Subscribe to Breaking NewsLowenstein: Pope beefs up his anti-science cred
During a visit to Africa on Tuesday, Pope Benedict reiterated the Catholic Church’s controversial anti-condom stance, and went as far as to claim that the use of condoms contribute to the spread of the AIDS epidemic.
“[AIDS] cannot be overcome by the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, they increase the problem.”
Let’s set aside for a moment that the basis of the Pope’s declaration is the religious belief that birth control is somehow abortive of human life. How can any man, particularly a man meant to bring spiritual enlightenment to millions around the world cling so stubbornly to a false belief that creates widespread pain and destruction?
What the Pope’s declaration really reveals is a deep distrust and even disdain for modern science. There are statistics– statistics based on scientific principle– that prove condoms play no role in the spread of AIDS, but rather (and I know this is shocking) help prevent the disease’s transmission.
Anyone who claims otherwise is bearing false witness. Pope Benedict, of all people, should know better.
On a related note, I’m relieved to recall that during his stem cell announcement earlier this month, President Barack Obama took a distinctly different tack regarding science when he set the following goals:
“To ensure that in this new administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisers based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions.”
We know what abandoning science looks like– we’ve lived it for the past 8 years– and it’s not pretty. Thankfully we have a President as skeptical of skepticism as the Pope is of science.
Falk, what makes you think that all married straight couples are monogamous? Do you really believe the the majority of straight couples marrying today are celibate before their wedding day, what about those many shot-gun weddings, pal? If you do, then you’re a bigger fool than I think you are. Somehow, straights like you actually believe that marriage is a cure all for society’s permissiveness. You’re dead wrong, it doesn’t guarantee anything, least of of all monogamy although we like to think it does and it should, but that’s not reality in this day and age and you know it. Just take a look at the number of politicians who stray from their marriages most of whom uphold the so called “sanctity” of marriage when it comes to their anti marriage equality pronouncements.
Another thing, AIDS aside, condoms were originally intended for the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. Many couples can’t even afford to have children or have more children. Why bring untold unnecessary babies into this world, especially in emerging nations where there is dire poverty, Dafur comes to mind? Yet, you support this pope who believes that nobody should be using artificial birth control, no matter their economic situation or poverty level. Yes, condoms are not 100% effective, but without them, we’ll see an ever increasing number of new infections occuring. Abstinence is a solution I agree, but in reality its not going to happen on a global scale, especially in developing countries.
One other thing, many of the HIV infections on the African continent are often heterosexually transmitted, in fact the majority of them are and many of them spread by married males, not just single men. So that alone debunks the myth that marriage rules out condom use and that only single men are promiscuous. Your David Vitter comes to mind, Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, Jack Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, Eliot Spitzer, Vito Fossella, and many more. Get it? I guess not.
What makes you come to a gay website anyway? Prurient interest or is it because you just can’t stay away from men?
If I recall correctly, the Pope’s attitude since his papal election has been to keep the Roman Catholic Church orthodox to its roots and precedents. He would rather have it orthodox and bleeding membership than be large and accommodating. To this aim, catechism is absolute, and science is secondary at best. In this sense, he’s not so much anti-science than he is dismissive of the relevance of science if it contradicts orthodox doctrine. And no, I don’t believe this is any wiser than rejecting science outright. This kind of blind fundamentalist dogmatism strips the ethical process of its free will and conscience, giving one comfort in absolute pre-scripted dogma (e.g. thump-thump-thump) at the expense of being able to adapt to new and different situations and knowledge not fathomed or understood by older morals.
There is a certain disdain for religion in this article. There is a tendency of gays and lesbians to see everything related to religion as bad, and everything related to science as good. This is an unwise assumption. I will point out that many of the cruelist enactments of anti-gay sentiment have come from science. Homosexuals used to be subject to all kinds on “cures” such as hormone treatment, even lobotomies and castrations. Not from religious zealots mind you, but from supposedly well-meaning scientists acting for the “Public Good”. And the orginal anti-gay policies of the military do not come from preachers or Popes, they came from psychologists in 40’s during WWII.
