Pope visits Africa, condemns millions to AIDS

[Terralthra]

From the BBC

Pope rejects condoms for Africa
South African President Thabo Mbeki with Pope Benedict XVI in May
The Pope has already met South African President Thabo Mbeki
The spread of HIV and Aids in Africa should be tackled through fidelity and abstinence and not by condoms, Pope Benedict XVI has said.

Speaking to African bishops at the Vatican, the Pope described HIV/Aids in Africa as a "cruel epidemic".

But he told them: "The traditional teaching of the church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids."

More than 60% of the world's 40m people with HIV live in sub-Saharan Africa.

In South Africa alone, 600-1,000 people are thought to die every day because of Aids.

Pope Benedict, who was elected to succeed John Paul II in April, has already signalled that he will maintain a strictly traditional line on issues including abortion and homosexuality.

Before being elected pope, Benedict served as head of the Vatican's doctrinal office.

These were his first public comments on the issue of Aids/HIV and contraception since taking office.


It is of great concern that the fabric of African life, its very source of hope and stability, is threatened by divorce, abortion, prostitution, human trafficking and a contraception mentality
Pope Benedict

He was addressing bishops from South Africa, Botswana, Swaziland, Namibia and Lesotho, who had travelled to the Vatican for a routine papal audience.

Some Catholic clergymen have argued that the use of condoms to stem the spread of the disease would be a "lesser of two evils".

The Pope warned that contraception was one of a host of trends contributing to a "breakdown in sexual morality", and church teachings should not be ignored.

"It is of great concern that the fabric of African life, its very source of hope and stability, is threatened by divorce, abortion, prostitution, human trafficking and a contraception mentality," he added.

The virus "seriously threatens the economic and social stability of the continent," the Pope said.

The UN estimates that without new initiatives and greater access to drugs, more than 80 million Africans may die from Aids by 2025 and HIV infections could reach 90 million, or 10% of the continent's population.

Murderous asshole. This is practically being a principal to millions of counts of murder, at least under the laws of My state:

31. All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, not being present, have advised and encouraged its commission, and all persons counseling, advising, or encouraging children under the age of fourteen years, or persons who are mentally incapacitated, to commit any crime, or who, by fraud, contrivance, or force, occasion the drunkenness of another for the purpose of causing him to commit any crime, or who, by threats, menaces, command, or coercion, compel another to commit any crime, are principals in any crime so committed.

(emphasis mine)

No wonder he rescinded the excommunication of that Holocaust-denying Bishop; he clearly has no problem with genocide.

[Patrick Degan]

Speaking to African bishops at the Vatican, the Pope described HIV/Aids in Africa as a "cruel epidemic".

But he told them: "The traditional teaching of the church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids."

Explain the millions of Africans suffering from AIDS who follow the Catholic teachings, then, Your Hellishness.

The Pope warned that contraception was one of a host of trends contributing to a "breakdown in sexual morality", and church teachings should not be ignored.

"It is of great concern that the fabric of African life, its very source of hope and stability, is threatened by divorce, abortion, prostitution, human trafficking and a contraception mentality," he added.

And that whole famine and disease thing has nothing to do with the matter then, Your Hellishness?

The virus "seriously threatens the economic and social stability of the continent," the Pope said.

But instead of science, your answer is to pray the disease away. Right, Your Hellishness?

[Eulogy]

Bask in God's perfect love!

Seriously though, there may be a silver lining in this stormcloud: if this bit of news spreads even further it could very well lead sheep away from the flock. It's ironic, but with every stunt he pulls like this, he drives more and more good people away from religion (or at least to a more benign one) .

[Mayabird]

You do realize that this article is nearly four years old, correct?

Not that much really has changed, aside from Mbeki's HIV-denying ass not warming South Africa's presidential seat anymore.

[Terralthra]

You do realize that this article is nearly four years old, correct?

Not that much really has changed, aside from Mbeki's HIV-denying ass not warming South Africa's presidential seat anymore.

Whoops. Pasted the wrong article.

Pope Benedict XVI, who is making his first papal visit to Africa, has said that handing out condoms is not the answer in the fight against HIV/Aids.

The pontiff, who preaches marital fidelity and abstinence, said the practice only increased the problem.

"A Christian can never remain silent," he said, after being greeted on arrival in Cameroon by President Paul Biya.

The Pope is also due to visit Angola on his week-long trip, where thousands are expected to attend open-air Masses.

Some 22 million people are infected with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa, according to UN figures for 2007.

This amounts to about two-thirds of the global total.

'Painful wounds'

According to Vatican figures, the number of Catholics in Africa has been rising steadily in recent years.

HIV/Aids is a tragedy that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem

Is Catholicism good for Africa?

Baptised Catholics made up 17% of the African population in 2006, compared with 12% in 1978, the Vatican says.

Pope Benedict said on the eve of his trip that he wanted to wrap his arms around the entire continent, with "its painful wounds, its enormous potential and hopes".

HIV/Aids was, argued, "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem".

The solution lay, he said, in a "spiritual and human awakening" and "friendship for those who suffer".

Speaking at the airport in Cameroon's capital, Yaounde, the Pope called on Christians to speak up in the face of violence, poverty, hunger, corruption and abuse of power.

Sexual abstinence

While in Africa, the pontiff is expected to talk to young people about the Aids epidemic and explain to them why the Catholic Church recommends sexual abstinence as the best way to prevent the spread of the disease.
The Pope meets an imam in Yaounde
The Pope also met an imam from Cameroon's Muslim minority

He gave a similar message to African bishops who visited the Vatican in 2005, when he told them that abstinence and fidelity, not condoms, were the means to tackle the epidemic.

The BBC's Caroline Duffield, in Cameroon, says people in Yaounde have been energetically sweeping and cleaning everywhere in preparation for Pope Benedict's visit.

