Thanks Benedict, that’s about as clear as mud

stephen says:

11:04am | 22/11/10

I’m told a male prostitute always cares for a paying customer.

Tedd says:

11:24am | 22/11/10

Why just reference male prostitutes??

By not speaking more broadly and not encompassing women, especially female prostitutes, the Pope virtually denied women the “luxury” of using condoms.

Does he or the Vatican have death wish for them?

We are seeing increasingly meandering and contradictory behaviour form the Vatican - he now tries to downplay his anti-Muslim rhetoric; etc.

Barry says:

01:00pm | 22/11/10

I’m not catholic, but blah blah blah, who cares if he didn’t specifically mention women.  I’m sure you could analyse hundreds of statements by people, which specifically mention one sex.  It doesn’t mean their sexist or have a death wish for female prostitutes.  In fact, what the Pope says has absolutely nothing to do with what catholic doctrine is really unless it’s spoken in ex cathedra, which hasn’t occurred for half a century.  What the Pope said hasn’t denied women the luxury of condoms, because it didn’t afford anyone the luxury in the first place.  The truth is aswell in a way everyone should be anti-Muslim if they want their country to retain it’s values and culture.  The only reason not to be concerned about Islam is ignorance.  Check out their fertility rates compared to most other nations.  Their numbers may currently not be that large, but it’s just plain statistical logic to realize that in 50 years, countries such as Germany and France face the very possible future of becoming Islamic states.  The massacre of catholics in Iraq may also have caused some of the church’s bitterness about Muslims.

Anne71 says:

01:01pm | 22/11/10

@Tedd, the Catholic church basically have women caught between a rock and a hard place. They cannot use any birth control as it is a sin - they can only abstain, or use the “rhythm method” (aka Vatican Roulette) where they only have sex during the mythical “safe period”. BUT - under Catholic rule a woman is also supposed to obey her husband and submit to him, which means he decides when they get busy, not her.
And people wonder why I’m no longer a practising Catholic.

Samuel says:

02:44pm | 22/11/10

Anne71, it seems that you’re no longer a practicing catholic because you don’t actually understand catholic teaching.  A wife does not have to submit to her husband, they submit to each other.  The church says that for a man to use his wife purely for sex is wrong.  It’s a partnership.  Secondly, there is no “mythical” safe period. I think the techinical term for the infertile period of a woman’s scycle is “scientifically verified”.

kyzz says:

03:17pm | 22/11/10

@samuel there is no infertile period in a woman’s cycle. women can and do become pregnant even when menstraution is occurring. There are times when it is less likely a woman will become pregnant but no point where it is gauranteed that she will not.

fairsfair says:

04:18pm | 22/11/10

The thing that has always had me miffed… what is the difference between using a barrier/chemical form of contraception and then knowingly choosing not to have sex during periods in which you are more likely to fall pregnant…?? that is just as much trying to interfere with gods will as using a contraceptive is. Why does the vatican condone this method? I don’t know why it matters anyway, because virgins can get pregnant apparently.

Kika says:

04:50pm | 25/11/10

Because all the scourges of the world are women’s responsibilty. Remember, they are the source of original sin? Man was once pure and innocent and were corrupted by a foul evil woman.

When will the RCC ever care about women’s rights? hahaha. Never.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

06:09pm | 22/11/10

Marley :  It would be interesting to know how many Australian Catholic women actually take the pill or have their husband use condoms .
I suspect the count would be very high indeed .
Aussies are a mighty independent hetrosexual breed when comes to bedroom rules and i would dare to say that the Church’s ruling on contraception has very little impact on any couples practices.
You can bet your life that Rome is well aware of that as a worldwide fact
but short of placing a priest in every bedroom there is nothing the Catholic Church can do to police the rules.
When it comes to the prevention of HIV/AIDS , common sense should rein , whether Catholic , Hindu , Budhist . Anglican , Islam , etc etc etc

Don’t fall into the line of thought that the Pope is not advised on just what the realities of worldwide practices are currently.
Sometimes i think a modern approach to contraception from Rome is avoided to save face , not necessarily for the current Pope but his predecessors.  I make that statement without any predjudice against the Catholic Church and it is my personal view.

