Anything worth talking about, is worth blogging about

Posts tagged ‘AIDS’

Believe it or not, the Pope okays rubbers (Updated)

It looks like hell has frozen over, as the Condom Angel has managed to touch the Pope:

Pope Benedict XVI says in a new book that condoms can be justified for male prostitutes seeking to stop HIV, a stunning turnaround for a church that has long opposed condoms and a pontiff who has blamed them for making the AIDS crisis worse.

[…]

Catholic Church teaching has opposed condoms because they’re a form of artificial contraception, although the church has never released an explicit policy about condoms and HIV. The Vatican has been harshly criticized in light of the AIDS crisis.

Benedict said that for male prostitutes — for whom contraception isn’t the central issue — condoms are not a moral solution. But he said they could be justified “in the intention of reducing the risk of infection.”

He called it “a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way of living sexuality.”

[….]

The Catholic Church has done much to hinder the cause of reproductive rights, and its general view of condoms has likely contributed to the AIDS pandemic. Nevertheless, this is a good move, and credit goes where credit is due.

However, I don’t think this is really that much of a good move. First of all, it applies specifically to male prostitutes engaging in sex with men. In such a case, reproduction is impossible, and hence the Church’s ridiculous doctrine that the One True Purpose™ of sex is procreation. This admission of the potential benefit of condoms does not apply to heterosexual couples. In other words, the Roman Catholic Church still believes that it is more important to be open to reproduction (every sperm is still sacred!) than to take action to prevent the spread of a disease.

I don’t think this will have much impact on Catholic couples using contraception in their marriages. First of all, they already do so (the RCA is one of the least successful institutions in getting its members to follow one of its doctrines). And second, since it does not in any way alter previous church doctrine, it does not in any way permit Catholic couples to suddenly use birth control; there is still no loophole.

In other words, the RCA has an idiotic doctrine, but this improves it slightly.

 


Update (2010–11–23): The RCA has issued a clarification (h/t to Jen):

VATICAN CITY — Using a condom is a lesser evil than transmitting HIV to a sexual partner — even if that means a woman averts a possible pregnancy, the Vatican said Tuesday, signaling a significant shift in papal teaching as it explained Pope Benedict XVI’s comments.

The Vatican has long been criticized for its patent opposition to condom use, particularly in Africa where AIDS is rampant. But the latest interpretation of Benedict’s comments about condoms and HIV essentially means the Roman Catholic Church is acknowledging that its long-held, anti-birth control stance against condoms doesn’t justify putting someone’s life at risk.

Well, the announcement is now better than it seemed when released. It also provides a loophole allowing couples to use condoms as birth control, while claiming that they are merely using it to prevent the spread of AIDS. This specifically won’t make much as a difference, as Catholic couples already use birth control. This just provides a “justification”. While only referring to AIDS, I have difficulty seeing a relevant distinction between AIDS and other STDs.

HIV vaccine?

Good news in the battle against HIV and AIDS:

In a study of over 16000 people, an experimental vaccine has reduced the transmission of HIV by over 31 percent. Although this is far from being perfect protection, if this vaccine turns out to be successful it may be useful in the fight against the AIDS pandemic. However, more research is necessary in order to determine whether this vaccine is protective against all strains of HIV.

I wonder when these so-called “Family Values Organizations” will start whining about how this promotes promiscuity and makes boys become gay.

More evidence of what really motivates them

Not like we needed another example of the concern for puritanical sexual morality that motivates social consies:

Democrats were outraged Wednesday morning when Republican state Sen. Dave Schultheis said he planned to vote against a bill to require HIV tests for pregnant women because the disease “stems from sexual promiscuity” and he didn’t think the Legislature should “remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior.”

In other words, this is a concern for “punishing” women for daring to have sex. Mr. Schultheis seems unaware that HIV can be spread through means other than sex. At least he and his Republican Party are in the minority throughout the government of Colorado, where they belong.

Schultheis later reiterated his opposition:

“What I’m hoping is that, yes, that person may have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby and when they grow up, but the mother will begin to feel guilt as a result of that,” he said. “The family will see the negative consequences of that promiscuity and it may make a number of people over the coming years begin to realize that there are negative consequences and maybe they should adjust their behavior.”

Yes, that’s right. He wants babies to get AIDS.

What an asshole.

Hat tip to Pam’s House Blend.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: