;) Anywho, I don't mean to clog your blog with the rantings of another loud-mouthed malcontent. I hope you have a great week, and keep up the great site that, if nothing else, forces people to think :)

Michael

Just to address your last paragraph: laws are not 100% effective either; should we therefore do without them? Condoms are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. If every man in Africa had used a condom for every sex act outside of his marriage, then I can confidently state that AIDS would not be a problem in Africa.

While it is comforting to assert that the Church only referred to married couples when it banned all forms of contraception, I have yet to hear a Church representative state that gay men should use condoms when engaging in sex, or that in the Church's hierarchy of laws, as long as you are committing one sinful act it is ok to commit another

How come gun control is never discussed at this site? Is this a closet NRA gathering ground?

Norm,

Are you really claiming that people cite Church rulings on condoms in order to not have to use condoms when fucking prostitutes?

If the pope can be blamed for refusing to take the time to condemn extramarital or anal sex without a condom, can you be blamed for refusing to take the time to condemn extramarital or anal sex in general?

I concur with the response posted by Michael, and write separatley only to make clear my condemnation of OB's article. Whoever she is, it is clear that OB is thoughtless and full of unreasoned prejudice. To label the Pope as "incredibly bad and savage" is just one more example of the arrogant and elitist approach that extreme liberals are so fairly accused of using.

Kyle and Michael, the Pope aside, you don't believe someone who knowing their actions will lead to the death of other humans is not incredibly bad? That it is at the least a savage disregard for the "sanctity of life" At what point do we characterize someone who has done both good and bad things in their life as a bad. Is it acceptable if on balance the bad outweighs the good. A subjective judgment to be sure but not unreasonable I think. When dogma replaces reason good men do bad things.

That condoms are not 100% effective is also irrelevant. They are very effective in preventing the spread of AIDS and that is a very good reason for those at risk to use them. To the anon who asks do people cite Church ruling on condoms to not use them when fucking prostitutes. I don't know. It certainly wouldn't surprise me to find that it was true. People have been citing religion to justify all kinds of bad behavior for centuries.

I don't know about you, but when I have a toothache, I don't go to my banker and when I want to clean my suits, I don't bring them to the bowling alley. So why would I allow a bunch of celibate old males to give me lessons in sexuality and contraception?

Well again, I'm not sure one can say that the actions of a single individual will lead to the deaths of countless others when, in the issue of the useage of contraception, that ultimately comes down to individual choice.

This ban on condoms isn't "enforced" in a way that's tangible or in a way that robs a man of his own free will. The only authority behind it is one that requires personal assent in order for it to have any power, and the edict itself is so carefully formulated and philosophically detailed that the Church's position is extremely clear, and not reduceable to the statement "the Church forbids the use of condoms" which one could then extrapolate to any number of situations without it being recognizeable that they were attempting to justify their own self-interested ends.

There /is/ a level of personal blame that it seems people are conveniently ignoring because doing so is expedient to their distaste for religion, but Norm said it himself. People have been using religion to justify their own actions for centuries, which obviously implies that religion itself isn't the enemy, but rather those self-interested and manipulative individuals who merely use and abuse their own reductive perceptions of religion in the first place.

Equally, I'm not sure the dichotomy implicit in the dialectic between dogma and reason which Norm asserts is a fair one, simply because the two are seldom opposed in formulative substance. Dogma and doctrine are forged within the Church using man's capacity for reason and the theological knowledge at his disposal in light of divine revelation. If a person chooses to follow blindly the teachings of the Church and claims "the Church made me do it!", then his subsequent actions are the result of his own choices and unwillingness to learn more clearly what and why he believes. In the matter of the Church, however, there is no blind usurpation of reason in favor of dogma, since dogma and doctrine are the products of reason as contemplative of the revelation of God.

Further, the issue of contraception isn't "dogma" in the first place :P It has no bearing on the creedal core of the Catholic Church, nor is the adherence to the precept necessary for salvation. It's never been an Ex Cathedra statement, and more than likely never will be.

Anyway Norm, at the end of the day, you rock :P I love your site, and love even more how you welcome conversation and opinion. Have a great day :D

Mike

Norm,

There is common and basic flaw in your and OB's main argument. You point out that because the Pope knew that his no-condom policy would result in more HIV infections than a pro-condom policy, or no condom policy at all, then he is, we'll use the terms again, "savage and incredibly bad." To make this argument, however, is to suggest that the Pope's culpability in this instance would be logically equivalent to the Pope shooting someone in the head at close range.

