Pope quotes changed

The Holy See has amended the Pope's comments on condoms. Watch out for our page lead in tomorrow's Times with the brilliant headline in the hard copy, 'Vatican changes Pope's mind on condoms'. No matter what he actually said, the final version authorised by the Vatican is deemed to be the official record. The main change is that instead of stating unequivocally that condoms aggravate or increase the problem of Aids, the Vatican now has the Pope saying that condoms "risk" aggravating the problem. This is not the first time the Pope has had to backtrack on remarks made to journalists on a plane. Visiting Brazil in 2007, he appeared to sanction the excommunication of Mexican legislators who backed abortion.

The Pope might have done the Aids-ridden continent more of a service than he knows. Spain announced today that it is sending a million condoms to Africa to help fight the disease.

The international outrage and the speed of the Holy See's response is exceptional.

Jon O'Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, welcomed the climbdown.'The pope has now admitted that he is unsure as to whether condoms will help alleviate the spread of HIV. Where there is doubt there is freedom and Catholics can now make up their own minds as to whether they can use them or not. Indeed, the vast majority of Catholics has already made this call and use condoms to protect themselves and their partners against STIs, including HIV.

'We call on the pope to revisit the teachings on condoms with a view to lifting the ban at the earliest possible moment. In his review, we want him to include experts who are unequivocal that condoms do in fact help prevent the spread off HIV, like UNAIDS, the World Health Organization and HIV/AIDS advocacy organizations around the world.

'Papal spokesman Father Federico Lombardi noted that the pontiff was merely continuing the line taken by his predecessors. In 1990, Pope John Paul II had said that using condoms was a sin in any circumstances. It took the church hierarchy 359 years to stop continuing the line taken by their predecessors on Galileo. We hope that this error does not take so long to change.'

Comments

[alan]

As the African pointed out to the Pope in the torrential tropical rain:
"Umbrellas only make things worse."

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I hold out my hand in friendship to Geoffrey."
- A SANCTIMONIOUS PRICK, 24 MAR 2009, 17:30

I do hope, ASP, that your hand does not have condoms on the thumb and forefinger (Andrew, March 19, 20:00).

[A Sanctimonious Prick]

Well said Andrew.
I hold out my hand in friendship to Geoffrey.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Dear Edward I and Geoff Smith.

I am going to add my own conciliatory grain of sand with reference to recent posts between us. I don't any of us should ever need to say unkind things about anyone else in "the heat of the moment", since it gives the wrong impression. As far as I am concerned, Geoff, you can say and think what you like about me - you are forgiven even before you have finished saying or expressing those thoughts in writing. I have already told you that you are "top of the pops" with me for your extremely witty response to Edward I on a previous thread (I certainly couldn't have thought of anything funnier than what you came up with at the drop of a hat !), so please let's have the humourous Geoff back in play again ASAP and "problem solved".

I did take note of the reference on AIDS which you provided for Edward I and me, and will do my best to have a look at this. There is quite a lot of "pressure" from work elsewhere during this present week, so please allow me some time. Condoms may - and do - have their "defects", but are still a valid option (particularly when used together with carbolic soap and water "before and after") in the prevention of other STDs/infections such as chlamydia, gonorrhoea, syphilis, "candida", trichomonads etc. We can deal with this matter in a future post. In any event, it is most important to correctly differentiate between the meanings of "Deus volante" (= God willing) and "Deus vult" (= God willed it): the former suggests faith, whereas the latter indicates resignation in the face of something over which one has had no control.

Please let us forgive and forget any "involuntary lapses" which may have occurred, and continue to benefit from - and enjoy - our normal respectable exchanges.

My best wishes to you both.

[Geoffrey Smith]

May I suggest, Teddy One, that both you and Andrew of Venezuela should make a close study of the following link, in order to learn why the use of condoms, in an effort to combat AIDS, is such a pointless exercise:

http://www.vidahumana.org/vidafam/sida/preservativo.html

[Edward I]

Oh dear, my happiness at seeing "the likable old Geoffrey again" was premature....."you are a sanctimonious prick". I see you also accused Andrew of sanctimonious twaddle. Is that your word of the week?
Geoff. old chap, your debating abilities are taking a turn for the worse I'm afraid. In all the debating clubs that I used to attend many years ago, the person who hurled a personal insult was automatically deemed to be the loser of the debate.
You lose Geoffrey.
I read your outburst carefully to see if there were any good points worthy of answering but there don't seem to be many. A lot of conjection, imagination and putting words into my mouth. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you fired off your posting in the full heat of anger before calmimg down and reasoning.
You blame the "South American" governments for the misery of the masses and I agree that they have a lot to answer for due to their corruption; however it does seem strange that Roman Catholicism and poverty stricken nations often seem to go hand in hand. I wonder why that is. Is it because Catholicism attracts poor folk, or that Catholicism convinces ignorant simple folk to accept their lot and not to struggle to succeed?
My good friends are indeed "light" Catholics, and they are to be congratulated for that. Many of the extremist, exaggerated, unrealistic, intolerant, unworkable and downright stupid pronouncements of the Catholic church and the Pope are in outright opposition to what any thinking person sees as reasonable and logical. Catholicism and logic seem to be dead opposites, don't they?
In my line of work (I don't preach Geoff.) I have to be pragmatic, practical and observant, and I give short shrift to waffling twits who can't see the wood for the trees, not that you are one of them at all Geoff.

Sorry if you got angry with my posting Geoff. but I do think your outburst was unwarranted. Why don't you attack my arguements instead of attacking me?

I have no axe to grind but many of us think the Pope made a bad blunder. A blunder that continues to keep the ignorant ignorant.

Have a nice day Geoffrey, and remember to love thy neighbour....but only in a most pure and chaste manner.

Teddy I

PS
Ruth knows very well who I am and where I live. Ruth, you can give Andrew my name and email if you wish.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

To Edward I (22/03/09 - 23:30:15). Thank you so much for having provided such a good and fact-filled evaluation of the situation of the nameless Latin American country in which have spent so many years. Your conclusions are spot on, and you have really hit the nail on the head with what you have been able to say. What a pity other posters on this thread have not had such a similar (and regrettable) experiece of what passes for "life" in these economically less favoured sectors of these nominally RC countries, before firing off canon bulls.

You don't need me to remind you that many poor girls so often find themselves with little alternative other than to be entrapped in the prostitution game, not only out here but also as "export commodities" for elsewhere. What a great pity it is that "one 'sin' can so easily lead to another 'sin'". You are so right: a lot of Latin American people, if they ever bother to go to church at all, tend to do so purely and simply for the basic "hatchings, matchings and dispatchings" rituals. Most of then couldn't care a tinker's cuss about the implications of any "pronouncements" etc.

To add to your own repertoire, you might appreciate this: Last week, I passed a couple of men, 30-odd years of age, dressed as obvious manual workers, who were waiting at a nearby bus stop. The "pronouncement" had been splashed on the newspaper headlines, and the two men were reading that. The comment of one to the other was "Looks like the Uncle Joe of the 21st. Century is trying to put up an iron curtain like that of the other Uncle Joe of the 20th. Century". They then boarded their bus.

To be absolutely fair, not all RCs think alike on this or other topics. Some are surprisingly (and thankfully !) broad-minded. I always remember something said to me many years ago by a Jesuit priest, and re a completely different topic and context. He was interested in what I was doing, professionally, re food production in the field for small rural communities. One of his comments was "If only the Church could stop talking so much about the after life, and do much more like that to help people who are in this life and in this world". I have never forgotten those words, even after so many years.

Thank you once again for your own independent comment on what things are REALLY like in Latin America. There seem to be others who think those of us who try to tell the truth are "making it up in our minds" or something.

My best wishes to you, and I shall look forward to reading further comments of yours.
Andrew.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Geoff (22/03/09 - 13:00:35). Thank you for your response and for what I consider to have been an honest attempt to defend your point of view. This is a similarly honest and sincere attempt to defend my own.

From the point of view of Christian theology, and with particular respect to the topic under consideration, it is important not to equate "Divine Providence" with a "game of chance", "Russian roulette", or even the "Acts of God" mentioned in insurance policies etc. Remember the English proverb: "God helps those who help themselves".