The Pope will stay until Friday in Yaounde, where he will meet bishops from all over Africa who will be taking part in a meeting at the Vatican later this year to discuss the Church's role in Africa.

In Angola, which is still recovering from 27 years of civil war, Pope Benedict will meet diplomats posted in Luanda and is expected to urge the international community not to abandon Africa.

The pontiff is also due to hold private talks with political leaders in the two countries, both of which have been accused of corruption and squandering revenues from natural resources.

link

[DPDarkPrimus]

Like Africa , where burning old ladies for cursing you to be impotent is commonplace and the surefire way to cure AIDS is to have sex with a virgin, has to worry about a "breakdown in sexual morality".

[Duckie]

I like how despite the media's hard-on for bipartisanship or 'both sides' even when one side is retarded, here they show only the retarded side without talking about any advocates of condom use or the like.

[MarshalPurnell]

Would millions of lives be saved in Africa if the Catholic Church adjusted its social stance and said that using condoms for sex is okay? Or, in line with the OP, does the absence of such sanction directly cause or substantially contribute to millions of cases of AIDS in Africa? I find it unlikely that the Church's attitude toward condom use is a particular strong determinant in anywhere near a substantial number of decision-chains that leads to the transmission of AIDS from person to person in Africa. Now that is still enough to generate strong moral condemnation, especially since even a marginal influence can compound in a situation like the AIDS epidemic. The Church's position is wrong, and it has consequences, grave consequences even, but the fundamental cause of the epidemic is beyond the control or influence of Western religious organizations.

This is a continent where raping a virgin cures AIDS, where albino organs are important ingredients in magical potions, where eating a pygmy can make you invincible in battle, and where penis-stealing sorcerers (or Jews) haunt the streets of major cities. Every government in sub-Saharan Africa is unbelievably corrupt and ineffective by Western standards, and the infrastructure and level of education is utterly primitive. It is highly likely that without a substantially more educated population condom programs would be wasted since people would not use them; and I suspect data from the extant condom programs would probably bear this out. South Africa, which is the most advanced country south of the Sahara, has an unbelievable rate of rape that is a primary factor in the spread of AIDS, while in other countries polygamy and widespread prostitution are other vectors for transmission. Obviously the Catholic Church condemns rape, polygamy, and prostitution rather vigorously without much impact, as do other Western religious organizations and social advocacy groups which are not hostile to condom distribution. There are certainly intelligent, highly educated, very prosperous people in the United States and Europe who reject the use of condoms, so how much more likely are uneducated peasants or urban dispossessed to use them even with all the encouragement in the world?

Again, the Catholic Church could save lives on the margin by sanctioning condom use. But the only way to dramatically improve the situation is to significantly improve the material, economic, political, and social conditions in Africa. And that, I can pessimistically forecast, is not going to happen and would not happen even if the AIDS epidemic itself had never came about. Things would be better if it adjusted its position and it is certainly the moral thing to do, but expecting that to save millions of lives is putting rather too much belief in the influence of the Catholic Church and ignoring the reality of conditions in Africa.

[Duckie]

'save lives on the margin' makes it sound like the catholic church isn't actively persuading people not to use condoms because they're evil. If the catholic church passed out condoms millions of AIDS cases could be prevented, let alone if they adjusted their social stances so that other aid groups had an easier time.

[MarshalPurnell]

'save lives on the margin' makes it sound like the catholic church isn't actively persuading people not to use condoms because they're evil. If the catholic church passed out condoms millions of AIDS cases could be prevented, let alone if they adjusted their social stances so that other aid groups had an easier time.

Some AIDS cases could be prevented, but I see no reason to assume that the Church's stance on condom use is a factor in decisions made by most Africans about whether or not to use condoms. Much transmission occurs via illicit sexual relations, whether rape or prostitution, where condom use is unlikely in any event. The primitive socioeconomic conditions in most of Africa are more likely to hinder the effectiveness of condom distribution than the Vatican's opposition, unless there is some evidence about the success of present efforts that I have missed. Now those "some" cases are enough to insist that the Church policy is misguided and immoral, and that it ought to change, but that alone having a decisive or even a major impact on the crisis (saving millions of lives) seems exceedingly unlikely to me. The more fundamental factors of terrible economics, poor government, and limited to nonexistent education are what drive the epidemic and if they are not dealt with than other efforts will have purely limited effects.

[The Romulan Republic]

31. All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, not being present, have advised and encouraged its commission, and all persons counseling, advising, or encouraging children under the age of fourteen years, or persons who are mentally incapacitated, to commit any crime, or who, by fraud, contrivance, or force, occasion the drunkenness of another for the purpose of causing him to commit any crime, or who, by threats, menaces, command, or coercion, compel another to commit any crime, are principals in any crime so committed.

(emphasis mine)

Please show how never using a contraceptive is a crime under any legal system, ever.

No wonder he rescinded the excommunication of that Holocaust-denying Bishop; he clearly has no problem with genocide.

Bullshit. If you are suggesting that the Church is trying to wipe out the black race by spreading AIDS, you're retarded. If not, how is this genocide?

Yes, this shit is stupid and reprehensible (fuck, even if they don't succeed on a given occasion in stopping AIDS, condoms have the other benefit of stopping pregnancy), but I wasn't aware that truth ceased to matter, or defamation became acceptable, as soon as you were criticizing the Church.

[Oskuro]

Some AIDS cases could be prevented, but I see no reason to assume that the Church's stance on condom use is a factor in decisions made by most Africans about whether or not to use condoms.

So you're essentially excusing the CRC's position because they wouldn't single-handedly solve the problem?
I agree that there are many factors at play regarding the issue of AIDS in Africa, but the CRC's position on condom use adds a new problem, rather than help solve anything, wich is inexcusable.

