I would like to open up a dialogue on Benedictus XVI’s recent remarks about the use of prophylactics during his visit to Cameroon. Let me say beforehand that I consider the RCC must be coherent with what She has been teaching us for centuries: concepts like abortion, family and or contraceptives measures are principles where the Church cannot but stick to one of the basic norms of Christianity i.e. the defense of life!

Let me also add that I strongly believe in that principle! Furthermore, all true and sincere Catholics should abide by these norms.

But, by the same token, the Pope is well aware that out of a total population of well over 6 billion people Catholics are only 1.100 billion… That leaves some 5 billion people (among them perhaps another billion between Protestants denominations and Orthodox and Oriental Churches) who are not conditioned to obedience to the Pope.

Consequently, and knowing the transcendence, of whatever he says in public and how immediately the Mass Media is interpreting what he says, I believe he should be more careful or tactful with his words when they are meant for the whole world. Or rather, his advisors should be.

A few weeks he made a “faux pas” when he tried to readmit Bishop Williamson into our Roman Church again, without paying attention to the unquestionable racism of this character. This created an obvious worldwide reaction against the Pope, and the RCC that, allegedly, was accepting the anti-Jewish philosophy of the Nazis!

Now, once more, with the Pope’s rejection of condoms as a means of preventing Aids he has again provoked another worldwide reaction against the Catholic world. To the extent that the Vatican has deemed it convenient to and backtrack on the Pope’s message. By introducing the word “risks” the Vatican has tried to somehow soften the Pope’s words.

Contraception (as opposed to morally licit natural family planning) is wrong, and abortion is wrong, except when it comes to rape, which involves quite a different analysis.

But, I think that not even the Pope can say something that scientifically is not quite correct and It is hard to prove, if at all, that the use of condoms propitiates spreading the disease.

I think the Pope’s advisors should be more careful when advising the Pontiff what he can, and what he cannot say. Or in other words, he might have said that AIDS ailings keep on growing despite the use of contraceptives. In the case of Africa this is totally true and probably is what he actually meant, and yet is more politically correct. Or so I think.

Any comments?

The Pope is irrelevant to the world today.

American Catholics pick what they believe and do.(Cafeteria Catholics).

Pope's position on prophylactics, if followed, would depopulate sub-Saharan Africa.

Europeans consider Christianity a quaint relic from the past.

As I said, the Pope is irrelevant, as he should be.

The Pope is irrelevant to the world today.

American Catholics pick and choose what they believe and do.(Cafeteria Catholics).

Pope's position on prophylactics, if followed, would depopulate sub-Saharan Africa.

Europeans consider Christianity a quaint relic from the past.

As I said, the Pope is irrelevant, as he should be.

I suppose you are a Christian inasmuch as you like to participate in this forum. No matter what denomination you belong to you do not seem very much prepared to follow Jesus’ message of love which is mandatory for all Christians.

Because your post clearly exudes anything but love towards Catholics, actually it rather looks more like hate...

Your statement is partially incorrect, i.e. the Pope is irrelevant to the world today, EXCEPT to 1.1 billion Catholics and to most Heads of State.

If my memory serves me right, during the visit of Benedict XVI to Chicago in April, last year, your today’s President Mr. Obama released a statement welcoming him and speaking of “the broader American values the people of faith share”.

He also added “As committed Christians we rejoin millions of Americans –Catholics and members of all faith communities- in offering our prayers for the success of the Holy Father’s visit”.

The Pope did not look very “irrelevant” to Mr. Obama, did he?

Although, perhaps, you do not share the “the broader American values” Mr. Obama referred to...

I very much question that American Catholics may “pick and choose what they believe and do”. Once again, your expression “(Cafeteria Catholics)” secretes a deep loathing against millions of human beings that, after all, share most of your basic faith.

If you happen to be an atheist instead, your loathing becomes then utter arrogance, which is still worse..

I doubt you have ever been to sub-Saharan Africa. I know it rather well both the former British West and East Africa as well as South Africa. Because of my business I had to travel quite often over there. And I have been able to speak at length, before and after AIDS appeared, about the fact that African men (like many men all over the world, on the other hand) DO NOT use prophylactics. The reason is clear: because they simply do not like them.

