Comments on: Is the Pope a Catholic? He’s certainly not a scientist…

By: Tamas

Tamas — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:02:13 +0000

The worst bit is not even the impact in countries that are already of high HIV levels, for the debate is in place, one more stupidity does not count that much. The real trouble is in the places that are the frontier of the HIV epidemic, places where it is only in early stages, where the focus of the public debate is not on HIV, it is just an embarrassment of a minor segment of the society. Easy then for the cowardly local politicians to pick up some excuses from one of the world’s de facto opinion leaders in religion and morality.

By: Leah

Leah — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:42:53 +0000

One would have thought that with the end of the Bush term, this would be the era of common sense HIV prevention condom programs. Between the Pope and the drama about Alatech, the last remaining US manufacturer of condoms, it looks like we’re getting it from all sides.

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:49:53 +0000

http://is.gd/oMyQ Harry Jackson Jr, has an interesting take on the Pope’s comments about HIV and condoms

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:27:56 +0000

Hi Paddy,

Yes we did both read the same text. The thing is, the Pope is right on this. Long term condoms are going to make the problem worse not better. The problem is more fundamental than “wear a condom” and the problem of the spread of HIV will never be solved by the promotion of such.

The problem is attitudes to sex and promiscuity in Africa (and other places) and these are what the Pope is calling for the reform of.

I like the current Pope because he is not afraid to upset people when he wants to make a point and he has the courage of his convictions.

By: Paddy

Paddy — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:03:29 +0000

“This also, assuming the translation is reasonable etc, is not a condemnation of condoms as part of a solution, but a realistic take on the nature of the problem.”

Did we both read the same text? The Pope does nothing _but_ condemn condoms. The measures he calls for are all very well, but why bash condoms at the same time? Either he should say the truth – that condom provision is complementary to everything else he’s proposing – or stay silent. It really is that simple.

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 01:59:04 +0000

This is an interesting read http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/marchweb-only/111-53.0.html

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:57:01 +0000

Why do they keep cutting off the Catholic and talking over her ? I don’t think she was being especially unreasonable.

By: CommiePinko

CommiePinko — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:52:09 +0000

Hopefully this hasn’t been posted yet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUuUxe8mfCM&eurl=

By: Jason

Jason — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 21:11:50 +0000

Oh BTW, Google translate will work on the whole page as well.

http://is.gd/osem

By: Jason

Jason — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 21:09:40 +0000

Thanks Elizabeth.

Google seems to think it translates as

You can not solve the scourge with the distribution of condoms on the contrary, the risk is to increase the problem. The solution can lie only in a double commitment: first, a humanization of sexuality, that is a human and spiritual renewal leading with them a new way to behave with one another, and second, a true friendship also and especially for people suffering, availability, even with sacrifices, with personal sacrifices, to be with the suffering

Seems like he is speaking the truth there. This also, assuming the translation is reasonable etc, is not a condemnation of condoms as part of a solution, but a realistic take on the nature of the problem.