Austin 3:16 says:

05:48am | 24/11/10

Hey Wayne,

I’d agree about the Australian bit, a lot of Aussies I know who consider themselves good Catholics still use contraception.

However as you pointed out this might be due to the distinct nature of Australian culture.

And the pope is the pope for Catholics all over the world, not just Australia.

William says:

02:23am | 23/11/10

No chris, Sorry bud but Id just say that he is realistic and acknowledges that Yes Prostitution goes on!!
personalty i’m against the death penalty… but if a county feels that that is the best way of punishing someone then i would say that they shouldn’t do it by beheading.

its about not running away from the fact… but facing it and stating that there are beter ways around it!

Chris says:

08:10pm | 23/11/10

What a crock!
It’s not about facing facts etc. it’s just a copout. He and the church know he is under pressure and they just decided to put this one out there to try and shut people up.
He will still condemn prostitution and homosexuality but on the other hand saying they can use condoms is then saying it is ok to be a prostitute.
The catholic church is so full of crap and out of touch.
I’m not a church basher either. I was a baptized catholic and went to catholic schools so I know who 2 faced the church is.

Brian B says:

12:53pm | 22/11/10

Enlighten me Shane - Divulge to us all the “issues far deeper” you refer to in your post.

Having read the statement released by the Vatican, I can conclude only that it is confusing, meaningless babble to us plebs.

Shane says:

02:08pm | 22/11/10

Well Brian, to properly understand the Catholic understanding of condom use, you need to be aware of the Catholic understanding of marriage, the Catholic understanding of sin, the Catholic understanding of harm and personal responsibility, and the Catholic Church’s perpetual idealism.

I personally don’t understand all these, but I assure you the Pope does, and Tory Maguire probably does not. The Church represents (what it believes) is perfection. Therefore, it carries, the Church always teaches and advocates an idealist approach. Whether or not abstinence in young people is possible is obviously open to debate, and I doubt it is possible. But the Church cannot “settle” for less than perfect.

Simplistic example: If condoms are freely available in Thailand, yet in Catholic Phillipines they are not, how do we explain the much lower rate of HIV and STDs in the Phillipines?

Fiddlesticks says:

03:27pm | 22/11/10

Re: “Simplistic example: If condoms are freely available in Thailand, yet in Catholic Phillipines they are not, how do we explain the much lower rate of HIV and STDs in the Phillipines? “

Measurement error, reporting error, misinterpretation and distortion of results, and unfounded assertion.

Give a verifiable authoritative independent (non-Church) sources for your claims, and you *might* have a case to argue.

Brian B says:

03:52pm | 22/11/10

Thank you for replying Shane. You are right - I don’t understand the Catholic Church’s insistence on idealism - I would have thought it idealistic to stop the spread of both unwanted disease and babies by the use of condoms.

And the Church’s quest for perfection certainly hit a hurdle with the outrageous behaviour of many of it’s priests in relation to children.

Cheers.

pax says:

04:40pm | 22/11/10

Shane has a point. the catholic church is seeking to express perfection.  Just because we may not measure up to that perfection is no reason to abandon that notion.

The church views all activity in relation to God. With regard to sex there are three entities ‘becoming one’ - the man, the woman, and the presence of God’s love in the sex act. As God is pure creation - anything that stems the flow of creation (like a condom) destroys man’s relationship with God. So the church points this out.

The pope merely reframes current issues on the dogma that the faith is built on. If the purpose of sex is to strengthen our relationship with god, then catholics should be having sex with only one person, within the confines of marriage purely for the procreation of children. Condoms are never going to fit into that paradigm - because, according to the church, it damages our relationship with God.

With regard to AIDS, the church provides a clear strategy for catholics - it is more bulletproof than the 98% effectiveness of condoms. Remain chaste and abstain from sex before marriage. Marry a virgin and never have extra marital sex.

Yet many of us will fail to reach this perfection and some of us may experience the consequences of our actions. It doesn’t mean the church can stray from the foundations of the faith. It’s like saying “The government should de-criminalise murder - everybody is doing it anyway.”

