NEWS: No praise for Pope from AIDS campaigners

AIDS groups have described the views of Pope John Paul II in regards to prevention of the disease as a failure. They point out that the Pope often called for the support of those afflicted with the disease and those orphaned by it, he also fought against the use of condoms.



While I have no problem with promoting abstinence or fidelity, you have to acquiesce to the reality of present day life. Especially in Africa and other areas that have been and continue to be hard hit by the disease. The churches efforts in helping the victims of the disease is noteworthy, but taking a stance on an easy way to prevent the disease spread may have perpetuated the crisis. It also point to the selective nature of being human. You pick the advise or teachings you want (No condoms) but ignore the message of fidelity.

[edit on 4/4/05 by FredT]

In his edicts, he fought tirelessly against condoms, branded homosexuality immoral and emphasised a passive role for women as family anchor and child bearer.

Sure, a lot of people are making noises about what the Pope 'should' have done. Those that followed his edicts were saved from the scourge of AIDs and HIV to a great degree.

Promiscuity=condoms Shouldn't take any stretch to equate his stnace on this. I give the man props for not bending to 'modern' ways of life.

The Catholic church's propaganda in AIDS ravaged countries that condoms do not prevent the spread of HIV, is the equivelant of the Catholic church's propaganda in the dark ages that bathing was witchcraft punishable by death, which help spread the black plague.

Originally posted by Legalizer
The Catholic church's propaganda in AIDS ravaged countries that condoms do not prevent the spread of HIV, is the equivelant of the Catholic church's propaganda in the dark ages that bathing was witchcraft punishable by death, which help spread the black plague.

No, dear Legalizer, the Pope's views was that he prefers men NOT to engage in sex with another men and saw condoms as the condoning reason for gay men to encourage promiscuous sex between men, just as long as they believed it would be "safe" from AIDS. In reality, that is not the certain case. He believe that all men are made in God's image and that men should NOT have sex with men as not to perverse the very image of God. This is the literal truth.

i understand that the catholics views on codoms like that of birth controll comes from the fact that they consider sex to actualy be a necisary evil only suffered to produce children. therefore the use of devices or meds to stop one from conceiving is therefore a sin. while i am not a catholic it does make sense. if one reads the old testiment it is written that anyone who has sex is cerimoniously unclean. this may also be part of the reason for priests,nuns,and monks being celibate. therefore if this is what they believe then to recomend use or espcialy not to condem their use would be like telling someone to sin.

I love the smell of ignorance in the morning! Catholics having morals equals AIDS? No, immorality causes AIDS. Lack of education causes AIDS. Unprotected sex shouldn't be a worry for people who aren't religious anyways. Keep your buttons buttoned and zippers zipped as the Nuns always used to say.

Originally posted by Legalizer
The Catholic church's propaganda in AIDS ravaged countries that condoms do not prevent the spread of HIV, is the equivelant of the Catholic church's propaganda in the dark ages that bathing was witchcraft punishable by death, which help spread the black plague.

I thought that during the times of the black plague the pope sat between two bonfires to keep the disease at bay (and it did, because rats don't like to burn). Note: I don't remember where I read this.

Originally posted by the_oleneo

Originally posted by Legalizer
The Catholic church's propaganda in AIDS ravaged countries that condoms do not prevent the spread of HIV, is the equivelant of the Catholic church's propaganda in the dark ages that bathing was witchcraft punishable by death, which help spread the black plague.

No, dear Legalizer, the Pope's views was that he prefers men NOT to engage in sex with another men and saw condoms as the condoning reason for gay men to encourage promiscuous sex between men, just as long as they believed it would be "safe" from AIDS. In reality, that is not the certain case. He believe that all men are made in God's image and that men should NOT have sex with men as not to perverse the very image of God. This is the literal truth.

That's theologically incorrect. The reason, in the Catholic Church's eyes, that gay couples can't have sex is because it would be extra-marital and non-procreative. It has nothing to do with perverseness. Extra-marital sex is simply a sin, and since gay couples can't marry (because they can't procreate), gay sex will always be sinful.

Originally posted by drogo
i understand that the catholics views on codoms like that of birth controll comes from the fact that they consider sex to actualy be a necisary evil only suffered to produce children. therefore the use of devices or meds to stop one from conceiving is therefore a sin. while i am not a catholic it does make sense. if one reads the old testiment it is written that anyone who has sex is cerimoniously unclean. this may also be part of the reason for priests,nuns,and monks being celibate. therefore if this is what they believe then to recomend use or espcialy not to condem their use would be like telling someone to sin.