Jesus would puke his guts out if he saw his church being led by a former Nazi Youth in a dress with silk slippers and shiny beads, sort of a drag priest.
my last post should read “engaging in sex without being married”
Falk,
I agree with you in only one point: the pope is not really being skeptical of science. This is because he is fully aware (how can anyone not be?) that statistically condoms do prevent the spread of HIV for people who are engaging in marriage without being married. However, the pope is, as other posters have pointed out, living in a fantasy world thinking that everyone will remain celibate before marriage. Indeed, I would argue that his his insistance that others live a life of celibacy before marriage is naive and foolish. For the vast majority of people who are engaging in sex, condoms are a safer alternative that will drastically reduce the spread of HIV. This is where the pope was very wrong- he chose his words very poorly, muddling the distinction between his beliefs and the scientific facts on the issue. The pope has the right to believe whatever he wishes, and to preach those beliefs to his congregation, but he has a moral duty not to confuse the issue in such a way that is dangerous to the lives of others.
The Pope is a murderer.
Falk,
Excuse me, but no protection at all is what is killing people.
You aren’t “living in the real world”, Falk.
In the real world, people are having sex outside of man/woman marriage all the time.
And if gays can’t get married, they “aren’t going to put their lives on ice forever”. That is not how the “real world” operates, Get it, Falk?
If you aren’t willing to give marriage to gays since sex in marriage is what you believe in but only to straights, then don’t blame gays for “falling through the marriage cracks” and having sex outside of marriage, few are willing to be celebate and if gays commit to someone special in their lives then love and sex happens.
To stop love is like trying to stop the ocean tide. Get it, Falk?
If marriage comes to Maryland, I will embrace it, but if it doesn’t I will have sex within the parameters of one very special man I come to love, But I “am not putting my life on ice forever” nor am I marrying a woman I don’t want just to suit your unrealistic man/woman only model. Realistic for you, Falk, but not realistic for me as a gay man.
You have no choice, you don’t want men. I have no choice, because I don’t want women and I have a limited patience for loud, screaming kids. So, I will use a condom each and every time and will love my future man true.
Pope doesn’t get it and neither do you.
I have gay male friends in long-term monogamous relationships with the same man in some cases up to 25 years. My lesbian cousin was in a committed and loving relationship with another woman for 33 plus years. longer than many straight marriages, Falk. These people were in successful very long-term same-sex relationships with one and only one person. If that is not monogamous to one person only then what is it??
Sorry if this doesn’t “square” with your heterosexist and hetero-only-centered point of view.
My being a gay Christian doesn’t stop me from believing in condom use, in evolution, in sound and current science, in every day down to earth common sense. I do not follow any living leader of faith, I only follow ethics, standards, right from wrong, having a conscience, having within reason a good and clean heart and in following only the God that lives within my mind, my heart, my spirit. Neither Pope nor Anglican Archbishop will I follow, only God as far as I can.
And most of the time condoms do protect. Lack of condoms NEVER PROTECT ANY PERCENTAGE OF THE TIME.
There is no guarantee that the woman a straight man is going to marry isn’t virus free either, Falk, and only testing which is getting better and better, can reveal that.
Do you help feed the hungry or give clothes to those in need of them (Katrina or the homeless, etc)or do you merely oppress people who don’t share your gender preference in whom to love?
Yeah, Falk WE GET IT and we had “GOTTEN” it prior to your detailed description. That doesn’t change the fact that it is an ignorant and dangerous view. Men who live in fairy tale worlds should not be leading anyone.
Falk: so the pope means well but he’s just an idiot basically. AIDS <–Capital ‘S’ is a problem based on promiscuity but in the REAL world, people, yes including your devout Catholics are promiscuous. Does he feel that giving away condoms is condoning the behavior? And then people listen to the pope and call it sin if you do something against what he says. Its called control.
No, I don’t agree with the slant on this article.
The pope isn’t being skeptical of science, at all here. Look, it’s no secret that he doesn’t feel it’s right for people to have sex outside of marriage. And there’s no reason for husbands and wives to use condoms out of fear of “catching something” from each other because they’ve never been with anyone else.
So, in his mind, the only people who’d need condoms are those who enjoy a more promiscuous lifestyle. Get it? The pope feels that condoms are a tool that make people think they’re able to freely engage in sex with multiple partners. But condoms aren’t 100% safe, are they? Accidents happen.
So you can see why he’d say that condoms contribute to the AIDs problem.
He feels that the only real way to stop the spread of AIDs is to stop people from having sex with multiple partners, outside of marriage. And distributing condoms to the masses is not an effective way to get that message across.