Most of us have a lot in common with the teachings of the catholic church. The majority disapprove of murder, infidelity, violence, sexual abuse etc while advocating love, respect and care. the church has merely refined many of these views by focusing specifically how these things affect our relationship with God.

The cathoilc church is not responsible for how our lives go - that is our responsibility, but the church does freely offer strategies that allow us to heal our relationship with God.

Shane says:

08:12am | 23/11/10

Fiddlesticks,

Despite similar socieconomic standards, less than 0.1% of adults in the Philippines are HIV positive. I Thailand, the rate is over 1.0%.

The UN Aids fund estimated that, in total, 8,300 people in the Philippines live with HIV. More than that are infected every year in Thailand. The number of people with HIV in Thailand is over 600,000.

600,000 HIV cases with condoms everywhere in Thailand. 8,300 HIV cases (In a larger Filipino population) with abstinence the norm.
(http://www.unaids.org)

Reporting error I suppose?

Brian, I understand that paedophiles are an easy and totally justified target, but I hope one day to have a conversation with someone about Catholicism who doesn’t resort to a simple “Oh yeah? Well… paedophiles! So there!’ argument. Especially in relation to something like contraception which has no direct links to the evils committed by priests.

Fiddlesticks says:

11:27am | 23/11/10

Shane is qoting 8,300 for the Philippines as UNAIDS data, and as if it were an actual known count of cases…

In fact it is a WHO/UNAIDS estimate, for which upper and lower limits are estimated as 6,000 to 11,000 - a confidence interval effectively as large as the lower estimate.  In other words, the 8,300 estimate for 2007 is subject to considerable uncertainty, but the best available. 

For Thailand, the matching estimate for 2007 is 610,000 lying in the estimated range 410,000 to 880,000. Again, a range pretty much as large as the lower bound.  With this degree of uncertainty, we cannot tell if the fall from 660,000 in 2001 is very meaningful

The WHO summary explains the uncertainty of its estimates with some care. It would be unwise to regard estimates subject to this degree of uncertainy with much confidence. Comparisons with separate country estimates with such (propotionately) wide latitude is likely to be difficult if not actually misleading.

To present these estimates as if they were actual cases *is* misleading.

See: http://www.who.int/countries/tha/en and http://www.who.int/countries/phl/en

Shane says:

01:46pm | 23/11/10

Fidlesticks, it’s called a confidence interval. There’s hardly a statistic in existence that doesn’t require a confidence interval. So yeah, the range is there for all to see (since I provided the link). But the best estimate remains (and is confirmed by YOUR link to the WHO website). 600,000 people in Thailand. Around 8,300 in The Philippines.

For a larger population with almost identical socio-economic factors like poverty and access to healthcare, how do you account for the glaringly different HIV rates?

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Somewhere like Uganda, where abstinence is heavily promoted, has come under criticism for not adopting the blind-faith in condoms that the rest of Africa is being urged (by the West) to adopt.
And yet Uganda bucks the trend, and sees a decline in HIV rates since abstinence programs have come into effect (WHO figures). So in real terms (not statistical) that means it is likely that fewer people have HIV than would have if the abstinence programs did not exist. By comparing it with other nations, Uganda shows that in all likelihood, abstinence programs are a lot more effective than they’re given credit for.

No doubt Mr Fiddlesticks will retort with some critique of the Uganda policy, but once again, the proof is in the pudding! If there are other nations that have shown condoms to be as effective, I am all ears. I am not ideologically opposed to condoms, I just oppose the anti-Church (ironically) blind faith that people put in condoms without proof to back it up!
It’s all well and good for folks in Geneva to put out a 112 page paper on why condoms are great, but until there is actual proof that abstinence is dramatically less effective, I remain unconvinced.

Fiddlesticks says:

03:21pm | 23/11/10

Unbecoming sarcasm.  Plainly the measures are the best WHO/UNAIDS can manage at present.

I understand the confidence interval well enough, thank you - simply trying to talk about the data in a way that anyone can understand. 