Elaborate all you want, but you're essentially looking the other way and pretending that the Pope is not condemning thousands of believers. And must I point out that some of the issues you bring up, specially those about how fervently religious people in Africa can be, actually make matters worse as they'll blindly follow the Pope's commands?

[Terralthra]

31. All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, not being present, have advised and encouraged its commission, and all persons counseling, advising, or encouraging children under the age of fourteen years, or persons who are mentally incapacitated, to commit any crime, or who, by fraud, contrivance, or force, occasion the drunkenness of another for the purpose of causing him to commit any crime, or who, by threats, menaces, command, or coercion, compel another to commit any crime, are principals in any crime so committed.

(emphasis mine)

Please show how never using a contraceptive is a crime under any legal system, ever.

Well, we could start with the case of Johnson Aziga, charged with 11 counts of aggravated assault and two counts of murder for the thirteen women he knowingly infected with HIV (and the two who died from it) by having unprotected sex with them after receiving a diagnosis. Then there's the case of Sarah Jane Porter, charged and convicted of "recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm" on a partner she had unprotected sex with after receiving a positive HIV test. And then there's this case in New Zealand, where a judge ruled that safe sex practices exculpated an HIV-positive individual from the legal requirement to disclose their HIV status.

Combining these disparate cases would lead to the inevitable conclusion that an HIV-positive person's wearing a condom or not does change sexual activity with a non-infected person from legal to criminal.

In many countries in Africa, people believe you can cure yourself of AIDS by having sex with a virgin. The Pope just told them not to use a condom, and he told foreign workers they should neither distribute condoms nor educate Africans about them. You can change the charge to aggravated assault, recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm, or wait until the deliberately HIV-infected persons die and make it murder; in each case, the Pope is a principal by the definition in my earlier post.

No wonder he rescinded the excommunication of that Holocaust-denying Bishop; he clearly has no problem with genocide.

Bullshit. If you are suggesting that the Church is trying to wipe out the black race by spreading AIDS, you're retarded. If not, how is this genocide?

I suggested no such thing, so I'm not sure why think I did. I said only that it appears that the Pope has no problem with genocide.
1: The AIDS epidemic in Africa is decimating their population. Estimated deaths by 2020 range upwards of 100 million (PDF), with orders of magnitude more infected. The worst estimates predict that the African population could fall to 25% of its current number over the next 20-30 years if the epidemic is not checked. 75% of an entire continent's population dying from AIDS seems like a systematic extermination of a population (genocide) to me.
2: Barrier methods of contraception present a low-cost, high-efficacy method to prevent the transmission of HIV. Condoms are the cheapest and simplest method thereof.
3: The Pope just came out publicly, again, against the use of, education about, or distribution of condoms in Africa.

The only possible conclusion is that in his mind, if the blacks in Africa aren't willing to become abstinent, it would be better if they were to be wiped off the continent then use condoms.

Yes, this shit is stupid and reprehensible (fuck, even if they don't succeed on a given occasion in stopping AIDS, condoms have the other benefit of stopping pregnancy), but I wasn't aware that truth ceased to matter, or defamation became acceptable, as soon as you were criticizing the Church.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Some AIDS cases could be prevented, but I see no reason to assume that the Church's stance on condom use is a factor in decisions made by most Africans about whether or not to use condoms.

So you're essentially excusing the CRC's position because they wouldn't single-handedly solve the problem?
I agree that there are many factors at play regarding the issue of AIDS in Africa, but the CRC's position on condom use adds a new problem, rather than help solve anything, wich is inexcusable.

Elaborate all you want, but you're essentially looking the other way and pretending that the Pope is not condemning thousands of believers. And must I point out that some of the issues you bring up, specially those about how fervently religious people in Africa can be, actually make matters worse as they'll blindly follow the Pope's commands?

Sheesh, he's just saying that the thread title is misleading because there's no evidence that the church's opposition to condoms has any kind of effect approaching that magnitude on their use.

We've condemned the church's stance on here on this board for many, many years and the consistent idea is that the Church should be using is authority to fight for condom use... Its current policy, all he's saying, may have no actual effect on the infection rate, because all of the people who don't use condoms because the church said so would be nailing them to the door as magic charms to keep the AIDS demon out if they were still animists, and would thus still get HIV.

[The Romulan Republic]

Please show how never using a contraceptive is a crime under any legal system, ever.

Well, we could start with the case of Johnson Aziga, charged with 11 counts of aggravated assault and two counts of murder for the thirteen women he knowingly infected with HIV (and the two who died from it) by having unprotected sex with them after receiving a diagnosis. Then there's the case of Sarah Jane Porter, charged and convicted of "recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm" on a partner she had unprotected sex with after receiving a positive HIV test. And then there's this case in New Zealand, where a judge ruled that safe sex practices exculpated an HIV-positive individual from the legal requirement to disclose their HIV status.

Combining these disparate cases would lead to the inevitable conclusion that an HIV-positive person's wearing a condom or not does change sexual activity with a non-infected person from legal to criminal.

That's nice. Unfortunately for you, the Church, for all its faults, has never to my knowledge advocated having unprotected sex while infected with AIDS. And frankly, given they're not foolproof, I think having sex while knowing you have HIV/AIDS should be a crime regardless.

In many countries in Africa, people believe you can cure yourself of AIDS by having sex with a virgin. The Pope just told them not to use a condom, and he told foreign workers they should neither distribute condoms nor educate Africans about them. You can change the charge to aggravated assault, recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm, or wait until the deliberately HIV-infected persons die and make it murder; in each case, the Pope is a principal by the definition in my earlier post.

No, he's not, unless he's telling infected people to go out and fuck. If he's doing that, then yes, that should be criminal, and would be in at least some jurisdictions based on the examples you have provided.

No wonder he rescinded the excommunication of that Holocaust-denying Bishop; he clearly has no problem with genocide.