You mention handicapped children and abortion with respect to my statement "can be guaranteed their sundry physical and mental needs...". My own extended family (through marriage, not because of any personal activity by me !) includes middle-class professional people, among whom physicians predominate. One nephew was born with a condition which lead to his having a permanent speech defect, and one niece was born with a "cardiac defect" which was "touch or go" for some years. The family collectively did everything humanly possible, the nephew graduated with First Class Honours as a teacher, and the niece is in her final year of Public Accountancy. Both, on separate occasions, have spent a month with us here at home in Venezuela, to help emphasise their "normality". From that, you will appreciate that I can speak from very personal experience when it comes to handicapped children. I am no more in favour of abortion as a "cure all" than I am of eugenics. Do I make myself clear to you ?.

At no time am I "postulating a world of Belsen-inhabiting sub-humans and Untermenchsen of deprived creatures etc.". I am in favour of exactly the opposite to that option !. When you see any of the TV coverage of the plight of those housed in makeshift camps in countries affected by overpopulation, shortage of food, of water, of elementary educational and medical facilities etc., often made much worse by "internal strife", you could better understand how "responsible family planning" could make an important contribution to avoiding any such quite unnecessary "Belsen et al. genera" establishments. I am not mentioning STDs here, but would do so elsewhere it you wish Geoff.

I very studiously avoided making any equation between a NAMED influential VIP and any one of the deified non-Christian Roman Emperors. An influential VIP in that context could just as well mean the High Priest of Baal, the Pater Patrum of the ancient Roman Mithraeum, or what have you. Simple satire, at times, serves to stimulate a reaction from people who are unable, or unwilling, to respond to reason. Classical Latin is not a language which is widely spoken in the modern world, so the short phrase I suggested could be applied to any such VIP, as you may prefer.

My reaction to all of this has been one of immense sadness, rather than anger, outrage etc. From my decades of living experience, I can but join my voice in support of those who have been unable to express an opinion for themselves as to their "fate". Any population which enters into a logarithmic growth phase is destined to reach an inevitable decline and death phase, if left without internal or external sources of sustenance and support. It will not be you, me, ElizabethR, Mr. Pearce or ANYONE else you care to name who will make the "decision" - the decision will be made by Mother Nature !.

If a "no birth control" policy is obligatorily imposed from on high, then it would be sad indeed to have the future statistics prove it to have been an unfortunate error of judgment. The ball of overpopulation has already started to roll in a big way, and I only hope that its movement can be paralleled by an accompanying sustainable growth and increase in the availability of food and other resources which that population growth is going to need so desperately.

I respect you point of view Geoff, even though I am unable to share it. To conclude on a perfectly friendly and neutral note, I would share with you an old English expression made when someone sneezes: "God bless you !".

My best personal wiehses.

Andrew

[Geoffrey Smith]

Yes, Teddy One, I suppose it is much healthier to enjoy illicit sex in that upper middle-class environment of yours, rather than in those awful industrial slums you patronise. A good quality of life is so much more appreciated when you are fairly certain
that you don't have HIV infection. I'm sure your "Catholic" friends wouldn't be seen dead in any of those dirty bars, or sleazy night-clubs, or whore houses you mention. Not when they have such a comfortable, Godless life-style as yours. Apparently, you get along with them quite well. So much so, they even confide in you about their wanderings from the straight and narrow!
You, of course, take a delight in these confidences and even reciprocate, confessing your own extramarital escapades, right? And how about Mrs Teddy One? Her girlfriends will undoubtedly pressure her to reveal her own moments of indiscretion,
won't they? Got to keep up with the local señoras, you see!
I believe the Spanish word to describe your smug attitude is 'hipocresía'. Or maybe you live in Brazil? In that case, 'hipocrisia'.
In English, you are a sanctimonious prick.

If a great many Catholics are compelled to live in awful slums in this 'South American' country, it is solely because of the failed economic policies of the government. A government that has failed on two counts:
1) A failure to implement just and equitable budgetary policies, and

2) A failure to observe and put into practice the social teaching of the Catholic Church (Rerum Novarum, etc).

In neither case can you accuse the Catholic Church of being responsible for the degradation in your country.
You can lead a horse to water, etc.

I don't know what sort of work you do in the local slums, Teddy One, but, being an atheist, they need your ministration like they need that dose of AIDS. Do them a really big favour and resign.

PS One final word: I do not live in Manchester. Even if I did, your point would be irrelevant. Wickedness is still wickedness, whe

[iain rae]

Pererb, I have not watched any Harry Potter movies,though the Vatican was upset by them. (So thats what they do all day), munching popcorn in the back row.

[ElizabethR]

"Well, it seems no different from your other material" PererB

Congratulations. Your status is confirmed. Prepare to take your place on the right hand of Holy Geoff or Theo Sinister!

[robroy]

Thanks for the longer post, Gladiatrix. I had said this in a shorter note earlier. The strange thing is that liberals continue to attack Pope Benedict despite pointing out Edward Green's vindication of the Pope's stance. Or is it so strange? The liberals, who claim to be more rational and scientific than the ignorant "religionists", abandon reason and science to shoot their fiery darts.

What has worked in real life is ABC: Abstinence, Be faithful, use Condom where the last is for sex workers or "mixed" marriages (one positive and one negative sex partner). For the liberals, it's CCC which has resulted in the HIV rate going up, up, up in South Africa.

See http://www.uceglobal.org/

[Edward I]

Andrew
I also live in a predominantly Catholic Latin American country and over the course of 36 years I think I understand the local population quite well.
It would appear that Geoffrey remains in Manchester which is somewhat isolated from the teeming millions of Catholics which both you and I encounter on a daily basis.
I have been fortunate to have lived in an upper middle class environment like you, and my wife and I have a wide range of Catholic friends who nominally declare themselves to be believers, attend mass infrequently, enjoy a good quality of life, are well educated (often speaking English) and have very few hang ups. They can enjoy a good laugh and blue jokes, and some of the men have confessed to me that they have strayed from the straight and narrow on occasion, and my wife confides that a few of her girlfriends have also had their moments of indiscretion.
We are a motley bunch but I consider them to be good, hard working decent people.
All use contraceptives.
On the other hand, during the course of my work I often visit awful industrial slums and see depressing masses of ill educated, ill nourished people who live in terrible conditions. I am sure they ALL declare themselves to be stout Catholics and would fight to the death to defend what the Pope declares.
It is these unfortunate souls who are constantly being told by their local priest not to use contraceptives, and consequently have lots of kids both in and out of marriage, and many of these macho men often have unprotected paid sex at dirty bars, sleazy cheap night clubs and whore houses.
They don't use condoms because, as these folk say, the Pope says they will go to Hell if they do.
So the seething millions are condemned to continue in despondant uneducated misery and squalor.
Geoffrey defends the Pope's position that these poor masses should continue to have unprotected sex, and the AIDS sufferers should remain celibate.
I suspect many of these poor men don't even know that they have AIDS, and if they did, their basic logic would cause them to stubbornly say "F*ck the world! If I'm goin' to die then let the other bastards die as well".
This is the reality of life Geoffrey.
The Pope is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Let him accompany me on one of my work visits and he might just wise up a little.

[Gladiatrix]

From Father Z's blog, and solid grounds Ruth for both you and your editor providing HHTP with a comprehensive retraction of your offensive articles and commentary, accompanied by an unreserved apology.

"Since the Holy See isn’t making this known, CNA had this:

Harvard Researcher agrees with Pope on condoms in Africa [Not a CUA prof, a HARVARD prof.]

Cambridge, Mass., Mar 21, 2009 / 10:11 am (CNA).- Pope Benedict’s recent brief remark against condoms has caused an uproar in the press, but several prominent scientists dedicated to preventing AIDS are defending the Pope, saying he was correct in his analysis. In an interview with CNA, Dr. Edward Green explained that although condoms should work, in theory, they may be “exacerbating the problem” in Africa.

Benedict XVI’s Tuesday comments on condoms were made as part of his explanation of the Church’s two prong approach to fighting AIDS. At one point in his response the Pontiff stressed that AIDS cannot be overcome by advertising slogans and distributing condoms and argued that they “worsen the problem.” The media responded with an avalanche of over 4,000 articles on the subject, calling Benedict a “threat to public health,” and saying that the Catholic Church should “enter the 21st century.”

Senior Harvard Research Scientist for AIDS Prevention, Dr. Edward Green, who is the author of five books, including “Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning from Successes in Developing Countries” discussed his support for Pope Benedict XVI’s comments with CNA.

According to Dr. Green, science is finding that the media is actually on the wrong side of the issue. In fact, Green says that not only do condoms not work, but that they may be “exacerbating the problem” in Africa.

“Theoretically, condoms ought to work,” he explained to CNA, “and theoretically, some condom use ought to be better than no condom use, but that’s theoretically.”

