Originally posted by NemesioOriginally posted by Nemesio
How many times has Ivanhoe posted some ultra-trivial commentary from some obscure Roman
Catholic newspaper regarding some third world country's priest favorite color? Those meaningless
posts have not been met with the same cynical response you gave this article, one which has a
great deal of relevance in the continent with an inordinate number of Roman ...[text shortened]... ance on the issue.
It is hardly a molehill. Let's pray it becomes a mountain.
Nemesio
How many times has Ivanhoe posted some ultra-trivial commentary from some obscure Roman
Catholic newspaper regarding some third world country's priest favorite color?
You tell me.
Those meaningless posts have not been met with the same cynical response you gave this article
Really?
Thread 42878
You mean the third and fourth posts (out of four responses in all) are no more cynical than my response?
one which has a great deal of relevance in the continent with an inordinate number of Roman Catholics: Africa
Its relevance can be greatly exaggerated.
This NYTimes article is balanced
It attempts to put some balance in, granted, but the author cannot help editorialising (look at the opening paragraph, for instance) and has made no effort to explain Church teaching on the unitive and procreative aspects of sex and, therefore, why Church teaching on condoms is what it is.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhat does 'B' stand for? Anyhow...
"In Africa, couples are at the highest risk for HIV infection and researchers estimate that between 60-70% of HIV transmission occurs within couples that are married or living together." (http://www.iavireport.org/vax/primers/vaxprimer19.asp)
The C in the much vaunted Ugandan ABC approach stands for Condom.
Let's take the higher figure of 70% for the moment and assume that all those infections occur within married couples (I find it hard to believe that couples will live together in blatant contradiction of basic Church teaching and then suddenly decide not to use condoms because it is sinful). What you're saying is that 30% of the population in question are infected (let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say they were all infected by the use of infected needles or unscreened blood in transfusions) elsewhere and somehow manage to infect more than twice their number through marriage. Either they have to be polygamous (another contradiction of Church teaching) or divorcees (ditto) or widowers/widows. If I am to give them the benefit of the doubt again, I'll have to assume they're all in the last category.
You want to tell me that, on average, Africans infected outside marriage infect one spouse, get widowed and remarry, then infect their next spouse as well?
Sorry, that 60-70% figure somehow doesn't stack up.
Originally posted by NemesioOriginally posted by Nemesio
You get more like Ivanhoe every day. When faced with a situation
which is inconvenient for the absurd stances your faith entails (be it
the Inquisition, literal belief/figurative belief, condom use, or sex
scandals), you become immediately deaf and dumb.
If you don't read the newspaper about HIV in Africa (you know, dirty
rags like the NYTimes), th ...[text shortened]... head is that far
buried in the sand, then my citation isn't going to help you.
Nemesio
When faced with a situation which is inconvenient for the absurd stances your faith entails ..., you become immediately deaf and dumb.
How is asking for the facts "[becoming] deaf and dumb"?
If you don't read the newspaper about HIV in Africa (you know, dirty
rags like the NYTimes), then I'm not going to hold your hand and find
the information for you.
I do read the newspaper about the AIDS crisis in Africa, but I don't carry around the statistics in my head. If I'm getting into a discussion about it, I would like to have the correct figures to hand.
It was not too long ago that you thought the Spanish Inquisition put to death at least several tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people, remember?
I like to deal with facts, not popular perceptions.
It's been published at least a dozen times in the past 3 years about the Church's adamant stance against condom
use in the face of HIV infections in Africa.
All kinds of figures have been published about the Church's stance in the face of HIV infections in Africa. In my experience, they have tended to be broad statistics about the HIV-infected population size, regardless of where and how they were infected, whether their religious affiliation was Catholic or not and whether they were faithful to Church teaching or not. In other words, they've been more about propaganda and scaring the reader than establishing a reasonable argument against the Church position.
Of course, you may have encountered other, more specific facts that relate directly to the topic that I haven't encountered. In which case it would only help us all for you to present those facts here.
How is asking for that burying my head in the sand?