Bullshit. If you are suggesting that the Church is trying to wipe out the black race by spreading AIDS, you're retarded. If not, how is this genocide?

I suggested no such thing, so I'm not sure why think I did.[/quote]

My point was that I'm not sure where you're getting "genocide" from.

I said only that it appears that the Pope has no problem with genocide.
1: The AIDS epidemic in Africa is decimating their population. Estimated deaths by 2020 range upwards of 100 million (PDF), with orders of magnitude more infected. The worst estimates predict that the African population could fall to 25% of its current number over the next 20-30 years if the epidemic is not checked. 75% of an entire continent's population dying from AIDS seems like a systematic extermination of a population (genocide) to me.
2: Barrier methods of contraception present a low-cost, high-efficacy method to prevent the transmission of HIV. Condoms are the cheapest and simplest method thereof.
3: The Pope just came out publicly, again, against the use of, education about, or distribution of condoms in Africa.

The only possible conclusion is that in his mind, if the blacks in Africa aren't willing to become abstinent, it would be better if they were to be wiped off the continent then use condoms.

So do you then think that the Pope is trying to wipe out Africans with AIDS (at least if they don't become abstinate)? In spite of your earlier denial?

In any case, the conclusion could just as easily be that the Pope genuinely believes condoms make the problem worse, and/or that he wants to "save their souls" by having them practice abstinence, while remaining alive. Unrealistic? Maybe so. But genocide? Not in a thousand years.

Please, show me a legally accepted definition of "genocide" that supports your position. I fucking dare you to try.

[Terralthra]

Please show how never using a contraceptive is a crime under any legal system, ever.

Well, we could start with the case of Johnson Aziga, charged with 11 counts of aggravated assault and two counts of murder for the thirteen women he knowingly infected with HIV (and the two who died from it) by having unprotected sex with them after receiving a diagnosis. Then there's the case of Sarah Jane Porter, charged and convicted of "recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm" on a partner she had unprotected sex with after receiving a positive HIV test. And then there's this case in New Zealand, where a judge ruled that safe sex practices exculpated an HIV-positive individual from the legal requirement to disclose their HIV status.

Combining these disparate cases would lead to the inevitable conclusion that an HIV-positive person's wearing a condom or not does change sexual activity with a non-infected person from legal to criminal.

That's nice. Unfortunately for you, the Church, for all its faults, has never to my knowledge advocated having unprotected sex while infected with AIDS. And frankly, given they're not foolproof, I think having sex while knowing you have HIV/AIDS should be a crime regardless.

No, they've only taken actions and public positions which can easily and predictably lead to greater HIV infection rates. Whether they have explicitly said "go fuck 'er bareback, you HIV-positive men!" is irrelevant.

Interestingly, you asked me to show how not using contraception is criminal. I showed that can be, whereupon you immediately changed your argument from "it's not murder" to "but the Church isn't saying they should have sex without a condom, it's only saying that no one should distribute condoms in an HIV-epidemic."

I'm pretty sure you can move the goalposts further if you try harder.

In many countries in Africa, people believe you can cure yourself of AIDS by having sex with a virgin. The Pope just told them not to use a condom, and he told foreign workers they should neither distribute condoms nor educate Africans about them. You can change the charge to aggravated assault, recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm, or wait until the deliberately HIV-infected persons die and make it murder; in each case, the Pope is a principal by the definition in my earlier post.

No, he's not, unless he's telling infected people to go out and fuck. If he's doing that, then yes, that should be criminal, and would be in at least some jurisdictions based on the examples you have provided.

He's actively encouraging NGOs and foreign aid workers to stop distributing condoms, while relying on "abstinence!" as his proposed replacement. Do you think abstinence-only sex education works on teenagers in America? If not, then why do you think it would work better in Africa, where it faces all the same drawbacks, plus the additional flaw that in America, teenagers can get condoms outside the school system's distribution, while in Africa, if the NGOs and aid agencies stop distributing them, the continent is fucked?

I said only that it appears that the Pope has no problem with genocide.
1: The AIDS epidemic in Africa is decimating their population. Estimated deaths by 2020 range upwards of 100 million (PDF), with orders of magnitude more infected. The worst estimates predict that the African population could fall to 25% of its current number over the next 20-30 years if the epidemic is not checked. 75% of an entire continent's population dying from AIDS seems like a systematic extermination of a population (genocide) to me.
2: Barrier methods of contraception present a low-cost, high-efficacy method to prevent the transmission of HIV. Condoms are the cheapest and simplest method thereof.
3: The Pope just came out publicly, again, against the use of, education about, or distribution of condoms in Africa.

The only possible conclusion is that in his mind, if the blacks in Africa aren't willing to become abstinent, it would be better if they were to be wiped off the continent then use condoms.

So do you then think that the Pope is trying to wipe out Africans with AIDS (at least if they don't become abstinate)? In spite of your earlier denial?

Do you truly not understand the difference between someone actively trying to do something, and someone not caring if something happens? Or are you deliberately missing the difference so you can continue to throw strawmen around?

In any case, the conclusion could just as easily be that the Pope genuinely believes condoms make the problem worse, and/or that he wants to "save their souls" by having them practice abstinence, while remaining alive. Unrealistic? Maybe so. But genocide? Not in a thousand years.

Please, show me a legally accepted definition of "genocide" that supports your position. I fucking dare you to try.

I'm not sure what you want me to prove here. Do you dispute that the HIV epidemic in Africa will wipe out the population of the continent if not checked? Do you think that 75% of an entire continent's population being killed over the next two decades doesn't qualify as Or are you saying that the Pope's recommendation (that people attempting to combat the problem with a tool that actually has some chance of slowing the spread of the disease stop doing so and instead the continent as a whole should just stop having sex - a suggestion that to my knowledge, has never worked) is not contributing to the epidemic, whether intentional or not?