Condom proponents often cite the lack of condom education as the main culprit for higher AIDS rates in Africa but Green disagrees.

After spending 25 years promoting condoms for family planning purposes in Africa, he insists that he’s quite familiar with condom promotion. Yet, he claims that “anyone who worked in family planning knew that if you needed to prevent a pregnancy, say the woman will die, you don’t recommend a condom.”

Green recalls that when the AIDS epidemic hit Africa, the “Industry” began using AIDS as a “dual purpose” marketing strategy to get more funding for condom distribution. This, he claims, effectively took “something that was a 2nd or 3rd grade device for avoiding unwanted pregnancies” and turned it into the “best weapon we [had] against AIDS.”

The accepted wisdom in the scientific community, explained Green, is that condoms lower the HIV infection rate, but after numerous studies, researchers have found the opposite to be true. “We just cannot find an association between more condom use and lower HIV reduction rates” in Africa.

Dr. Green found that part of the elusive reason is a phenomenon known as risk compensation or behavioral disinhibition.

“[Risk compensation] is the idea that if somebody is using a certain technology to reduce risk, a phenomenon actually occurs where people are willing to take on greater risk.” The idea can be related to someone that puts on sun block and is willing to stay out in the sun longer because they have added protection. In this case, however, the greater risk is sexual. Because people are willing take on more risk, they may “disproportionally erase” the benefits of condom use, Green said.

Another factor that contributes to ineffective condom use in Africa, is the phenomenon where condoms may be effective on an “individual level,” but not on a “population level.” Green’s research found that “condoms have been effective” in HIV concentrated areas where high risk activities are already being conducted, such as brothels in countries like Thailand.

Claiming to be a liberal himself, Green asserts that promoting Western “liberal ideology” where, “most Africans are conservative when it comes to sexual behavior,” is quite offensive to them. Citing his new book, “Indigenous Theories and Contagious Disease,” Green described Africans as “very religious by global standards” who are offended by “trucks going around where people are dancing to ‘Rock ‘n’ Roll’, tossing out condoms to teenagers and the children of the village.”

Green also noted that there is an ideology called “harm reduction” that is being pushed by many organizations trying to prevent AIDS. The ideology believes that “you can’t change the underlying behavior, that you can’t get people to be faithful, especially Africans,” the HIV specialist explained.

One country, Uganda, recognized these issues and said, “Listen, if you have multiple sex partners, you are going to get AIDS.” What worked in Uganda, a country that has seen a decline by as much as 2/3 in AIDS infections, was that officials realized that even aside from religious and cultural reasons, “no one likes condoms.” Instead of waiting for “American and European advisors to arrive,” Ugandan officials reacted and developed a program that fit their culture; their main message being “stick to one partner or love faithfully.”

However, in 2004, Uganda’s AIDS infection rates began to increase once again, due to an influx of condoms and Western “advice”, Green recalled. Western donors also came to Uganda and said behavioral change doesn’t work and that, “most infections nowadays are among married people.” Green said these claims are “misleading,” pointing out that “married people always have lower HIV infection rates than single or divorced people of the same age group.”

Green’s new book, “AIDS and Ideology,” to be completed in the next few months, will describe the industry in Africa that is “drawing billions of dollars a year promoting condoms, testing, drugs, and treatment of AIDS” and is clearly resistant to the idea that behavioral change is the solution.

Yet the two countries that have the highest infection rate of AIDS in the world, Botswana and Swaziland, have recently launched campaigns to promote fidelity and monogamy, the Harvard researcher said. These countries “have learned the hard way” about the failure of condoms in preventing AIDS, he said, noting that “Botswana has probably had more condom promotion” than any other county on a per capita basis. Green said he had no problem “having condoms as a backup to fidelity-based programs.”

According to Green, the Catholic Church should continue to “do what it is already doing,” avoid “arguing about the diameter of viruses” and cite scientific evidence in connection with scripture and moral theology."

[PererB]

ElizabethR
"Had you read my post properly, you would have noted that I used the above obviously facetious quote to point out that it was as silly as the drivel Mr Smith was busily disseminating"

Well, it seems no different from your other material.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Dear Andrew of Venezuela,

I have to say first of all how dismayed I am to realise that you have absolutely no faith whatsoever in Divine Providence.
I had imagined that you were a practising member of the Anglican Ecclesial Community, someone who acknowledged our dependency on God's infinite goodness, and His purpose to provide whatever is necessary for the needs of His beloved creatures. Consider the lilies of the field, etc. It appears, instead, that you place more faith in technology to solve the problems confronting the human race without any recourse to the assistance of our Creator. To you it seems to be inconceivable that God would bring
into being the human race in all its infinite profusion, without also creating adequate means for our survival and progress.

"By their correct use in practice [condoms], pregnancies can be limited to those susceptible of producing healthy children whose
life and welfare can be GUARANTEED (my capitals) in accordance with their sundry physical and mental needs (e.g. food, education, health, etc)."

There are posters on this very blog who, no doubt, due to its widespread application, either practise or have practised birth control as a matter of routine, using condoms in an experienced manner and therefore, presumably, correctly. This has not
prevented them from bringing into the world handicapped children. Your statement that such pregnancies can be eliminated by the use of contraceptives is quite untrue. There is no such guarantee.

"...such high-handed statements [by the Pope] are actually condemning those people and their progeny to a "life" of unmitigated suffering, starvation, disease and death."

How can you possibly substantiate such an extravagant assertion? Like all Malthusians, you postulate a world of Belsen-inhabiting sub-humans, an Untermenschen of deprived creatures, which is utterly remote from the reality that exists. If hunger and
disease exist in the world, they are caused not by "overpopulation" but by human greed and avarice, the gluttony of the powerful, not the procreativity of the powerless.

"Loads of faith, not much hope, and precious little charity indeed."

As opposed to your own philosophy of precious little faith in Divine Providence, loads of faint hope, and not much charity towards anyone (such as the Pope) who disagrees strongly with your own views on what constitutes the best long-term interests of the human race. Indeed, Andrew, to equate Pope Benedict with a non-Christian Roman emperor is an astonishing affront,
coming from you. I really do think you should apologise for that remark, if only because of its palpable absurdity.

The whole tenor of your posting on this thread, Andrew, is one of despair. You hold out no hope for the people of the world unless they adopt en masse the practice of a technique which is guaranteed - repeat, GUARANTEED - to eliminate the species H. sapiens from the face of the earth. Why? Because once you embark on such a programme, where do you stop? Would a population of, say, 10 billion be the most that the world could sustain? A lot of people think the present level of 6-7 billion is far too much. Who is going to decide the maximum number? You? Mr Pearce? Mrs ER?
No, Andrew, once the ball has started rolling it will be well-nigh impossible to stop it. The birth controllers will not be satisfied until the human race has been reduced to the level of an endangered species, and by then it will be too late to save it.
That is why we Catholics are implacably opposed to contraception in all its forms. Our theological reasons for doing so are sound, but our practical reasons can be disputed only by those who have nothing but their own selfish interests to defend.

[adam]

It is surely time to impeach Iain Rae. Can the Unholy atheist church survive?

[ElizabethR]

"Likewise some rattled atheists try to boost their own indefensible postion by making bland negative statements like 'Geoffrey Smith is not really a Catholic....He has no human brain'?" PererB

Dear Dim PererB,
Had you read my post properly, you would have noted that I used the above obviously facetious quote to point out that it was as silly as the drivel Mr Smith was busily disseminating. Mr Smith attacks opponents by making ridiculous statements about those who disagree with him, to try to make out that their position is far weaker than it actually is. He manipulates words poorly and little else. Must try harder PererB.

[alan]

Ruth - I thought you might be interested in a cartoon in today's WELT AM SONNTAG on the Pope and HIV.
The scene is in Africa where the Pope is visiting. It is raining torrentially. One of the Africans says "AND UMBRELLAS MERELY AGGRAVATE THE PROBLEM."

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Dear Geoff Smith. The last thing I want to do, Geoff, is to "fan any flames", but I must engage with you as to the "pro-death policy in connection with contraceptives" statement in your post of 20/03/09 - 19.55.44 addressed to me.

If you would be so kind as to carefully analyse your own "pro-death concept" in that respect, you might reach quite a different conlusion. Contraceptives, in this case illustrated by condoms, and as the terms suggests, are to prevent any multiple and constantly recurring pregnancies, for which reason they therefore represent a "pro-life policy". By their correct use in practice, pregnancies can be limited to those susceptible of producing healthy children whose life and welfare can be guaranteed in accordance with their sundry physical and mental needs (e.g. education, food, health etc.).