The RCC considers sex beautiful because it results in life, in the "normative" sense.

Nuns, priests, and monks are all married to God. One can't have sex with an imaginary being.

These are all good reasons why I'm an ex-Catholic.

The whole gay sex explanation is complete and utter bovine feces.

The RCC knows full well that the majority of people suffering from AIDS in the third world are women and children, there sure the hell is not tens of millions of gay men in the third world, would be hard for them to increase their numbers if this was the case wouldn't it.

If the pope really gave a damn about gay sex, why didn't he have all those child raping preists burned at the stake for their unforgivable "sins" against defenseless children?

While I nderstand the gays being upset, they have to remember that the Pope was foollowing what he was voted in to do, to keep the Catholic Laws, and traditions.
In the eyes of a Catholic..(not all) to be gay is a sin. The outbreak of Aids, was seen as a sign to the gays, that it was immoral against God to be with the same sex.
To understand the church means that the only thing accepted as far as relationships go, is the traditional man and woman relationship, to wed, be comitted to one anaother, and to multipjy, (have children). Being gay, in the eyes of the church is a sin, and cannot produce children and is seen as a sin.
If the Pope had made condoms acceptable, then he would have went against everything the Roman Catholic church believes in. He went by the laws according to God, and the bible, and if had broken them, he would not have been seen as a "holy pope" in the Vatican and in the church.
To shun the Pope for it, is not right, this has been the belief of the church since it began.

If the pope was to support condem's it would mean he supported casual sex and people having many parnters. Christianity is about be being virgin, until married and then left in the marriage with loyally to husband and wife. This mean's aid's would never penatrate this type of culture.

The problem with western world, they are into casual sex, they have many sexual parnters and most are adulterous and very disloyal this type of culture spreads AIDS like while fire. Homosexuals, are also in causal sex, and have many parnters. African culture lack's morality. This is why there are so many adulterous, and aids spreads like wild fire.

What condem's are about is, supporting a causal sex culture without geting aids. What the AIDS activisitists want it to trick the pope into supporting casual sex culture. Which is clearly not christian.

So in reality, AIDS activisestes, not only support the rubber they also support causal sex. AIDS in reality has spread fast, because of the adulterous culture dumping, divorce, adultery and causal sex circles etc. If you want to attack aids, ban porn and sex on tv. The media prompts this causal sex culture.

Culture is the problem, not the the rubber.

It's like being shot at, with bullet proof vest.
The pope just wanted to stop the shootings.


[edit on 5-4-2005 by TheTruth123]

[edit on 5-4-2005 by TheTruth123]

Originally posted by TheTruth123
If you want to attack aids, ban porn and sex on tv. The media prompts this causal sex culture.

Yeah, that's the problem. Murphy Brown destroyed Africa.

Well first of all, the RCC is not anti-gay because it does not allow procreation. It is against it because a woman and a man are the only people who should have sex in God's eyes. Even then it should only take place with the sacred bond of marriage. This is not the cause of AIDS. If you want to have casual sex why then would you worry about the condom rule?

Secondly, pedophilia is a disease that was represented in .5% of all RC Priests and this does not even begin to represent Christians as a whole. The reason you heard about the RCC is because it is the largest Christian denomination worldwide. The media has to make a splash. Why write about a minute group when you can take on the king of the hill. I am not condoning what was done and I am just as angry at anyone, but someone who left the church because of that issue was never strong in their faith to begin with.

AIDS is not spread by immorality in Africa, it is spread mainly from mother to child. In nonchristian Africa, it is common social practice to have many wives and many children since you never know who will survive and the ones that do will take care of you. This however, combined with little to no health care means that people are dead before they even know that they have AIDS.

Please, stop with the ignorance. The pedophile, anticatholic comments, and other stupid catchphrase hating needs to stop. This site is about denying ignorance and all I have heard from a majority of you is church bashing. We are all brothers and sisters, whether Athiest, Muslim, Bhuddist, Hindu, Catholic, Baptist, whatever. We should respect each others beliefs whether we believe them or not. If we are to be true to whatever we believe, the common doctrine is to be polite to one another and to allow people to choose their religion freely. Bashing another religion only discredits you and will lead to people distancing themselves from you.