How can you, otherwise, explain the continuous growth of AIDS in those countries whose population is basically Muslim? Incidentally, Muslims also hate prophylactics...

So the Pope’s position on contraceptives has little to do, if anything, with the spreading of AIDS on that Continent, while on the other hand, it must have a lot to do with their population which is certainly not decreasing but increasing.

As for your opinion about Europeans’ idea on Christianity. It is even more ridiculous and preposterous, if that is at all possible.

I would be willing to debate you point of view if you were an European as I happen to be. But you obviously belong to the rare species of American who know nothing about Europe and have forgotten that most of your ancestors were European too.

Let me therefore just add that what is totally irrelevant is your opinion on Christianity and on the Pope.

Incidentally, Mr. Gandhi was an exceptional person and dignitary with a profound spirituality which clearly shows in the statement you attach. I totally agree with his declaration as I do with practically with everything else he ever said.

Now, if you do not mind, let me refresh your memory by pointing out a few personalities who had nothing to do with Catholics and yet were very much against any sort of contraceptives devices.

In 1972, the Massachusetts Superior Court convicted a man for handing out contraceptive devices to students. The sentence was later confirmed by the State SJC.

Martin Luther King condemned the use of contraception as worse than incest or adultery.

In 1909 the Lambeth Conference of Anglican leaders described contraception as "demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare".

The Hindus still maintain Mahatma Gandhi’s own words about contraception, i.e. "detrimental to the spiritual progress of the human family"; it is "an insult to womanhood"; "any large use of the methods is likely to result in the dissolution of the marriage bond and in free love... birth control to me is a dismal abyss."

You may have forgotten that, as late as the 1960s, two-thirds of American states still placed restrictions on the sale of contraceptives and those laws were only dropped as a result of rapidly changing sexual norms.

Gandhi also predicted that one of the consequences widely available contraception a huge increase in marital infidelity, and he did not seem to go wrong…

Come what may, one thing is certain, however: freely available contraception means it is much easier to have sex with someone you don't know and who doesn't care for you, meaning the exposure to emotional exploitation is huge.

And once you separate sex from love, marriage, commitment and children, when a pregnancy does result, it is normally seen as a huge inconvenience; hence the massive rise in abortion and the huge numbers of fathers who want little or nothing to do with their children.

And if, despite everything you still consider the Pope as irrelevant, perhaps you might wish to mull a little bit over Gandhi’s own feelings on the subject.

I'm a former Catholic, and reality shows that the Pope is largely irrelevant in today's world. Even Souith America is going Evangelical. :)

This is a discussion forum... guess you don't recognize discussion points that show an opinion of the Pope's influence today versus "hate speech".

Be a man, and understand that those who have a different opinion than you do about the Pope can simply state that opinion.

Best wishes, :)

I know this is a discussion forum. This is precisely why I think we ALL have to try to be respectful to others' beliefs and avoid using insulting terms (Cafeteria Catholics?? ).

It seems you resent my own right to defend Catholics whereas you find quite natural to insult not only them but also their Leader in Earth.

The Pope may be irrelevant as far as you are concerned, and I respect that. You should respect my own idea to the contrary.

Be a woman "and understand that those who have a different opinion than you do about the Pope can also state that opinion".

Best wishes, too

I don't know why so many discussions on the same topic. But Fred posted this elsewhere.