The difference between the Thai and Filipino data is worryingly large, but that is about all one can say with any confidence. Without direct involvement in either the programs on the ground or in the analysis, that is about all anyone can say: the data cries out for explanation.

As Shane is determined to take the estimates as the main base of his case, despite their obvious and declared uncertainties (which he originally chose *not*  to show), he must now take both rough and smooth. As he thinks the estimates credible, he’s stuck now with trying to explain the apparent 8 (or 6 or 11!)  fold increase in HIV in the Philippines from <1000 in 2001 to 2008 (against his supposed cause of abstinence, and against and the effectively stable Thai estimates over the same period.

There lies my point:  the estimates are plainly extremely difficult to intrepret reliably. They cry out for a determined effort to explain the difference, whether by review of the data, the source, the method or the program.

What the estimates simply cannot do of themselves is offer *any* explanation based on pure speculation of religious behaviour as a cause -  of what may well be a profound measurement, reporting or estimation problem.

I’ve aimed here to express real and reasonable concern about the diffculties in using, presenting and discussing AIDS data, even best estimate data from an independent source, WHO/UNAIDS.  Plainly there is a problem of some sort.  It is only by knowing the independent source that it is possible to see the degree of difficutly and the degree of caution required.

One small point: “There’s hardly a statistic in existence that doesn’t require a confidence interval”. I’m sorry, no. that’s quite wrong. Where a direct count is possible, the confidence interval is neither relevant nor meaningful. It’s zero, in effect. Other errors (under count, eg) pehaps (and perhaps in abundance),  but no confidence interval. Vast areas of national data are based on actual counts.  Confidence intervals relate only to estimates derived by sampling, as an estimate of accuracy.

As for AIDS policy, I’m content to rely on the UNAIDS position, explained with utter clarity in the Position Statement on Condoms and HIV Prevention here
http://www.unaids.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/Resources/PolicyGuidance/Techpolicies/Condoms_UNAIDS_policies.asp
In short - “condoms continue to be a critical element in comprehensive, effective and sustainable approaches to HIV prevention and treatment”.

St. Michael says:

01:01pm | 22/11/10

I’m actually encouraged, to be honest; given how the Pope normally behaves by making absolute and “we will never change our minds, ever” pronouncements on some subjects, this is a bigger step forward than John Paul II, arguably the most popular Pope of the 20th century, ever made.  It’s rather similar to hearing a Cold-War Kremlin official actually say the word “capitalism”: tiny, seemingly-insignificant omissions have to be read in context of a massively conservative bureaucracy that puts the Pope’s every action under a magnifying glass.  Going as far as he has in an unguarded interview seems to demonstrate a glimpse of what old Benny actually thinks in private or what he’s moving towards.  God help us, someone in the Vatican is actually making a small move in the direction of reality and common sense.

Insufficient time to answer in full, but two points:

(a) most Catholics—myself included—in Western countries will be ignoring the “ban”, partially because it’s mostly left up to Catholics as a matter of conscience.  There’s no infallible pronouncement of dogma from the Pope saying that contraceptives will send you to Hell.

(b) Ms Maguire left out the rest of the comments on interview, where Benedict basically said the reason condoms aggravate the “problems” is because if you use condoms the temptation is there to start thinking of sexuality as a commodity rather than the life-commencing, beautiful experience it is between two people committed to each other in marriage.  Which probably building sex up in our minds to something a lot bigger than it actually is, but what else do you expect from a 70-ish virgin?

Eddie Murphy put it a lot better and a lot more crudely: if you ain’t been eating something for months, a cheese cracker is gonna taste like the best damn cracker ever made.  If you eat crackers every day, one morning you could wake up and start to think: “Hey ... all I got me here is a plain ol’ box of crackers.”

Samuel says:

02:55pm | 22/11/10

The idea that they do not engage in debate is absurd.  Read the actual words, read the actual book.  In fact, try going on to the Vatican website and read the mountains of documents produced by the popes and various vatican councils on this topic stretching back well into last century.  This isn’t vaguely ‘recieved truth’, the pope stands on the shoulders of several thousand years worth of thought, debate, research and experience.
This is the fundamental problem with the way many people approach papal statements.  They look at them in isolation without delving into the philosophical and theological context within which the statements are made.  Unfortunately, in a twitter and wikipedia world, few people have the patience to get themselves educated on the philosophical and historical foundations of Catholic moral teaching.  It is vast and complex and these days our society, myself included, tend to be information grazers.