In closing, nuns and brothers and priests are not married to the church. They take a vow of chasitity and therefore show more selfcontrol than we could ever think of. After looking at today's society, I understand now why there are so many who dislike the system of the church: People are fat, Drugs are an epidemic, and everyone wants to have sex whereever whenever. Humans have lost all self control and are no better off than the day they were kicked out of Eden.

Originally posted by realorritt
While I nderstand the gays being upset, they have to remember that the Pope was foollowing what he was voted in to do, to keep the Catholic Laws, and traditions.
In the eyes of a Catholic..(not all) to be gay is a sin. The outbreak of Aids, was seen as a sign to the gays, that it was immoral against God to be with the same sex.
To understand the church means that the only thing accepted as far as relationships go, is the traditional man and woman relationship, to wed, be comitted to one anaother, and to multipjy, (have children). Being gay, in the eyes of the church is a sin, and cannot produce children and is seen as a sin.
If the Pope had made condoms acceptable, then he would have went against everything the Roman Catholic church believes in. He went by the laws according to God, and the bible, and if had broken them, he would not have been seen as a "holy pope" in the Vatican and in the church.
To shun the Pope for it, is not right, this has been the belief of the church since it began.

That's bad theology as well. The Catholic Church hasn't said that being gay is a sin. It has said that committing homosexual acts is a sin. Gays are "called" to be celibate.

I wish I wasn't the one that has to educate you people on this stuff. Someone who's still Catholic should do so.

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
In closing, nuns and brothers and priests are not married to the church. They take a vow of chasitity and therefore show more selfcontrol than we could ever think of. After looking at today's society, I understand now why there are so many who dislike the system of the church: People are fat, Drugs are an epidemic, and everyone wants to have sex whereever whenever. Humans have lost all self control and are no better off than the day they were kicked out of Eden.

I didn't say they were married to the church. No matter...

Since all those problems are likely to stay with humanity, the only way to reduce the problems caused by them is to take more pragmatic approaches. This means to educate people on how to prevent other problems that result from such acts. The RCC, the romantic, refuses to see things this way. Idealism is great, but it doesn't get anyone anywhere. It almost always takes pragmatists to move things forward.

[edit on 4/5/2005 by supercheetah]

Originally posted by supercheetahSince all those problems are likely to stay with humanity, the only way to reduce the problems caused by them is to take more pragmatic approaches. This means to educate people on how to prevent other problems that result from such acts. The RCC, the romantic, refuses to see things this way. Idealism is great, but it doesn't get anyone anywhere. It almost always takes pragmatists to move things forward. [edit on 4/5/2005 by supercheetah]

So, I suppose the church's belief in the 10 Commandments, the words of the Prophets, and the divinity and ressurection of Christ are all just "romanticism" and "idealism"? Sorry, pal, but that is religion for you. A set of beliefs. Beliefs which can sometimes run counter to what is popular, socially normative, or trendy.

How and why AIDS started doesn't matter. Whether or non homosexuals sin doesn't matter. Prior to AIDS, the church's stand on sexuality was:

Do not commit adultery
Do not commit fornication

These guideline remain, and they are just as effective today as they were thousands of years ago. To the church, this is a simple and effective way of preventing the spread of AIDS, or any other venerial disease for that matter. No adultery, no fornication = no disease. But because people are sinners and lack self control, AIDS has spread. The church is not going to throw away 2000 years of faith because people want to have casual sex. To everything a person does in life, there are consequences. It is the (self-appointed) responsibility of the church to provide the moral high ground. If a person decides to take the low road, well, he runs the risk of getting dirty.

It may well be true that innocent people are contracting AIDS through no fault of their own, due to the sinful acts of others, To the church, this is a graphic representation of the evils of the sin itself - the corruption of the innocents. The church simply beliefs that 2 wrongs don't make a right. You cannot prevent sin by committing sin.