For some VIP in an influential position, and during a short stop-over visit, to go around spreading the idea that the use of condoms is sinful in all circumstances and at all times, is contradictory - in the extreme - to the socio-economic realities of audiences who would be incapable of "taking the strain". It is, in fact, very much the opposite: such high-handed statements are actually condemining those people and their progency to a "life" of unmitigated suffering, starvation, disease and death. Please note that I am making no mention here of the use of condoms in preventing and reducing problems associated with STDs.

The nicest, politest, and "all-embracing term" which I can come up with to correctly define the "pro-death policy" of the VIP in question is to call it "The Vatican Vulture Culture", i.e. "you lot must keep on breeding like lemmings, taking no account of tomorrow, for we shall be more than happy to count you as our own, and then bury what bits and pieces may be left of you after the vultures have finished their job. Loads of faith, not much hope, and precious little charity indeed.

A leaf could conveniently be taken from the annals of Ancient Rome, when the gladiators addressed the deified non-Christian Emperor prior to going into combat. The massive throngs witnessing the VIP during his visit could thus be provided with posters reading "Ave Caesar, morituri te salutant !", and where the word "Caesar" could be replaced with anything more appropriate in modern terms.

Nothing here is intended to be disrespectful to you in any way, Geoff, as I hope you will understand. I would ask your God to guide you in making the right decision as to which is the REAL "pro-death policy".

The best of luck, and my personal best wishes to you.

Andrew

[PererB]

ElizabethR you say:
"some rattled religionists persistently try to boost their own often indefensible position....by making bland negative statements about others"

Likewise some rattled atheists try to boost their own indefensible postion by making bland negative statements like "Geoffrey Smith is not really a Catholic....He has no human brain"?

[PererB]

Iain Rae
"impeachus popedeum" ??

You've been watching too many Harry Potter films. Are you a fan?

[ElizabethR]

"You wouldn't think so judging by the huge number of vitriolic responses my posts receive." GS

What was that? Did anybody hear anything? No? Good.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Mr Smith is of course talking to himself."
- ElizabethR, 21 MAR 2009, 14:24

You wouldn't think so judging by the huge number of vitriolic responses my posts receive.

[iain rae]

Calm down Geoffrey,good lord sir, you have everlasting life to look forward to, free fron dasterly athiests.You have to admire the remarkable likeness of the "times" cartoon of the holy father though.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

The name "Oxford" has been mentioned recently on this thread. To avoid any possible confusion, and in an effort to ensure absolute clarity, which of the following would apply:

(a) Oxford, England - the "City of the Dreaming Spires" (or "the "City of Lost Causes", depending on one's perspective);

(b) Oxford, Miss. (USA) - home to the University of Mississippi, and where "Miss." is the commonly accepted abbreviation of "the State of Mississippi", and has nothing to do with "missing out" on something etc.;

(c) Oxford, Ala. (USA);

(d) Oxford, Ont. (Canada);

(e) Oxford, New Zealand......etc.

With reference to the general topic of the article itself, some readers may be interested to hear a perfectly respectable joke which I was told less than 3 hours ago at the daily "gathering" in the local coffee shop this morning. One of those present (IT WASN'T ME !) brought up the subject of the recent "pronouncement" on the use of condoms, and another person present (AGAIN, IT WASN'T ME !) told us the following:

A young urban man (YUM), on a visit to a very conservatively-minded small rural town in the interior, went into the one and only chemist's shop, where he was confronted by the unmarried middle-aged lady chemist (UMLC). The brief conversation went like this:

YUM: "Good morning madam. A packet of condoms please".
UMLC: "Young man, you must watch your tongue !. This is a Catholic community !".
YUM: "Oh, well.....in that case, make it two packets of condoms, please".

I think that sums up rather nicely the type of "general jovial reaction" which the "pronoucement" has engendered in this nominally RC country.

[ElizabethR]

"Perhaps a new arrival like yourself [OL] could do much to salvage what little credibility remains of your cause..." G.Smith

It is noticeable how some rattled religionists persistently try to boost their own often indefensible position, not through argument but by making bland negative statements about others. The process is transparent and useless. Here is an example of it not working: -

Geoffrey Smith is not really a Catholic. He is a Zillon from the planet Tharg. He has no human brain. Because of this he is unable to understand atheists. Likely compatriots include Robroy and David Palmer.

Arguably this is as sensible as Smith's posts in which he tries to denigrate those who disagree with him, by falsely stating their position and pretending that it is weaker than it actually is.

Another ploy is that of adjacency. For Smith anyone remotely connected with Oxford is identified as forming part of a 'crackpot coterie'. Sadly this is the level of his debating skills.

Mr Smith is of course talking to himself.

[robroy]

The liberals continue to embarrass themselves. Isn't their meme, "Christians are ignorant and we are scientific and rational (very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical, and understand equations, both the simple and quadratical)"?

Now, Iain Rae joins the chorus for "impeachment" of the Pope. Pope Benedict's crime? Speaking scientific epidemiological truth:

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. Edward Green, Director of AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies.

[Geoffrey Smith]

The thought did occur to me, OL, that you may be a colleague of Mrs ER and Mr GP, hence the reference to Oxford. Birds of a feather, you know.
You have only to read the fatuous post from Mr Iain Rae, immediately following yours, to gain some appreciation of why I am so contemptuous of the atheist stand-point.
Perhaps a new arrival like yourself could do much to salvage what little credibility remains of your cause, due to the inanities of the aforesaid Mr Rae and his coterie of crackpots.

[iain rae]

It is surely time for impeachment of the gaffe prone Pope. This has happened once before to Pope Pious 15th in 1356 by the Vatican Council " impeachus popedeum" directive 385.Can the Holy Mother Church survive?

[Ol]

Grumpy Geoff, if you expect people to answer your questions, have the good grace to respond in kind.

Also, a little courtesy would be nice, though I wont hold my breath (I've seen how you treat people on this forum). I'm not sure what "faith" it is you follow, but it's left you in a very dark place indeed, somewhere where you're encouraged to treat humanity with contempt. Your little rant has just served to demonstrate one thing: you are certainly possessed, but only by hate.

I will share one concern with you: when you're reading this, I hope you have a nurse by your side, because you're an angry man, and I'm not sure your heart's going to cope with much more excitement.

So, how many years ago was it that Oxford rejected you?

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Geoff. I've just read your post of 20/03/09 - 19:55:44), and thought I had better respond "prontísimo" as you appear to have become "over-excited" about something I said earlier. At your request, here comes my definition of what I would understand to be a "practising RC", based on what I know about my friends and colleagues:

Practising Catholic: A person who, in good faith and conscience, and of his/her own volition, does the following:

(a) attends Mass and receives communion on a weekly or fortnightly basis (usually on early Sunday morning or in the evening - it's very hot and humid out here);

(b) may, or may not, make a private confession and receive individual absolution, as he/she considers opportune and convenient (I don't go around asking people about that !);

(c) has got married once, to a member of the opposite sex, in compliance with the obligations of the Civil Law of the land, and in accordance with the rites and ceremonies of the RCC (one of my friends was a widower, and he remarried in church about 3 years after losing his first wife);

(d) procreates children in a responsible manner, after marriage, and in quantities and at intervals of time which ensure that each and every child can - and does - receive the due attention, loving care, education etc, which it requires from its parents (the married couples I know have between 1 - 3 children, and those children have grown up with my own 2 to become perfectly normal adults).

None of my "practising RC friends" or I could, in any way, be described as "abstainers" or "players" (in the extra-marital sense). That same bald statement holds just as true for my Anglican, Baptist, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, Lutheran, Muslim, Presbyterian etc. friends and colleagues.

The foregoing is a very "free and personal definition" of what I understand to be "practising RCs". It contrasts with the vast majority (let us say 90%), who could be - at most - defined as "nominal RCs", and have zero interest in church attendance and absolutely sub-zero practical interest in what the Pope may have to say about condoms. Although the Pope has every right to say what he wants on the topic, neither he nor his adepts should be surprised if most people chose to use condoms (which is THEIR right !).

I have no interest whatsoever in making little windows into other peoples' hearts and minds, Geoff, but - and with all due respect to you - I will say one thing: if the future of the laity of the RCC in Latin America is to be determined by obligatory compliance with these latest directives on condoms, I could provide you with the name, address and telephone number of a very reliable bus company which could rent a 30-seater to ferry the few faithful who remain to a meeting with their Magister.