Posted: March 23, 2009
9:58 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A senior Harvard research scientist confirmed that Pope Benedict XVI, who endured heavy criticism for declaring that condom distribution programs worsen the AIDS epidemic in Africa, was actually correct.
Dr. Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development
Studies, told National Review Online last week that despite AIDS activists and media outlets pounding the pope for downplaying the effectiveness of condoms, the science actually supports the Catholic leader's claim.
"The pope is correct," Green told NRO, "or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope's comments."
"There is," Green added, "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. This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction 'technology' such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by 'compensating' or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology."
Aboard a plane traveling to Yaounde, Cameroon, last week, a French reporter told Benedict that the Catholic approach to combating AIDS – encouraging monogamy within marriage and abstinence before – was often considered unrealistic and ineffective.
According to transcripts released by the Vatican, Benedict responded, "This problem of AIDS cannot be overcome merely with money, necessary though it is. If there is no human dimension, if Africans do not help [by responsible behavior], the problem cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it."
Benedict immediately came under fire in the international press for proclaiming just what Green says the studies support: Encouraging fidelity in sexual relations decreases the spread of AIDS, and condom distribution programs increase it.
(Story continues below)
Rebecca Hodes, head of policy, communications and research for the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa, blasted the pope for not advocating wide access to condoms as a means of combating AIDS.
"His opposition to condoms conveys that religious dogma is more important to him than the lives of Africans," Hodes told the Associated Press.
Learn how Americans have been sold the idea that what earlier generations condemned now is good, in the best-selling "The Marketing of Evil"
"We call on the Pope to revisit the teachings on condoms with a view to lifting the ban at the earliest possible moment," said Jon O'Brien, president of Catholics for Choice. "In his review, we want him to include experts who are unequivocal that condoms do in fact help prevent the spread of HIV."
Syndicated columnist Roland Martin writes on CNN.com that the pope's position demonstrated "ignorance of reality."
"For the church," Martin writes, "to continue to ignore the definitive research that condoms play a huge role in decreasing the spread of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases is mind-boggling."
Even the Vatican, according to a report in the London Times, backtracked slightly on the pope's remarks, adding a word to Benedict's remarks, stating he said distribution of condoms merely "risked" increasing the spread of AIDS.
According to Green, however, the pope's critics have bought into a common myth about condoms and AIDS.
"We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates," said Green, "which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working."
Instead, Green noted, the pope's encouragement of Africans toward monogamous sexual relationships has proven to be a much more effective strategy:
"The best and latest empirical evidence indeed shows that reduction in multiple and concurrent sexual partners is the most important single behavior change associated with reduction in HIV-infection rates," Green said.
In Uganda, according to a report in Science magazine, teaching about AIDS and promoting monogamy has led to a dramatic turnaround in the country's AIDS epidemic.
"Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is preventable if populations are mobilized to avoid risk," states the report's summary. "Despite limited resources, Uganda has shown a 70 percent decline in HIV prevalence since the early 1990s, linked to a 60 percent reduction in casual sex. The response in Uganda appears to be distinctively associated with communication about [AIDS] through social networks. Despite substantial condom use and promotion of biomedical approaches, other African countries have shown neither similar behavioral responses nor HIV prevalence declines of the same scale. The Ugandan success is equivalent to a vaccine of 80 percent effectiveness."
Green further told NRO, "More and more AIDS experts are coming to accept the above. The two countries with the worst HIV epidemics, Swaziland and Botswana, have both launched campaigns to discourage multiple and concurrent partners, and to encourage fidelity."
__________________

I don't know why so many discussions on the same topic. But Fred posted this elsewhere.


__________________

De Maria,

You are right.

The growing spread of AIDS in Africa has, as I already pointed out in my previous post, a clearcut motive. Most men do not want to use prophylactics on the grounds they do not procure them the same amount of sexual satisfaction they get without. Some also claim they reduce their libido.

As a matter of fact, many young people in my own country also adopt the same attitude before the many campaigns our authorities launch every year to encourage the use of condoms.

Moreover, I should say I understand their point of view, for I cannot imagine a less romantic a situation than having to go through the procedure of putting on the d... thing.

The 6th Commandment of the Law clearly says we are not to commit adultery and the 9th expressly forbids to covet our neighbor’s wife.

I simply cannot understand why so many people consider the Pope to have enough authority to even change a speck of the Commandments GOD gave to Moses. As far as we catholics are concerned the Pope is the maximum authority for us down here, but he is not certainly GOD, so I do not see how some expect him to modify GOD’s words...

Monogamy is, by and large, the best way to prevent any sexual disease, and I know, from what my own grandson tells me, that many of his friends have decided that, difficult as it may be at times, is still the best solution. Furthermore, nobody has died, to the best of my knowledge, of being faithful to the same woman...

On the other hand, using contraceptives induces most young people, and men in general, to be much more liberal and daring in their approach to women as they feel (wrongly, in many cases) they can have safer sex.

The Pope did and said the only thing he could say and do. The same he says and does regarding abortion, homosexual “marriage”, etc. etc.

GOD’s Commandments and rules CANNOT be altered by men. We are free to follow them or not, and if we don’t we must know we do it at our own risk!
:):)