The Black Plague of Europe body burnings, World-wide Pneumonia Camps, Measles inoculations, polio vaccines, tuberculosis quarantines, etc. were attempts by the science of the times to control or eradicate the disease in question. Some required medication, all required lifestyle, compliance and/or behavior modification.
Now comes a disease spread by our most basic of instincts - sex. It has happened before, i.e. syphilis, gonorrhea, etc. The British Admiralty and Army was nearly decimated until curtailment of "causative activities" was put in place.
Unfortunately, to a great extent, we in the United States have created a notion that the individual is greater than the whole when it comes to AIDS. Possibly be exposed to Anthrax in Washington DC and one is mandated to be tested, confined if necessary. Not so with AIDS. Hookers that are known to be carriers arrested in any U.S. city are released in a matter of hours after their arrest.
Don't take me wrong. I am a very libertarian individual in that each individual has the inherent right to live their life as they choose - up to the point of eliminating anothers right to life. Smoke at a bar? - I can walk away, Want to eat liver (which I loath)? - more power to you. Expose or infect me with an incurable disease - sorry, crossed the line.
Especially when a "cure" to the epidemic is available. Medical advances have developed blood screening, treatment (though not cure) drugs and a future vaccine is now within rhelm of possibilty.
Until such time as a medical cure is (if) available though, it is incumbent upon our society to make clean needles and condoms available, incarcerate or isolate (quarantine) wanton infectors and hold individuals responsible for their actions that infect others.

Originally posted by Legalizer
The whole gay sex explanation is complete and utter bovine feces.

The RCC knows full well that the majority of people suffering from AIDS in the third world are women and children, there sure the hell is not tens of millions of gay men in the third world, would be hard for them to increase their numbers if this was the case wouldn't it.

I'm sorry but that's an asinine excuse. I've learned that African men were the carriers of AIDS due to their raping of African women which were (still are) very common and frankly acceptable in certain tribal cultures. Warfare, famine and political upheavals in Africa in the 1970s and 80s prompted African males committed atrocities, genocide, fornication, rapes, and drug uses (shared needles) among the civilian populations at different places and different times.

Originally posted by Legalizer
If the pope really gave a damn about gay sex, why didn't he have all those child raping preists burned at the stake for their unforgivable "sins" against defenseless children?

Because the RCC don't do that anymore. It's inhumane, barbaric and illegal. Secondly, there was a massive denial within the RCC hierarchy on child-molesting priests – two reasons - 1: they were more worried about declining numbers of priests in the West; 2: they were even more worried that very few young Western men joining Catholic priesthood. Overall, they have concerns the Catholic churches in the West/America would have fewer priests than ever before, which is why some bishops and cardinals were reluctant to address child-molestation issues among some priests because they wanted to keep them in the churches for as long as possible. Their mistakes.

According to Christian dogma: Man is made in God's image. Period.

When Man abuses, corrupts, perverse and/or hurts himself, Man is abusing, corrupting, perverting and hurting God spiritually.

Would you really prefers a Pope that would goes on the issue of condoms or gay sex, "Um...well...okay...but..." and before he finish it, every Catholic male would interpret this as a clear approval to use condoms or jump into a bed with another man?!

The Pope's word is the final authority on all matters since God cannot presents Himself physically on Earth. Okay?

[edit on 4/5/2005 by the_oleneo]

Originally posted by the_oleneo

Originally posted by Legalizer
The whole gay sex explanation is complete and utter bovine feces.

The RCC knows full well that the majority of people suffering from AIDS in the third world are women and children, there sure the hell is not tens of millions of gay men in the third world, would be hard for them to increase their numbers if this was the case wouldn't it.

I'm sorry but that's an asinine excuse. I've learned that African men were the carriers of AIDS due to their raping of African women which were (still are) very common and frankly acceptable in certain tribal cultures. Warfare, famine and political upheavals in Africa in the 1970s and 80s prompted African males committed atrocities, genocide, fornication, rapes, and drug uses (shared needles) among the civilian populations at different places and different times.


The Pope's word is the final authority on all matters since God cannot presents Himself physically on Earth. Okay?

[edit on 4/5/2005 by the_oleneo]

The spread of AIDS in africa is also because of poverty and rampant prostitution. There is condom distrubtion in Africa. Look at Peace Corp and other NonCatholic groups. The spread of AIDS is not because of Catholicism, in fact very few Africans are Catholic.

Also, God speaks through the Pope. Jesus himself said "Feed my lambs" to Simon Peter, who is historically the first Pope. The succession of Popes since has kept with the tradition that the Pope is 1) Infallible 2)Ambassador for the Trinity to the World. Many Popes have proven to be fallible, but we must remember that they are not divine. Nobody except God, the Angels and Satan are divine beings.