How sad I am that you and your very few supporters seem to be unable to understand the pressing need to stop the developing world from overpopulating itself, in the face of increasing food shortages and others which put at risk the welfare of all. Do, please, think very carefully about this, Geoff, and pray like you have never done previously that you can come up with a socially responsible solution.

As you may already be aware, I have never been, am not, and have no desire or intention of becoming an RC (for purely intellectual reasons: this latest "fuss" has nothing at all to do with my own personal decision). How very much indeed I wish you could see the developing world as it really is, and in person: you would learn so much about people and their problems. Just let me conclude by reassuring you that my opinions on abortion are the same as those posted previously on these threads.

Whatever our differences may be, Geoff, we can part in peace so I send you my usual best personal wishes.

Andrew

[Geoffrey Smith]

Andrew of Venezuela, would you define for me the word "practising", which seems to be a favourite of yours when referring to Catholics who, according to you, sympathise with your pro-death policy in connection with contraceptives. What do you mean exactly by "practising"?
Attending Mass once or twice a year? Confession every three years, if they feel like it? Marrying in church after their first child is born? Using contraceptives regularly, like that other 'devout' Catholic, Cherie Blair?
Knock it off, Andrew, you are kidding no one with this sanctimonious twaddle about "practising" Catholics. They are no more Catholics than you, and probably not even Christians but just hedonistic pagans.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Geoffrey Smith, I'd be careful if I were you, etc, etc, etc."
- OL, 20 MAR 2009, 16:15

Oh dear, another demented crackpot.
What is it about atheism that drives its practitioners into the madhouse? It seems you are not alone, Mr Pearce.
You don't happen to work in Oxford, do you, OL?

[Ol]

Geoffrey Smith, I'd be careful if I were you. You demand proof that Venezuelan Andrew's friends exist, but the rest of us are waiting for proof of big g's existence.

I'm beginning to wonder if he is imaginary...

Robert Ian Williams' contribution to this thread is one of the most miserable, monstrous things I've ever read. For the sake of humanity I urge him, along with others here, to learn to walk without strings.

Repent your evil prejudices, your ghastly pronouncements, and give the ostrich his sandpit back!

[robroy]

Sadly, Ruth Gledhill is jumping on the liberal bandwagon to "impeach" (or at least slander) the Pope. The reformed Pastor has (http://reformedpastor.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/the-pope-the-press-and-african-aids/ ) good blog entry on this. In particular, he has this quote:

"The pope is correct, or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope's comments….[C]ondoms have been proven to not be effective at the 'level of population.'"

"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. 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."

(from the "biased" and "ignorant" source, Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies.)

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Dear Geoff. Although I appreciate your comment of 19/03/09 - 23:46:38), I was a bit surprised that you should have accused me of being "anti-Rome". On several occasions I have mentioned on these threads that I fully support the use of condoms for family planning purposes and as one means of preventing the spread of AIDS and other STDs. I also support use of "the pill" for family planning purposes, where indicated. An earlier comment of mine on the Anglican "Lambeth Conference 1930" declaration as a moral guideline to enable people "to make a choice" merely reflected my recognition and acceptance of that "choice" on its being made available on moral grouhds.

For very obvious reasons, I can't mention the names of my numerous friends on a one-by-one basis but, if it makes you any happier, they are about forty in number and we all live in the same area of the same city. They include physicians/surgeons, lawyers, teachers (secondary and University), accountants, lawyers, engineers and others with professional or technical qualifications, who are almost all "practising RCs". They also include two RC "lay deacons" and an RC priest, just for good measure. Our mutual interests are perfectly normal ones, and we do NOT go around discussing religion, but we DO share a common social conscience when it comes to helping others within the local community, should any small problems arise.

Let me give you a couple of examples from my own recent experience:

(a) A happily married professional couple of 25 years standing, with two sons, had a problem when the lady was diagnosed with what was going to be terminal cancer. The husband (a former post-graduate student of mine) asked me for some advice. I spoke to one of the RC "lay deacons", and he took communion to the lady when she was bed-ridden at her home. Very shortly before she died, she and her husband decided to get married in church, so the "lay deacon" and the priest went out of their way to make that possible within 24 hours flat. My wife and I served as "bridesmaid" and "best man", respectively, and the lady died 10 days later.

(b) A young and very respectable girl, from a poor family in the interior of the country, was employed as a "live-in maid" by a family I know. She fell in love with an equally respectable "cub reporter", and they decided to marry. Once again, my advice was sought, so I contacted the same RC "lay deacon" and the priest, and the marriage went ahead (with the girl's employers serving as "bridesmaid" and "best man", and giving the newly married couple a handsome gift to set up house). Their two children were born within the 3 years following their marriage.

I could give you many more examples, Geoff, but the previous ones should enable you to see that one can have a good social conscience without being anything "anti-Rome" in practice. You should not confuse any challenges or expressions of opinions on "intellectual matters" in association with something the RCC practices or teaches as being "an all out attack" on anything or everything to do with the RCC itself. The several "interesting exchanges" which you and I have shared on these threads should serve to demonstrate my "open-minded approach" and my interest in "hearing more" on particular topics.

There is nothing wrong with criticism, and it is even better if that criticism can be constructive in some way. Not all "critics", unfortunately, are endowed with the ability to understand the benefits to be derived from respectful and honest criticism.

Hopefully, the foregoing may serve to show myself in a "better light" to you. The many practising RC friends to whom I referred are a good example of the "thinking RCs" to be found out here. Their "comments" on some of the things which are happening within the RCC are extremely valuable, for they reflect the opinions of a much wider representative section of the RCC membership in Latin America. Above all, we must do everything possible to avoid "misunderstandings" and "misinterprations": there are very many who are on the verge of ceasing to "practise" altogether.

My best personal wishes to you. Andrew

[J Pearce]

And my very best wishes to you, Geoff, and Mrs Geoff - and her five lovely daughters.

[iain rae]

Lets hope future generations of Africans will not be fooled by "white" or "black" witchdocters,and be educated to erase superstition.

[cp36]

>>"Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them." From which I deduce you approve of comments referring to the Pope as an ex-nazi and implying that he agrees with holocaust-denial. Hm.

Definitely not. Approval doesn't necessarily mean agreement. The Laws in the UK are very similar to the Laws in my country on "hate" matters and I agree with Ruth Gledhill moderating everything for her own protection.

Cheers

[Paul Priest]

Sorry Ms Gledhill,
But why did you quote from the president of an organisation of latae sententiae excommunicated catholics ?
...and yet nothing from a catholic ?

Your contempt of His Holiness is not only apophenically paranoid ; it's veering towards the maniacal....

Why the change ? What's he done to you ?

[Geoffrey Smith]

You keep telling us about your "practising RC friends", Andrew in Venezuela, but they never seem to have any names, like Pedro of Caracas or Pablo of Maracaibo. I'm beginning to wonder if they are as imaginary as the anti-papal attitudes you ascribe to them.
You do well to remain in South America. Europe is a dying continent, and Britain is a dying nation, all thanks to the pervading culture of death in this country, a culture formed by the practice of contraception, exacerbated by 200,000+ abortions per annum. Inevitably, the birth rate has dropped lower than the bank rate, only 1.65 as opposed to an EU average of 1.55. With the immigrants going home because of the recession, that means our population is dwindling rapidly, and we are growing into a nation of geriatrics. Hence the wisdom of the Catholic Church's prohibition of birth control, and the futility of your Anglican position in favour of it. Like so much else connected with the C of E, it will prove to be our nation's ruin.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Mr Spilsbury, I think you should do as I do and completely ignore Mr Pearce's bigotry. Whatever you say in reply to his nonsense will be twisted and perverted by his twisted and perverted mind to mean something totally different from what you intended. Mr John Hamilton and Dr Alan Marsh have discovered the hard way that you cannot reason with a demented crackpot like Mr P, and you are simply wasting your time in trying to do so.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

One of my practising RC friends, who is also a qualified practising MD, phoned me with the following "gem" as a possible "exit strategy": either (a) place one condom on the thumb and a second one on the nearby forefinger, and then take a pinch of salt to accompany the reading of novel "pronouncements", or (b) same basic ritual, but this time to take up a morsel of food with a view to preventing any further secondary contamination of the source of that food. The condoms should, in both cases, be conveniently and hygienically disposed of following use. I thought some of the readers might appreciate those interesting options.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"However, for the good of his souls, he [the Pope] should be booting out "Catholics for choice" (that's an oxymoron like Jews for pork),..."
- Robert Ian Williams, 19 MAR 2009, 16:06

Agreed, Robert. Like Buddhists for nuclear weapons, or Muslims for booze.
Too ridiculous for words.