If your sole objection is that the extermination of the African continent by AIDS is not a deliberate act, and therefore isn't a genocide, and that the Roman Catholic Church isn't deliberately trying to make it worse, therefore isn't contributing to a genocide, I will concede that technicality, but I consider it just that: a technicality.

[salm]

Would millions of lives be saved in Africa if the Catholic Church adjusted its social stance and said that using condoms for sex is okay? Or, in line with the OP, does the absence of such sanction directly cause or substantially contribute to millions of cases of AIDS in Africa? I find it unlikely that the Church's attitude toward condom use is a particular strong determinant in anywhere near a substantial number of decision-chains that leads to the transmission of AIDS from person to person in Africa. Now that is still enough to generate strong moral condemnation, especially since even a marginal influence can compound in a situation like the AIDS epidemic. The Church's position is wrong, and it has consequences, grave consequences even, but the fundamental cause of the epidemic is beyond the control or influence of Western religious organizations.

This is a continent where raping a virgin cures AIDS, where albino organs are important ingredients in magical potions, where eating a pygmy can make you invincible in battle, and where penis-stealing sorcerers (or Jews) haunt the streets of major cities. Every government in sub-Saharan Africa is unbelievably corrupt and ineffective by Western standards, and the infrastructure and level of education is utterly primitive. It is highly likely that without a substantially more educated population condom programs would be wasted since people would not use them; and I suspect data from the extant condom programs would probably bear this out. South Africa, which is the most advanced country south of the Sahara, has an unbelievable rate of rape that is a primary factor in the spread of AIDS, while in other countries polygamy and widespread prostitution are other vectors for transmission. Obviously the Catholic Church condemns rape, polygamy, and prostitution rather vigorously without much impact, as do other Western religious organizations and social advocacy groups which are not hostile to condom distribution. There are certainly intelligent, highly educated, very prosperous people in the United States and Europe who reject the use of condoms, so how much more likely are uneducated peasants or urban dispossessed to use them even with all the encouragement in the world?

Again, the Catholic Church could save lives on the margin by sanctioning condom use. But the only way to dramatically improve the situation is to significantly improve the material, economic, political, and social conditions in Africa. And that, I can pessimistically forecast, is not going to happen and would not happen even if the AIDS epidemic itself had never came about. Things would be better if it adjusted its position and it is certainly the moral thing to do, but expecting that to save millions of lives is putting rather too much belief in the influence of the Catholic Church and ignoring the reality of conditions in Africa.

Your post seems very contradictive. On the one hand you´re saying that Africa is very prone to superstitions. On the other hand you´re saying that the catholic church doesn´t have much influence. This makes it seem as if you´re saying that the RCC is a source of rationality.

I also disagree with your claim that the population is too stupid for condom use. Using condoms isn´t exactly rocket science and Uganda has nicely demonstrated how the AIDS rate can be significantly decreaesed without turning the country into an economical paradise. Note that the improvements stagnated when the Bush administration forced them into promoting abstinence only by threatening to cut USAID.

Furthermore you´re drawing a extreme black and white picture of the continent. It´s true that there is are a lot of probelms with stupid superstitions but your post comes of as if allmost everybody had a fried pygmy in the fridge and a set of virgins in the basement for casual rape. That frankly, is total bullshit. That´s like saying that condoms can´t work in Europe because of the wide spread of homeopathy.

[Surlethe]

Your post seems very contradictive. On the one hand you´re saying that Africa is very prone to superstitions. On the other hand you´re saying that the catholic church doesn´t have much influence. This makes it seem as if you´re saying that the RCC is a source of rationality.

I don't think that follows. It seems more like he's saying that, of all the superstitions in Africa, the RCC's particular brand is not very influential. From this it would follow that its decrial of condom use is probably not a large factor in the HIV transmission rate. Now, whether the data bears this out is another matter, but I think that's more like his chief claim.

[Oskuro]

Sheesh, he's just saying that the thread title is misleading because there's no evidence that the church's opposition to condoms has any kind of effect approaching that magnitude on their use.

I get his point and agree with it, what I'm just saying is that the RCC's stance can't be excused.

[Darth Wong]

This is a continent where raping a virgin cures AIDS, where albino organs are important ingredients in magical potions, where eating a pygmy can make you invincible in battle, and where penis-stealing sorcerers (or Jews) haunt the streets of major cities. Every government in sub-Saharan Africa is unbelievably corrupt and ineffective by Western standards, and the infrastructure and level of education is utterly primitive. It is highly likely that without a substantially more educated population condom programs would be wasted since people would not use them; and I suspect data from the extant condom programs would probably bear this out.

The idea that Africans can't possibly be taught how to use condoms is unrealistic and more than a little racist. If we haven't even tried, thus allowing witch doctors and shamans to spread superstitious nonsense instead, then how can we say that it can't be done? The RCC has done everything in its power to undermine condom education: how can anyone say that its failure is somehow proof that it wouldn't work even if they started helping instead of hurting? In Muslim countries, they have a massive distrust of the West which doesn't help either, but in regions where the RCC is influential, it has been actively undermining these efforts, even going so far as to spread lies themselves.

South Africa, which is the most advanced country south of the Sahara, has an unbelievable rate of rape that is a primary factor in the spread of AIDS, while in other countries polygamy and widespread prostitution are other vectors for transmission. Obviously the Catholic Church condemns rape, polygamy, and prostitution rather vigorously without much impact, as do other Western religious organizations and social advocacy groups which are not hostile to condom distribution.

Condemning sins is not the same as educating people about an idea. That's an apples to oranges comparison. No one has ever stopped sins by preaching about them, but people have made significant inroads by teaching people about public health concepts.

There are certainly intelligent, highly educated, very prosperous people in the United States and Europe who reject the use of condoms, so how much more likely are uneducated peasants or urban dispossessed to use them even with all the encouragement in the world?