You may quickly object here and say, no, I understand that the Pope did not actually kill anyone with his policy in the same way that he would kill someone if he shot them at close range, and the two cases are distinguished by what makes them morally abhorrent. This would be a mistake, however, because in both cases culpability is based on the exact same premise: the Pope knew the result of his actions. The pulling of the trigger is not inherently bad, it is the fact that whoever pulls it knows what will happen that makes it bad. Would we fault a two year old who has no idea what a gun is but nonetheless finds one, picks it up, points it at someone, and then pulls the trigger? Of coure not.

So moving on, this conception of the Pope's policy that makes him as guilty and responsible as one who shoots someone at close range is flawed because it omits the fact that in order for HIV to actually be spread the actions of other agents are required. The Pope's policy is not "you must have unprotected sex," it is rather that "the use of particular kinds of contraception--including condoms--in the marital context are immoral." That's it. And what you are asking for is the Pope to change the Church policy so that people engaging in conduct that he already discourages and deems immoral will not have to face the consequences of that conduct.

Moreoever, if you consider the Pope's over-all policy regarding sexual relations (and I see no reason why we shouldn't) then his view would prevent the spread of HIV FAR BETTER than what I would take to be your view of "USE CONDOMS." How can you possibly blame the Pope for people freely choosing to adhere to his decree on not using contraception (and adhering to it out of context I should add), while at the same freely choosing NOT to follow his position on pre-marital abstinence?

You may reply that many in the most HIV infected areas of Africa are not educated enough about sex and AIDS to fully understand the abstinence position, but even if that is the case it doesn't explain why they would be more educated about the Pope's no-condom position than his abstinence position, a premise your argument is clearly based on.

Following the edicts of the Pope will not result in HIV, selectivley doing so might, but it is those doing the selecting, and not the Pope, who are the only ones responsible.

There was a time when condoms did not exist, and yet mankind did not go extinct from venereal disease. In fact, if you look at the history of the matter, I think you'll find that modern condoms have done very little to prevent the formation and global spread of new venereal diseases. The reason should be obvious. When some couple having sex runs out of condoms, they'll just go at it one more time without a condom much more often than they'll reuse one or just wait until later. And all it takes for transmission of VD is just that one time.

Again, if the Pope is guilty of murder for encouraging unprotected sex within the confines of a marriage, why isn't someone who advocates random protected sex similarly guilty?

In a press release, the Vatican said teaching people safe sex is “a dangerous and immoral policy based on the deluded theory that the condom can provide adequate protection against AIDS.”

Regardless of Catholic bans on premarital sex, the effectiveness of condoms in helping to prevent the spread of AIDS is not in question. The Vatican may choose to work toward the day when all sex takes place within marriage, but it is extremely dangerous and irresponsible to undercut science to advance this view. There are billions of people in the world. They have sex. Millions die of AIDS. In view of those facts, any anti-science claims made by people in positions of power are indefensible. Period.

I really have to take offence at this.

Firstly, a substantial number of the schools and hospitals in Africa, particularly in its poorest and most desperate regions, have been set up, staffed and funded by the Catholic Church and its representatives. These clinics in particular have had a huge effect in helping people cope with the disease.

Secondly, what the representatives of the church in Africa have to say is often at odds with what the Vatican declares: a surprising amount of them recommend the use of condoms.

Thirdly, the Vatican proposes a method that would almost entirely eradicate the spread of aids in Africa: abstinence till marriage, and complete and faithful monogamy thereafter. If everyone in Africa had followed this dogma, AIDS would not be the problem it is today. But, as with most of the world, they have chosen not to. And in the light of this choice to ignore one of the church's principles on sex, it is entirely disingenuous - in fact it's plain wrong - to suggest that the Vatican's stance on condoms has induced the entire population of Africa to engage in unprotected sex. If they ignore one teaching I don't see why they won't ignore the other if it conveniences them.

Indeed, O would be very interested to find out where the Vatican has encouraged the citizens of Africa to engage in unprotected sex with multiple partners, which is the primary cause for the spread of AIDS on the continent.

It should be noted that a lot of this unprotected sex is NOT consensual. The core problem with Africa - and this has caused most of the famines as well - is that African nations are often at war, either civil or national, and even when they're not at war, they are run by corrupt and violent regimes. This violence is often marked by extraordinarily savage treatment of women, with serial rape being a common part of the process of war in the continent. These people, both attackers and victims, then return to their communities, infected through their forced sex with multiple partners, where they further spread the disease through consensual sex.

These comments and criticisms made against Pope John Paul II on his death and immediately after have been quite ugly. It is one thing to give a balanced critique of a man's legacy after his death, but these rants are out of line. I understand that they've been motivated by the sychopantic nature of the network news broadcasts, but people who object to this should not take the extreme opposite (and consequently equally invalid) approach. They should seek instead to demonstrate the correct way to examine a man's legacy by providing a fair and balanced critique.