[J Pearce]

Geoff and Mr Spilsbury,

I have merely noted well-known facts. What you choose to deduce about the Pontiff from those facts, is entirely your opinion.

My opinion is thus: the Pope is a fallible human and nothing whatsoever to do with any notion of divinity. He is unable to pronounce "infallibly" on matters moral and theological, anymore than you or I.

His recent pronouncements and actions would seem to indicate that far from understanding and elucidating "infallible" moral positions, he actually fails to grasp the fundamentals of human morality, favouring the hopelessly partial, inflexible and dogmatic version peddled by corporate Catholicism instead.

He is the lynchpin of a religious beauracracy which seeks to extend its power and wealth throughout the world. The Roman Catholic organisation is founded upon innumerable hypocrises and is guilty of perpetrating monstrous crimes down the centuries. It also deliberately obstructs justice for those who have been abused by its members, abuses which are still coming to light to this day.

The RCC continues to seek exemptions from democratically mandated laws and actively campaigns to subvert legal and educational systems for its own gain, at the expense of non-Christians. The RCC also actively and publically dehumanises various minority groups, homosexuals being the most noted example.

In short, if one is going to believe in a benevolent and just God, then corporate Roman Catholicism represents everything that such a being would outright reject.

[Matt]

The RCC detests birth control because it shows that god doesn't choose who is born.
It also reduces the number of potentially indoctrinatable subscribers.
You can not stop people having sex. We have inherited the instinct for sex through evolution. Ah, Evolution! Something else that the RCC has fought bitterly against for 150 years, only to now accept it. But does this mean that the RCC has been totally immoral in persecuting people over evolution for the past 150 years because they had not understood that god knew about evolution all along? Or have they changed their tune to avoid the ever reducing number of subscribers? Did god send down an addendum to the bible saying "Thou shalt now accept evolution"?
Will the RCC wait 150 years before accepting condoms and save the souls of the AIDS victims in retrospct? Or will more people die needlessly due to unproven myths?

[Paul Spilsbury]

Since nazism and holocaust denial are criminal offences in the Pope's home country, some people might regard accusations of sympathising with them libellous. "Fit for publication"? You just feel sure that (unlike some) the Pope won't sue.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Actually, the Pope did not go far enough in his comment. He should have said that condoms HAVE NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER of stopping or reducing the incidence of AIDS. I have yet to hear an answer to the charge that a piece of rubber, with holes in it 5 microns in diameter, could not possibly prevent the passage of an organism only 1 micron in diameter.
But the big bucks in the condom industry don't want you to know that. It would be bad for business; their profits would drop faster than the bank rate, and that would never do. The shareholders might get ratty.

[Matt]

"Lombardi noted that the pontiff was merely continuing the line taken by his predecessors"
So this has nothing actually to do with God or evidence or medical advise.

Pretty much sums up the catholic church.

[Robert Ian Williams]

An off the cuff remark from the Pope is not infallible. However there is no contradiction in what he is saying...

However for the good of his souls he should be booting out "Catholics for choice" ( thats an oxymoron like jews for Pork), who are de facto excommunicated anyway and on the road to perdition.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

There are times when it becomes very difficult to avoid an instinctive "knee-jerk reaction" to certain items of news as these are published in the press, even when subsequent attempts have been belatedly made to "defuse and sanitise" these for public consumption.

I have much respect towards Benedict XVI as a distinguished theologian, just as much as towards the RCC for some of the attempts which it has been making of late to "improve its public image". Perhaps the "inept advisers" should come in for more criticism than the Pope himself (who is of advanced age, and does a good job of moving around visiting different countries and peoples of different faiths) re the "condoms condemnation" affair. If the "advisers" were doing their job properly, they could have provided due warning as to the "PR disaster" which such public pronouncements would elicit. There are some who are obviously living "in an unwordly world of their own", and are thus completely incapable of understanding the problems of the "real world" out there.

No amount of whitewashing can disguise or excuse the errors inherent in the prohibition of condoms or other morally acceptable forms of birth control and prevention of the transmission of STDs. "Abstinence" and "chastity" may be very good advice for those capable of compliance but, within a normal marrriage, both partners are enjoined "to have and to hold", so that they are able to engage in mutually satisfying sexual relations between themselves as part of their conjugal rights.

Of course condoms are not "100% infallible", either in the prevention of pregnancies or in the prevention of STDs - there is always a risk of their rupturing, even when correctly put in place. The "rhythm method" is even less reliable re pregnancies, and very risky, at most, re prevention of exposure to STDs should one of the partners happen to be a "carrier".

In that part of the developing world in which I live and work, ordinary people are faced with three choices: (a) do exactly as they are told, and then try to figure out what to do with so many offspring; (b) completely disregard any "pronouncements" of this type and behave normally; and (c) abandon the RCC altogether and seek solace in one of the "pentecostal clubs" which are making such massive headway as popular and vociferous groups. Those who elect option (b) have my fullest sympathy, support and understanding.

I actually had a few quiet words with some of my practising RC colleagues on this most recent "fuss", and the responses were most interesting. The previous option (b), as given above, was 100% acceptable to my contacts. Some of them, having as good a sense of humour as I do, made much of their preference for "la papa" (f. = "the potato", or "the spud", in Latin American Spanish) in place of "el papa" (m. = "the pope"). They were all of one accord, however, in appreciating that the RCC has increased its credibility gap problem as a result of this self-evident 'diktat'.

Fortunately, this latest pronouncement doesn't affect me in the slightest, so I shall limit my comment to a reactionary "Vive la différence !", and leave it like that.

[Ramon Rodriguez]

Ruth:
If nothing else, any mention of the Pope doubles the number of comments you get (including mine): way to keep up your circulation.
Ramon

[Joan]

I love it when liberals get on their high horses and start ranting about Nazi popes and condoms. It's so much easier for them to do this rather than sit down and take the trouble to read and understand the Pope's well thought out, reasonable and humane views. So much suffering would be avoided if only people THOUGHT about their actions and the consequences thereof. I for one stand up for the Pope and his strong stance against AIDS. Despite the actions of those who profit by the spread of the disease (condom manufacturers, pharmaceuticals), the disease can be effectively combatted by simple and cheap means available to all, whether in Africa or New York. Impopularity of the solution is a poor excuse. The alternative is disease and death.

[Geoffrey Smith]

I think you will have realised by now, John Hamilton, that in Mr J Pearce you are dealing with someone who was described on this blog some months ago as "demented". His latest post does nothing to disprove that judgment.

[Paul Spilsbury]

"Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them." From which I deduce you approve of comments referring to the Pope as an ex-nazi and implying that he agrees with holocaust-denial. Hm.

(rg writes: R u serious? 'Approve' in this sense has a technical meaning. If you really are taking it to mean that I approve 'of' the comments rather than merely approving them fit for publication, then just read a few more of the comments. You would find my opinions to be so diverse, so extreme and yet at such different extremes, that you would have to draw the conclusion that I was hundreds of different people at once, as well as hundreds of different religions. This blog is indeed 'proving' itself a great place for pedantry, but might I gently suggest to you that it has to be informed pedantry to be effective, and informed most of all by a good knowledge of the English language.)

[Chris Gillibrand]

"Impeach the Pope" - only goes to show how much the opponents of the Vicar of Christ use secular models for the Church which is of divine institution and sustained by the action of the Holy Spirit.

The possibility of resistance to the Pope and his deposition is held open by St Robert Bellarmine, but for that he would need to have become a contumacious heretic and upholding the constant teaching of the Church does not fall into this category.

[Paul Spilsbury]

As I read the Pope's comment in full, he is saying that the root of the problem regarding the spread of AIDS in Africa is in the attitude of people (mainly men, I'd say) regarding promiscuity, respect for marriage and women, etc. etc. This is true. He also thinks that the indiscriminate distribution of condoms will not solve this, but even make it worse. This is also true. AIDS will never be eradicated if it is seen merely as a technical medical problem, without the social and moral issues being confronted. Too many people reject the ideals of fidelity and chastity, and that is why STDs in general are rife. Merely reducing the risks of promiscuity fails to get at the root.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Now comes the news from the United States that in 2007, 40% of all live births - the highest rate ever - were by single women, two thirds of them over the age of 20. Who said sex education in the schools would reduce pregnancies? It won't stop AIDS either, or abortions.
The big money in the death-dealing industry will see to that.