No there aren't. There are stupid people in the United States and Europe who do this, not intelligent people.

[Rahvin]

I think having sex while knowing you have HIV/AIDS should be a crime regardless.

Fuck you straight to hell, asshat.

Do you have any idea what the chances are of contracting HIV when appropriate measures (including but not limited to condom use) are taken?

Perhaps you should leave the choice of whether or not one should be allowed to engage in informed, consensual sex to the people participating, rather than condemning a large segment of the population to legally enforced celibacy.

[MarshalPurnell]

Your post seems very contradictive. On the one hand you´re saying that Africa is very prone to superstitions. On the other hand you´re saying that the catholic church doesn´t have much influence. This makes it seem as if you´re saying that the RCC is a source of rationality.

I am saying that the Catholic Church is probably not all that important a factor in the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Nothing more, nothing less. Conditions on the ground are due to general backwardness that require substantial development of infrastructure and improvement in governance to really address, and until they are efforts to keep the epidemic in check are probably going to be ineffective. This does not mean that the Church's position does not have grave consequences, and is not immoral, but a realistic look at the situation requires expanding a focus beyond the most attention-getting aspects of the epidemic.

I also disagree with your claim that the population is too stupid for condom use. Using condoms isn´t exactly rocket science and Uganda has nicely demonstrated how the AIDS rate can be significantly decreaesed without turning the country into an economical paradise. Note that the improvements stagnated when the Bush administration forced them into promoting abstinence only by threatening to cut USAID.

I did not say the population was too stupid to learn how to use condoms. Rather I said that conditions inhibit effective public policy or private efforts. There are not enough schools, there are not enough health professionals, the governments are highly corrupt and generally incompetent, simple illiteracy is a major issue, and the subsistence agriculture that employs a large majority of the African population is emblematic of the primitive socioeconomic conditions. Uganda in the 1990s was unusually stable, had high economic growth rates, and relatively superior governance under Yoweri Museveni; there is a reason it was lauded as the dawn of an African Renaissance. The ABC program (Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms) has unquestionably been a success in reducing Uganda's AIDS infection rate from 15% to around 10%, but we must rightly credit the government with that success. The Catholic Church's opposition was obviously ineffective in the face of a sustained and relatively competent government-backed education program; but how many states in sub-Saharan Africa have the competence or political will to pursue similar programs? The success of Uganda does point to how a solution to the AIDS epidemic can be found, though, and done over the objections of the Catholics.

Furthermore you´re drawing a extreme black and white picture of the continent. It´s true that there is are a lot of probelms with stupid superstitions but your post comes of as if allmost everybody had a fried pygmy in the fridge and a set of virgins in the basement for casual rape. That frankly, is total bullshit. That´s like saying that condoms can´t work in Europe because of the wide spread of homeopathy.

Everything I put up as an example was not some isolated case, but a widespread problem that has required government intervention or has provoked appeals to the United Nations. It is broad to suggest that all of Africa is like the worst parts, correct. And the AIDS epidemic has never been as severe in the more northerly parts of Africa as it has been in the southern portion of the continent. East African and West African countries are much less impacted by AIDS than Southern Africa for a variety of reasons, none of which are probably related to religious belief. The presence of Islam in East Africa means more circumcision and there are limited studies suggesting that has some impact on AIDS transmission but I am skeptical of that. Rather those countries have (absent Somalia) been somewhat more developed and boast more social stability than in the sub-Saharan countries, with the exception of South Africa. Still, that you have rather serious issues of the nature of those examples is a general sign that the AIDS epidemic is not an isolated condition but rather part and parcel of more serious underlying issues that have to be addressed if they AIDS is to be held in check. The particular doctrine of the Catholic Church is a relatively minor exacerbating factor compared to those fundamental problems, it seems to me. Certainly enough to draw worthy criticism, but not enough to influence the outcome on a substantial basis by itself.

[MarshalPurnell]

The idea that Africans can't possibly be taught how to use condoms is unrealistic and more than a little racist. If we haven't even tried, thus allowing witch doctors and shamans to spread superstitious nonsense instead, then how can we say that it can't be done? The RCC has done everything in its power to undermine condom education: how can anyone say that its failure is somehow proof that it wouldn't work even if they started helping instead of hurting? In Muslim countries, they have a massive distrust of the West which doesn't help either, but in regions where the RCC is influential, it has been actively undermining these efforts, even going so far as to spread lies themselves.

The Catholic Church's role is not helpful, exacerbates the situation and undoubtedly leads to excess deaths. Still, there are enormous obstacles to effective public health policy in sub-Saharan Africa, and the opposition of the Catholic Church seems like a relatively minor factor in comparison with the others. Lack of infrastructure, paucity of primary education, primitiveness of conditions, political and social instability, government corruption and ineffectiveness, and so on stand in the way of such programs. Even in South Africa, which should have the resources and infrastructure to deal with the problem, the unbelievable incompetence and corruption of the government has produced a social mess, with the highest rate of rape per capita in the world, where condom use is obviously not a priority for the perpetrators. If the government cannot get a grip on insuring basic social stability, how can it effectively alter the attitudes and beliefs of its citizens on a fundamental level? And of course South Africa is the best case, so to speak, since it has significant resources and infrastructure the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa in general lacks.

Jacob Zuma, the President of the ANC and soon enough to be President of South Africa, was acquitted of raping an HIV-infected woman on the grounds that the sex was consensual, and said he showered after unprotected sex to reduce the risk of transmission. The Pope meanwhile says that condoms are bad and that people should abstain from sex. Which of those two is likely to bear more responsibility for the failure of South Africa to deal effectively with AIDS?

Condemning sins is not the same as educating people about an idea. That's an apples to oranges comparison. No one has ever stopped sins by preaching about them, but people have made significant inroads by teaching people about public health concepts.