Adrian says:

05:25pm | 22/11/10

“Mmm god damn! Is that a Saltine?”

ddeebble says:

01:05pm | 22/11/10

And I am going to sell the lot of you for medical experiments!!! LOL

Hermano says:

12:54pm | 22/11/10

there’s something in the old testament about some bloke called Onan “spilling his seed on the ground” or something.  He and his family was swallowed up by the ground, as punishment.  The holy see has taken that to mean that any time a sperm is ejected without the intention of it fertilising an egg that it’s a cardinal sin.
thus endeth the lesson.

Richard says:

01:07pm | 22/11/10

Wikipedia comes to the rescue yet again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan

michael j says:

07:44pm | 23/11/10

thanks for that one richard a real eyeopener,mist that bit in me king james version,,but all in all i’m giving up me condoms in case i’m mistaken for cathalick

marley says:

01:58pm | 22/11/10

I think, if you look at Africa, where the bulk of the HIV/AIDS cases are, it has always been a heterosexual disease, with pretty much a 50/50 split between male and female infections.  So, whether the wife gets it from the husband, or the husband from the wife, is almost irrelevant - if they’re not using condoms, they’re both going to be at risk.  As, of course, are the unborn children.  And the Church’s ban on condoms puts both sexes at equal risk there. 

I doubt the ban has much impact on the far different groups predominantly affected by HIV/AIDS in the west - homosexual males, sex workers, and addicts.

St. Michael says:

06:57pm | 22/11/10

Martin Luther, is that you…?

Fiddlesticks says:

01:19pm | 23/11/10

The actual UNAIDS Position Statement on Condoms and HIV Prevention (Originally published in 2004 updated in 2009) is abundantly clear.

While “abstinence and mutual faithfulness” get a passing mention among other “key elements”, the UNAIDS paper is unmistakable and unequivocal in placing the highest priority on condom use:

“Condom use is a critical element in a comprehensive, effective and sustainable approach to HIV prevention and treatment

Prevention is the mainstay of the response to AIDS. Condoms are an integral and essential part of comprehensive prevention and care programmes, and their promotion must be accelerated.

In 2007, an estimated 2.7 million people became newly infected with HIV. About 45% of them were young people from 15 to 24 years old, with young girls at greater risk of infection than boys.

The male latex condom is the single, most efficient, available technology to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.

The search for new preventive technologies such as HIV vaccines and microbicides continues to make progress, but condoms will remain the key preventive tool for many, many years to come.”

“Condoms must be readily available universally, either free or at low cost, and promoted in ways that help overcome social and personal obstacles to their use.”

It is deeply concerning that Joey G has endeavoured to give a far different emphasis to the UNAIDS position.

http://www.unaids.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/Resources/PolicyGuidance/Techpolicies/Condoms_UNAIDS_policies.asp

Third attempt to post this verfiable reference.

Shane From Melbourne says:

12:57am | 23/11/10

Richard, Another two points-
1. The Catholic Church is supposed to be snivel nosed hand wringing do gooder. It is not a crime to believe using a condom is sinful, but if it does lead to a greater number of people suffering harmful effects, then you have a credibility problem.

2. Let’s just say that Hell is not an original Christian concept and that the pope can say that a person will burn in hell for whatever behaviour the pope feels like prohibiting since no one can prove otherwise. Of course the pope has a choice on whether or not to preach against condoms- it is called free will…....

Theo Racle says:

04:56am | 23/11/10

Proving something is wrong..is highly erroneous,proving that something is right, is the object of proof. Anything without proof is discardable and irrelevant just as most of the Vaticanisms are.

michael j says:

08:05pm | 23/11/10

well it is the area they have to be focused on because over the years they have had a lot of problems with priest becoming far to friendly with thier alter boys