[J Pearce]

Mr Hamilton, I do believe it is you who is need of psychotherapy. You base your entire infalliblity thesis on the idea that the Pope is somehow the "mouthpiece of God" on moral matters. Some mouthpiece - an ex-nazi who welcomes a Holocaust denier back into the fold of the Church.

What an utter and complete arse you are, sir. "Dark angels"? I would suggest you refrain from denigrating journalists until you have seen to the funny voices in your own head.

[ElizabethR]

"Maybe you see yourself in some global battle of ideas as being on the side of angels when I am afraid in this instance you are only on the side of the dark angel"! John Hamilton.

Oh, of course, the mythical 'dark angel' is likely to feature strongly in any 'Christian' post in which the messenger is firmly shot dead. Demonisation, seemingly, comes as naturally to the pious as night follows day. The truth is that their own condemnatory statements, mired in hypocrisy, only face one way. The Holy Gnome is not infallible, not omniscient, not scientific and not to be believed. He is the strangest spectacle; one that Catholics think they need, upon which to project their notions of gods, in the continuing absence.

"By perpetrating the myth that condoms don't aggravate the problem of aids...you are culpable in the deaths of millions. Its not very nice is it being accused of promoting death..."

What sort of balanced, 'nuanced' statement is THIS. It serves only to describe the unacceptable lengths some professional offence- taking 'holies' will go to, in order to protect their own perceived identities. The truth is that you are taking full advantage of Ruth's blog in order to beat her to death. No balance, no nuanced viewpoint, no acknowledgement that anything she writes is worthy journalism - just partisan negativity. Psychotherapy? What offensive presumption. I could suggest you are a woman-hater, with as little gravitas.

There are ways of rehabilitating the pseudo-pious, who care more about defending their flawed institutions than they ever do about the plight of some human beings. In my view some obsessive religionists here should certainly pursue them and repent their wicked unmutual ways. The Vatican remains a malign human construct; one seemingly unmitigated by the statements from its narrow apologists.

[infidel2009]

The Washington Post has this intriguing headline today:

"Impeach the Pope"

I don't think the Times / Ruth Gledhill has gone as far as this!

It is an article written by a Catholic, who says in it: "Let's start a movement within the Catholic Church to impeach Pope Benedict XVI and remove him from office. While we're at it, let's replace him with a woman." The author is Robert S. McElvaine, the Elizabeth Chisholm Professor of Arts & Letters at Millsaps College. His latest book, interestingly, is called Grand Theft Jesus: The Hijacking of Religion in America.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2009/03/impeach_the_pope.html

The reaction from Catholics to the Pope's words are very like the reaction of Anglicans to Rowan Williams' words on Sharia. It seems increasing numbers of ordinary believers are deciding that their self-proclaimed leaders are doing more harm than good every time they open their mouths, and want to disassociate themselves from them. It even happens in the hierarchies -witness the Bishop of Linz incident.

[John Hamilton]

Here is a reasoned argument for all those rationalists amongst you. Ruth its worth taking a look at how a responsible journalist reports on this issue.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/5011854/The-Popes-critics-are-in-the-grip-of-dogma.html

[John Hamilton]

"Vatican Backtracks-decision interpreted by some as a rare admission of papal fallibility".

What outrageous journalism! The pope slips on a step he is imperfect, the pope has a cold he is human the pope answers imperfectly in french english italian and latin all of which are not his native language german and he is not the perfect multi-linguist. The two so called religious correspondents know full well that the teaching of the church is that the pope speaks infallably only in prepared ex cathedra written statement so to report that because the vatican provide a more nuanced statement is evidence of the teachings of infallabilty not being true or that the church is somehow backtracking is really very petty minded and childish in my view

It is poor partisan journalism and does not serve to enlighten readers to the true positions of those involved. Its the sort of journalism that stirs up trouble in times of conflict another word might be propaganda. Maybe you see yourself in some global battle of ideas as being on the side of angels when I am afraid in this instance you are only on the side of the dark angel.

By perpetrating the myth that condoms don't aggravate the problem of aids as evidenced by Uganda and the Phillipines you are culpable in "the deaths of millions" - Its not very nice is it being accused of promoting death but as journalists you have the capability of exercising power without responsibility ironically almost in an infallible way. Maybe thats at the root of your frustration with the pope..i.e. you can't be him! How interesting....mmm.. I wonder if psychotherapy is the answer!

[Leaf]

Where's Dawkins when you need him???

[Nigel]

The point that the HIV/AIDS industry is deliberately obfuscating is that condoms promote a culture of promiscuity, and promiscuity is the primary vector of HIV/AIDS transmission. Have as much sex as you like with whoever you like quickly becomes the message. That's why it aggravates the problem.

[Must Be Said]

What is SICKENING for me Mr. Tearney (and probably a lot of people reading your comments) is that you insinuate that because somebody steps forward and makes remarks that you might not agree with (but many others do and is based on mainly sound reasoning), that you have the nerve and ARROGANCE to suggest that that person will most likely be consigned to HELL for adopting this position. No consideration of them as people, how the live their life day to day. Just a final and absolute position. And, its a quite disgusting position you take and one that repels so many people from Catholicism and religion in general. Understanding, based upon reasoned discourse is the new world order and hopefully you will join in before reaching your 'St. Peters Pearly Gates'!

[Jamie]

I'm wondering if half the people who are commenting actually read the article.... surely it's pretty simple, the Vatican releases transcripts of the Pope's comments after he has said them, however they often choose to 'clarify' his comments by altering them, they do it all the time and it's pretty standard, so the official transcript does not necessarily have to tally with the actual statement. hence the point of this whole article... JH, and Dave Rattigan should probably read it before commenting

[AT]

Mary - your comments are rediculous. By suggesting that distributing condoms does not work, and then siting as evidence 'because aids is always on the rise' and 'all condoms do is give people a safe sense of sex' is just plain wrong.

Firstly, as an example we know that distributing food aid to famine hit nations helps alleviate hunger, but the numbers of hungry continue to go up despite that aid. It doesn't mean that aid isn't having a positive effect. I think you're looking at the wrong cause and effect in your first point. Secondly, what the (sane) world is trying to do is educate people that wearing a condom provides protection (i.e. safe sex), and not wearing a condom exposes you to dangers. The people can then make a decision on what they deem as 'safe sex' or not and act accordingly (the easy part is actually getting the condoms in their hands). Its institutions like the Catholic Church that are muddying that message and some would say make the education process more difficult. Bottom line, its not the CONDOMS that are sending the wrong message (as you suggest), its the establishments who provide proor, misguided direction to the people, and this instance that is the Catholic Church.

[w a carr]

sex has been around for millions of years, the Catholic Church for about 2000 years so where does this male dominated organisation get the authority to dictate about sex especially as celibates they are supposed to have no experience of it
It is no coincidence that where the RC has its greatest power over people is in those areas where people suffer the gratest poverty and other deprivations

[livecoral]

Charge the pope with Crimes Against Humanity and drag him through the Courts. These sinister men in dresses are worse than the Nazis.

[Edward I]

On hearing about the Pope's most recent gaff, I couldn't help remembering the Siamese National Anthem, and in my mind's eye, I can see the Pope singing it:

Ah wah tah nah Siam.

[Edward I]

The man made a serious mistake....again.
At least he had the sense to tone down his silly pronouncements. It must be put down to the simple fact that self styled celibates (and old men to boot), cannot even imagine what it is like to have a normal sex drive.....and drive it is, when we are young.
The mere fact that someone decides to lead a celibate life shows his sex drive is very low.

[Diane]

Condoms (and all contraception) further the mentality that sex can be totally divorced from the possibility of procreation. This makes sex easy, which will make sex common, which makes for promiscuity. THIS is why condoms will never help in preventing STD's, abortions, out of wedlock births, etc. Condoms will always increase promiscuity...always.

The Holy Father is right, as usual.

[Henry E. Fondle]

I thought the Pope was more worldly-wise. He ought to know that his every word is scrutinised by evil people set on destroying him and the good his church does. He ought to be extra careful about how he expresses his opinions and avoid handing the Evil quotes which are easliy manipulated. I wholeheartedly support hte Pope's stance on condoms and cannot abide the mindboggling hypocrisy of those who criticise him. If the Pope's teachings were indeed followed there would be no AIDS in Africa, there would be no war and there would be no want. It is when we pick and choose that things do not work. We cannot reject condoms but embrace promiscuity and then blame the Pope.