This exposes another flaw, however, on those who chose to align themselves on what they consider the left: a tendency towards contrarianism. If someone representing the established right-wing says one thing, they say the exact opposite, just to distance themselves. To truly engage in a meaningful debate, you have to be ready to accept that even when you disagree with someone in general, that someone may still be capable of making valid points on specific issues.

One we (the church) help the sick and dying. Many of whom wouldn't be sick and dying if the Church supported a realistic and rational plan of birth control, but hey some of us knew the Pope was full of shit and recommend condoms anyway. Good for you, but that is hardly an endorsement of the Pope and his legacy. Thirdly the Vatican proposed a method that would almost entirely eradicate the spread of aids, and one they knew wouldn't work. Indeed it would be interesting to find out that the Vatican wasn't aware of human nature to engage in uprotected sex and offer a realistic solution. Some of AIDS cases would happened anyway. No one is claiming that the Catholic Church is the only cause of the problem. What they are saying is they are the cause of people getting AIDS who would have worn condoms if it had not been for the Pope's edicts. Following edicts selectively is human nature and one the Church understands, but one it doesn't consider a problem because according to the Church suffering is also a good thing. The Papal apologists claim we are not being fair and balanced here, but the disucssion here is not one of his legacy as a whole but of one aspect of it, and in that discussion both sides are represented. No one's view is being excluded in this comment thread. The Church's view on human sexuality and birth control is most charitably described as absurd. It is a good time to remember why the authority figure should not be respected, particularly when the evidence so clearly proves him wrong. If the Pope were the two year old Kyle uses in his anaology or the man whose ban on condoms Michael claims isn't enforced in any tangible way were true one would be more inclined to have some sympathy for the Pope, but he wasn't a two your old, nor was invoking the authority of GOD'S representaive on earth not tangible.

UM ... GOD DOES NOT EXIST, RELIGION HAS BEEN USED BY PEOPLE THROUGHOUT HISTORY AS A MEANS OF CONTROL BY FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN. DO NOT LET RELIGIONS FALSELY CONTROL YOUR LIFE , USE COMMON SENSE. IF GOD EXISTS AND THE BIBLE IS TRUE, WHY DOESNT ANYTHING DIVE HAPPEN NOW,...IN OUR TIME, NO PARTING OF SEAS, NO BURNING BUSHES AND NO MIRACLES OF MULTIPLYING FISHES AND BREAD, NO WORLD WIDE FLOODS? COME ON PEOPLE... THINK ABOUT IT. WHERE IS THE DIVINE GO0 NOW? WHEN SOMEONE IN OUR TIME SAYS THEY ARE TOLD BY GOD TO DO SOMETHING, OR GOD HAD SPOKEN DIRECTLY TO THEM, AND THEY TELL PEOPLE ABOUT IT ... MOST OFTEN THOSE PEOPLE ARE LABELED CRAZY, AND INSTITUTIONALISED,.... BUT IF HE EXISTS, WHY ARE THESE PEOPLE NOT TO BE BELIVED? RELIGIOUS FOLK WOULD SAY THAT HE WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS, YET NO ONE, EVER... HAS EVER GIVEN ANY TANGIBLE PROOF OF "HIS"/"IT'S" EXISTANCE. TILL THAT DAY, WHICH WILL NEVER COME.. I SAY LIVE BY YOUR OWN RULES OF "COMMON SENSE". DO NOT LIVE BY A BOOK WRITTEN BY MEN, NOT "GOD", AS A GUIDEBOOK TO LIFE. SEPERATE CHURCH AND STATE. OR WE WILL ALL PARISH AT THE HANDS OF RELIGIOUS FANATICS WHO WILL STOP AT NOTHING TO RULE THE WORLD.

Bertrand Russell was once asked, after decrying relgion as this poster above has done, what he would say to God were he confronted with Him after death.

He replied that he would be very annoyed at him, for not making it clear that he existed.

WELL WE WONT HAVE TO WORRY MUCH ABOUT THAT, ME AND MR RUSSELL. CAUSE IT WONT HAPPEN :).

GOD IS AS BELIEVEABLE AS THE TOOTHFAIRY, THE SANDMAN, BATMAN AND SANTA CLAUS. PUT BLIND FAITH INTO FAIRY TALES AND SEE HOW FAR IT GETS YOU. EVEN IF THERE WAS A GOD, HE/SHE/IT DONT CARE 2 SHITS ABOUT YOU. IF HE DID THERE WOULD BE NO MURDERERS, THIEVES, ADULTERERS,RAPISTS,DEAD OR MALFORMED BABIES BECAUSE HIS WORLD WOULD BE DIVINE AND HAPPY CAUSE HE LOVES US SOOOOOO MUCH. LOL, K KEEP ON DREAMIN.