The ability of governments in the region to effectively propagate public health education is limited by the primitive socio-economic conditions in much of Southern Africa, and the general venality and ineffectiveness of those governments. The Catholic Church's role is an exacerbating factor, but the Church does not particularly matter in dealing with those fundamental problems. The Ugandan example suggests that committed action by governments would have an impact, but how many governments in Southern Africa are willing to or capable of pushing a sustained public health policy while also seeing sustained improvement in national development?

No there aren't. There are stupid people in the United States and Europe who do this, not intelligent people.

Well there are people who are generally accounted as highly educated who live in societies that are materially prosperous and quite open. And yet there are still problems with convincing high-risk groups to use condoms. My point is how much more difficult, then, is it to convince people who do not have the same background of medical knowledge and basic education, in countries where the public infrastructure is drastically less developed? And most of the governments in the region do not even try, being too incompetent or corrupt to do so in a meaningful manner. The position of the Vatican seems somewhat less important when stacked against those factors, so accusing it of millions of deaths seems to rate its influence and importance in the situation far too highly.

[Justforfun000]

Do you have any idea what the chances are of contracting HIV when appropriate measures (including but not limited to condom use) are taken?

Perhaps you should leave the choice of whether or not one should be allowed to engage in informed, consensual sex to the people participating, rather than condemning a large segment of the population to legally enforced celibacy.

I have something to add to this...I do think criminalization is the wrong wroad to take...or at the very least, it should be accompanied by certain supporting factors that would imply deliberate intent to infect or gross negligence with the person at risk having reasonable ground to think the person is HIV negative.

The reason I'm hedging a simple mandate to make all HIV poz people responsible for disclosing is that many sexual encounters (among gay males particularly) are casual or anonymous. I've read blogs where people have given examples of them meeting up with others in bathhouses where they go out of their way to serosort and have the opportunity to have unprotected sex with someone in the same boat. As they have described, many people are non-communicative in the first place and by their actions and allowances they imply their willingness to "go there" without having to SAY to the other person..."Um...I'm poz". You have to understand how this can be difficult to bring up especially as you are naturally having some foreplay at least before you even say much.

Now it's very common that most (and presuming they are uninfected) ask "do you have a condom?", or they simply pull it out and use it. Simple, self-protective and lets the other person know where they stand and they can choose to back out gracefully...make up a lie they don't care for anal sex...whatever.

Now there are cases where people have said that they run into ones that start off with them and eventually go into unprotected sex, even if it's just for a few strokes and then ask directly "are you clean"? As myself and others had this kind of story presented to us, I had to agree that I don't think is fair. First of all the question is horribly stigmatizing..yeah...buddy...you're trying to force the person to say "Oh sorry...yes I'm very UNCLEAN. Leprosy unclean..my mistake...I can understand how meeting an anonymous stranger in a BATHHOUSE would lead me to believe that a person would immediately play bareback and without a word suggest that he's negative.

Now this went round and round in discussion with a couple totally adamant that it's still ONLY the person infected responsible for warning the other 'victim', but most thought this was ridiculous. Many poz people go to the bathhouse to play and they pull this select and sort all of the time and most of the time it works fine...the fool described above is an idiot, but because of the law, he'd be an incredibly DANGEROUS idiot because he could legally charge the person and his own behaviour and risk taking is totally excused!

Now let me hasten to add that in the case of meeting people out in a bar, dating them ,etc...it's a lot harder to support this as being responsible enough. There SHOULD be disclosure before it goes too far. I think "murder" charges are ridiculously extreme however. HIV is not a truly fatal disease anymore, and most people are now expected to live a nominal life span with medication.

One other problem I forgot that was discussed is sometimes drinking or drugs were involved that caused other issues. While it's easy to sit back and judge someone who uses meth or GHB, ecstasy...once in a while, it's simply a reality that many people use substances like this to enhance sex. Hell, people have been doing the same with alcohol as well, and it's also responsible for slip ups. Many times someone who would normally be careful and say outright what their status is, find themselves a little too fucked up and all of sudden the physical act got carried away and things began before they could focus enough to say "um...wait a minute".

These are very real problems, and they need a solution that is more complex and comprehensive than simply to shift the blame and punishment 100% to the infected person. As many AIDS organizations attest, it's also a huge impediment to people getting tested and stigmatizing the disease further. Fuck, one could argue that someone with a flu that enters a Senior's Citizens home and thereby passes on an epidemic throughout is guilty of the manslaughter of 4 residents who died of influenza. It's fucking ridiculous, but it's still the same basic concept.

On top of this, it's now been proven that people on meds who are undetectable are greatly reduced regarding risk of transmission.

As you can see by this article, it's even estimated at a less then 1 in 100,000 chance:

http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/CEFD90F2 ... 62AC9D.asp

Swiss court accepts that criminal HIV exposure is only 'hypothetical' on successful treatment, quashes conviction (updated) In the first ruling of its kind in the world, the Geneva Court of Justice has quashed an 18-month prison sentence given to a 34-year-old HIV-positive African migrant who was convicted of HIV exposure by a lower court in December 2008, after accepting expert testimony from Professor Bernard Hirschel – one of the authors of the Swiss Federal Commission for HIV/AIDS consensus statement on the effect of treatment on transmission – that the risk of sexual HIV transmission during unprotected sex on successful treatment is 1 in 100,000.

Note: This is a revised version, updated on March 10th, clarifying information included in the first edition.

The case began in Lausanne in March 2006. The man, originally from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, was convicted of having unprotected sex without disclosing his HIV status to a female complainant. Although the woman was not infected, Article 231 of the Swiss Penal Code allows prosecutions against HIV-positive individuals for having unprotected sex, with or without disclosure. Individuals can also be prosecuted under Article 122, for “an attempt to engender grievous bodily harm”.

