(no subject)

[tahnan]

I know I hardly ever update as it is, and I know I oughtn't use this as a political blog, but the news that the Catholic Church is outright lying saddens and disgusts me. Theological doctrine is one thing, but shrugging off scentific proof with the line "They are wrong about that... this is an easily recognisable fact" and proceeding to spread false and life-threatening information is so morally repugnant that I am not certain I have any respect at all left for the Catholic Church.

Comments

[saxikath]

That's...

I'm speechless. I am appalled. I have great respect for individual members of the Catholic Church, past and present, but I share your feelings for the Church as a whole at the moment.

[spenceraloysius.livejournal.com]

The best way to eliminate your religious following is to kill them. It seems that the Vatican's goal is to make itself obsolete.

Desperate.

[cramerica.livejournal.com]

Barbaric. Inexcusable. I don't think it's coincidental that the church is hugely embattled at the moment, leading the diehards to froth all the more. It reminds me of a quote I saw once: "The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye: the more light you shine on it, the more it closes."

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

Wow, that's just horrible...

[cnoocy]

I'd really like to know what American catholic leaders have to say about this. I think I may email them.

[silkblade.livejournal.com]

I'd be interested in seeing what the reply is if you do that and get one.

[chrysoula.livejournal.com]

1.) It's tragic that they misunderstand human nature so much in the Vatican that they think people will choose the sensible option: not to have sex if they can't protect their partner from their disease. But it's patently obvious the Church is trying to curb promiscuity, not kill people.

2.) The people directly spreading such things almost certainly believe it, because they're hearing it from an entity they trust as much as you trust the WHO. They are no more 'outright lying' than Creationists are. Additionally, due to all the ways condom-use can be screwed up, they almost certainly have first or second hand experience with somebody who contracted HIV even though they used condoms. One explanation is as good as another to people in that kind of a situation.

3.) A properly used condom that does not slip or break can stop the spread of HIV. All the same, condoms can be improperly used, they can slip, and they can break. Having sex, even with a condom, is a horribly risky thing to do if you have AIDS.

4.) In the locations where priests are the only source of information on this subject, are condoms even available anyhow?

5.) This is a terrible human tragedy, not an atrocity.

I believe you are reacting exactly the way the Guardian wants you to react.

[agrimony.livejournal.com]

In point of fact, the Vatican actually states that there should be no sex (married or otherwise) if you are not actively trying to create a child. That part of the message often gets ignored or dropped because it is far less sensational than saying 'the church is telling people to have unsafe sex'.

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

Oh yes. I do know that the Catholic Church is promoting abstinence, not unprotected sex. When the Church says, "Do not use a condom," I am annoyed with them for underestimating human nature and displeased with what I think is a theologically silly point, but I don't outright hate them or think them evil.

However: the WHO has never claimed that condom use is 100% effective, and readily admits that it will not utterly prevent the spread of AIDS, but that it will at least help. The Church is stating outright that it will not help at all. When you say that "the people directly spreading such things almost certainly believe it, because they're hearing it from an entity they trust as much as you trust the WHO," it still begs the question of who told them that the scientific community was in error. Someone in the Church decided that the scientific evidence should be discarded (and there's no question of whether this is merely a "theory," as evolution is somewhat mistakenly labelled; this is a lab-reproducible result) and replaced with whatever someone in the Church devised. That is horrific, to my mind.

[agrimony.livejournal.com]

I have to wonder if the basis of this is a report from the Vatican's scientists regarding the fallibility of condoms being misinterpreted or misunderstood by non-science minded people. Or bad translations. Or even if they have scientists who truly believe this.

I find the vatican's stance on the use of condoms absolutely deplorable. Unfortunately, I don't have a good solution for them to be able to tell people to be sure to use condoms if you're having sex without trying to get pregnant without them feeling as if they are legitimizing promiscuous sex. :/

It is views like this which are part of the reason I am not a practicing catholic, but I also think that the article is biased reporting with material that could all too easily be not the context the quotes were given in. :/

[deleted my response]

[cramerica.livejournal.com]

as it was too snide and poorly phrased