[Dave Rattigan]

> No, not her. The Italian newspaper
> "Corriere della Sera" reports it.
> George Orwell, somewhere, is
> screaming "TOLD YOU"

Oh, ok. Since the link was in Italian, I wasn't sure what it was saying.

[robroy]

Uganda is the darling of HIV/AIDS reduction and rightly so. Its HIV rate went from the ~30% in 1989 to single digits in the mid 90's. One can graph the condom distribution rate as a function of time and see that the numbers for condoms only saw significant growth in the mid 1990's, pretty much after the entire decline had taken place It gained world attention and people said, "Quick let's send some condoms in!" And what happened with this large influx of condoms after the significant gains had been made? Uganda saw the HIV rate turn back up.

I would invite people to check out one of the real reasons for HIV decline in Uganda, go to the website of Universal Chastity Education, http://www.uceglobal.org/index.htm . Consider donating. We do. Or better yet, consider volunteering! You will see that the famous (or infamous to some) Ephraim Radner+ is on the board.

There is some good discussion on UCE's blog which may be found here, http://uceglobal.blogspot.com/ UCE is moving into Burundi, and I would love to have it expand into Haiti.

[Chris Moffatt]

Yes - deliberately changing the record is the way out of this silly mess that ratzinger has got himself into. The british parliament does the same with revisions to Hansard and the US Congress with changes to the congressional record. Good company for a "holy father" to be in, no?

[JHN]

Surely, Ruth, what the Vatican has posted on its own website is the definitive version of the interview.

It is entirely consistent with the teaching of the Church and with the evident failure of condom availability to prevent either the transmission of disease or unwanted pregnancies.

Otherwise the UK would be a model of disease prevention, and abortions would be rare.

Quite the opposite is true, and the media has a very large measure of responsibility for creating and sustaining the delusion that it is possible to have a sexual free-for-all without undesirable consequences.

The current media frenzy indicates that it cannot bear to engage with the reality that sexual intercourse is by its nature very much more significant than momentary self-gratification, and with enormous risks when abused.

[alan]

Well done, Ruth. Don't be frightened to print the truth, even if blinkered Catholic bloggers get annoyed, twist the facts and attack you for it.
They're just as big a disgrace to their organization as is the present Pope.
And I'm sure you'll have less to fear at the pearly gates than they will.

[infidel2009]

"For your sake I pray that your protestant views are right because you will have some accounting to do at St Peters Pearly gates if you are not?" James Tearney

Not a problem, James - it's Allah waiting there for all of us, so protestant, catholic, jewish or whatever, we're all screwed anyway!

Of course abstinence from sex is the best way to avoid HIV, etc. Nothing earth-shattering in that, and nothing exclusively Christian about teaching it. And if we all abstained from driving, there would be no deaths on the roads either.

But does that make it a workable policy?

[Bro Ronald]

"......I pray your protestant views are right because you will have some accounting to do at ST. PETER's PEARLY GATES if you are not" James Tearney to Ruth

Yes The 12 Gates of New Jerusalem will have Pearls..also other precious stones (Rev Chapter 21) St. Peter however won't be the gate keeper with Books on everyone. There is only 1 Book..."Lamb's book of Life". If your name is not in it...you don't get in. But hey it's a good myth regarding St. Peter though...

[iain rae]

The Pope continues to make one gaff after another. I am considering becoming a Druid.

[Athanasius]

Whatever His Holiness actually said, you are still missing the point (unsurprisingly). The following is taken from my own blog:

His Holiness's comments were (probably) nothing to do with a ps-scientific claim about condoms only being 80-90% effective, vs. the 100% effectiveness of abstinence. Although I'm sure that's also right.

Of course on an individual level, a condom is more likely than not to prevent the transmission of disease, and it would be nutty to disagree with that. Yet surely the real point is that flooding a country with condoms instead of preaching a message of true love and the proper place of sex in love leads to a perversion of the meaning of sex. If people are told repeatedly that they must have safe sex, then of course they are going to continue to have sex - it's just it won't always be 'safe'. In this context, all that happens is a flourishing of the "sex is for fun" notion, and an increase of disease, especially on a continent where I gather unusual sexual practices abound, is bound to follow. I suspect this is what the Pope meant by talking about the 'risk of making it worse' - the policy encourages a false perception of sex, and consequently a corruption of humanity itself.

Incidentally, the same is true of the UK, where contraception has never been so widely available to people of all ages, yet teenage pregnancies and STDs are rising ever higher. More people having sex = more disease and unwanted babies. The Catholic Philippines is often held as a positive example of the Church's teaching, in contrast with the explosion of HIV in condom-full Thailand; we can add to that the fact that there was even less AIDS in the Philippines until the WHO in their wisdom decided a few years back to attempt to flood the country with condoms.

[JHN]

Is it too much to ask that the Times employ a competent translator before rushing into print with wild stories?

This is what the pope said (taken from the Vatican website):

Se non c’è l’anima, se gli africani non si aiutano, non si può risolvere il flagello con la distribuzione di preservativi: al contrario, il rischio è di aumentare il problema.

"...the distribution of condoms, on the contrary, runs the risk of making the problem worse"

These are the pope's own words from an interview while on the flight to Africa.

This is very far from the many things he has been accused of, including the distorted version earlier on this blog.

Who is "Jon O'Brien"? The pope speaks for the Catholic Church, not some self-appointed individual who rejects the Church's teaching.

(rg writes: what you have quoted there is the version approved but altered by the Holy See from what the Pope actually said on the flight. The Pope's original words are not disputed by the Vatican and are on tape. That is the whole point of this blog post. As with the Brazil-Mexico-politicians excommunication row, the Vatican has responded to the international outrage by toning down what His Holiness said. We should take heart from this, as O'Brien does.)

[Daniele]

@Dave Rattigan:"Are you accusing the Vatican of deliberately changing the quote after the fact?"

No, not her. The Italian newspaper "Corriere della Sera" reports it. George Orwell, somewhere, is screaming "TOLD YOU".

@Colm: even **if** they were actually ineffective, that does not mean they're aggravating the problem. Turn it around all you like, but that's all there's to it.

Shane O'Neill: heh, heh, heh.

[Mary]

The push for use of condoms to combat aids with free condoms everywhere you turn and given out by the millions if not trillions has PROVED that IT DOES NOT WORK as aids is always on the rise. All condoms do is give people a false sense of "safe sex" . You play with fire eventually you WILL get burned. The Holy Father is right it does aggravate the whole aids epidemic and loss of morality.

[Colm]

Hello British cousins!

Did you know that the UNAIDS 2004 report surveyed the available data and established that programs that use condoms as their primary method of prevention are largely ineffective?

I found this information after doing a cursory search through Google. I imagine that Ruth and her loyal readers could do the same before mindlessly repeating the same thoughtless anti-Catholic crap that seems to sprout up whenever the Church happens to be right and her self-identified enemies wrong.

[James Tearney]

Its hard keeping up with all these false headlines and attacks. The times have been busy on this front. but I am heartened by the responses to the main leader article which largely opposes Ruth mistaken line on these matters and the main letter page also refutes these falsehoods. I'll try to correct a few others being pushed in this blog. Good catholics DO NOT use condoms. And this that promote this view will eventually be no longer a part of the catholic church. The catholic church is by far the largest charity fighting aids in africa they are not sickened by the popes advice but rather warmly welcome his leadership against the mistaken notions of those who push the culture of death. So the generalization the these "sickening" "dismayed" headlines make is simply not true and more a symptom of the bloggers personal view. As for Spain's socialist government they may send the condoms to Africa but if the Church has anything to do with it they won't be distributed just used for fishing, which is all they are good for and finally what is SICKENING is the repeated attempts by Ruth to attack the Holy Father and Vicar of Christ at every turn. For your sake I pray that your protestant views are right because you will have some accounting to do at St Peters Pearly gates if you are not?

[Shane O'Neill]

Lady Gledhill: "Jon O'Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, welcomed the climbdown"

On behalf of Red Devils for Liverpool, Tyrants for Human-Rights and Anglicans for Cromwell, I would like to make known our full support for Mr O'Brien's comments.

[Hannah Phillips]

Interesting, if I remember rightly that although John Paul II said it was a sin to use condoms, I do not believe he said they increased the risk of spreading HIV or other STI's.
I still find it hard to believe that the current Pope does not have a decent enough group of advisors to make sure he does not make these kinds of mistakes. The Vatican is doing itself vast amounts of damage.

[Dave Rattigan]

I'm confused. Are you accusing the Vatican of deliberately changing the quote after the fact?