The man was also found guilty of several other crimes, including theft, fraud and sexual harassment, and was sentenced to three years in prison. A February 2007 appeal reduced this to 28 months.

A second complaint last year led to the man standing trial again, in Geneva in November 2008. According to a report in The Geneva Tribune, an expert medical witness had testified that although treatment greatly reduces the risk of transmission, there remained a residual risk.

Although the man's lawyer, Nicole Riedle, had entered the statement by the Swiss Federal Commission for HIV/AIDS into evidence, and Geneva's deputy public prosecutor, Yves Bertossa, had wanted to suspend the hearing in order to consult with the Commission, the lower Geneva court declined to accept any further evidence and he was sentenced to 18 months in prison in December 2008.

Late last month, Mr Bertossa told the Geneva Court of Justice that he was persuaded by the Swiss Federal Commission for HIV/AIDS that the risk of transmission for an HIV-positive individual on successful treatment was less than 1 in 100,000 and that – under the circumstances – he wanted to drop the charges.

On Monday, the Geneva Court of Justice acquitted the man, who was freed after spending almost three months in prison.

Significantly, it was Geneva’s deputy public prosecutor, Yves Bertossa, who called for the appeal. He told Le Temps that despite the fact that there is still some debate regarding the residual risks of transmission in people on successful treatment this should not influence justice: "One shouldn't convict people for hypothetical risks,” he said.

Professor Hirschel told aidsmap that he was very pleased with the outcome. It was, he said, the main reason that he and his colleagues were motivated to issue their January 2008 statement.

Deborah Glejser of Swiss civil society organisation, Groupe SIDA Geneve, told aidsmap that although the law allows for prosecutions for unprotected sex even when disclosure has taken place, in practice, prosecutions for HIV exposure usually only take place when there is no disclosure, and that a suspended sentence (for a first offence with no aggravating circumstance) is the norm.

Switzerland is made up of 26 cantons, of which Geneva is considered to be the most “liberal”, according to Ms. Glejser. However, since there is no real centralised information about cases, it is not easy to give a comprehensive picture of the pattern of prosecutions and sentences across Switzerland.

She added that Monday’s ruling suggests that, in Switzerland, effectively treated HIV-positive individuals should no longer be prosecuted for having unprotected sex. Having already been contacted by advocates from around the world, she hoped that this ruling will have consequences for other jurisdictions that have HIV exposure laws.

Last May, a five member US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces panel discussed the effect of treatment on transmission following the appeal of an HIV-positive soldier who had previously pleaded guilty to HIV exposure, following unprotected sex with two women without disclosing his HIV status. Although the majority did not agree, and did not allow the accused soldier’s guilty plea to be set aside, two members of the panel found the medical expert’s testimony – that it was highly unlikely that the soldier could have infected either women because of his low viral load – valid enough to question HIV exposure laws.

And last July, a Canadian court explored the Swiss statement following a submission from Clato Mabior’s defence team that, at the time he had unprotected sex with six women without disclosing his HIV status to them, he did not believe he was infectious. Although expert testimony concluded that Mr Mabior may have been uninfectious for some of the time, this was not enough to convince the judge, who noted that neither the CDC nor WHO/UNAIDS agreed with the Swiss, and that the crimes of which Mr Mabior was accused took place prior to there being any public statement on the effect of treatment on transmission.

Following Monday’s ruling, however, Geneva’s deputy public prosecutor, Yves Bertossa, believes it is only a matter of time before other jurisdictions realise that prosecutions for HIV exposure should not take place when the accused is on successful antiretroviral therapy. He told Radio Lac: “There are some medical advances which can change the law. I think that in other [parts of Switzerland] or in other countries, the same conclusions should apply to their laws.”

Thomas Lyssy from the Swiss AIDS Federation, told aidsmap that they were “very pleased with the judgment of the court. We certainly hope that this precedent will be followed in other Swiss cantons in future cases of a comparable nature.”

So after it's all said and done, although I was originally of the mind that the person with it should disclose, I really feel it should be conditional for all of the reasons listed above. It's a very grey issue. Anything that involves sexuality tends to be...

PS: For the record, unprotected sex isn't generally wise with multiple strangers ANYWAY because of the other nasties out there. Still, I can't in good conscience take away the right of people to choose bare sex. To many in that boat, it's simply doesn't matter as much as their sex life and enjoyment with it. They can take the point of view that they can't get anything more that's potentially fatal, (Syphilis can also be called this), as all other main villains are curable, and a grand majority of HIV poz people already have minor ones like HPV, herpes, etc. So they have nothing to lose and very much to gain. Speaking from experience of having both protected and unprotected sex, (when appropriate), I can understand. It's like comparing Red wine vinegar to an aged Bordeaux. It's such a shadow of the real sexual act. It's not a minor difference in sensation..a condom is a major inhibitor of sensation, the natural feeling of warm skin compared to unyielding, unslippery fake material, and even the mental aspect of "barrier" between you and the other person sends a subliminal message that during this most intimate act, you are forcibly "separated". I understand their necessity and certainly insist people who are uninfected use them religiously until they are within a closed circle of either monogamy or safe partners, but I can't blame people one bit for seeking out unprotected eventually. You think they're going to wait for the cure? It's as unrealistic as the Pope expecting people to wait until marriage.

[Tolya]

A few days ago I was listening to a radio program in which the host conducted an interview with the author of a book about AIDS/HIV in Africa.

Apparently, there are catholic priests in Africa who openly inform people about condoms and how they protect from STD's, but at the same time they say that this is not the official church-approved way of dealing with the matter.

What is even more interesting, there have been cases of priests handing out condoms and ignoring bullshit coming from the brass.

I didn't get the name of the book nor the author's name since I tuned in when the program was already in the middle.