Originally posted by Nemesiohttp://www.iavireport.org/Issues/0804/SerodiscordantCouples.asp
I can't help myself.
Here are some better articles.
http://www.iavireport.org/Issues/0804/SerodiscordantCouples.asp
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t040407.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/11/30/DI2005113001653.html
Especially read this report:
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/vallaeys/gender.html
Enjoy the edification, LH.
Nemesio
Nice article. Essentially, it reiterates the 60-70% figure that BdN cited.
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t040407.html
This is about Uganda's ABC policy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/11/30/DI2005113001653.html
As with the previous two, a good article but not with much facts directly relevant to this discussion.
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/vallaeys/gender.html
Nice article. And it focuses, rightly, on empowering African women to combat the crisis.
But why do you think husbands who blatantly disregard Church teaching on fidelity will respect Church teaching on condoms?
Originally posted by lucifershammerNice dodge. Do you have figures for the percentage of husbands or wives who shamelessly flout Church authority as opposed to husbands or wives who have been avoiding condoms with superstitious dread but would submit to prophylactic discipline on the say-so of a cardinal with the formula to dispel the curse from the rubber, let alone those who might want to protect themselves from a potentially fatal disease. What is the party line here, boss--the Church says sick people can't love each other in that significant way? Help ma peeps to unnastand.
But why do you think husbands who blatantly disregard Church teaching on fidelity will respect Church teaching on condoms?
Originally posted by lucifershammerFirst of all, this doesn't simply apply to husbands who blatantly and
But why do you think husbands who blatantly disregard Church teaching on fidelity will respect Church teaching on condoms?
repeatedly disregard the Church's teaching on fidelity. It includes all
people who have reconciled with unfaithful, but HIV+ partners, not to
mention those who acquired it from other means.
And, part of this is about empowerment: if the Church forbids condoms,
then women haven't a place to turn. Perhaps the Church's toleration
(not approval, of course) of condoms in this sort of circumstance would
enable that % to drop by 5 points. Wouldn't that be worth it?
Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammer
How is asking for the facts "[becoming] deaf and dumb"?
LH, look: you're a bright guy. We both know that. When you blithely
request 'facts' to back up a well-known fact (prevalence of AIDS in
Africa), then it gives the appearance of dodging. Your later post in
this thread (with the citations) does the opposite: it shows you are
interested in confronting the issue in an open way. Ivanhoe seldom
shows this level of interest; I don't want conversations with you to turn
into that.
It was not too long ago that you thought the Spanish Inquisition put to death at least several tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people, remember?
You and I are light years apart in the negative effect that the Inquistion
had on Western Europe. I wouldn't cite this as my appealing to popular
perceptions when you were asserting that the Inquisition was an improvement
upon life.
All kinds of figures have been published about the Church's stance in the face of HIV infections in Africa. In my experience, they have tended to be broad statistics about the HIV-infected population size, regardless of where and how they were infected, whether their religious affiliation was Catholic or not and whether they were faithful to Church teaching or not. In other words, they've been more about propaganda and scaring the reader than establishing a reasonable argument against the Church position.
Gathering statistics in Africa is hardly a simple task; you can't just do
telemarketing polls! While I would be a fool to disagree that the
NYTimes was a liberal rag (the Ted Kennedy Newsletter), the article in
question was hardly an assault on Church doctrine. Indeed, it was a
presentation of the epidemic that AIDS is in Africa, the impact it has
had on families and, most importantly, the next generation of
Africans, and how the Church's immovable (as yet) stance on the issue
might be playing a role.
We are well aware that the overwhelming majority (read: upwards of
90% ) of people who affiliate themselves with the RCC in the West
disregard Her teaching on contraception but many are otherwise
attentive to Her. You may want to label them as cafeteria Catholics,
even if they provide rational arguments to the Church's axiomatic
stance.
Whether you do or not, the Church's relenting on the use of condoms
for the purposes of preventing life-threatening diseases within the
covenant of marriage is a relevant issue for many people, and the
Church has an opportunity here to either explain itself more fully or
revise its position in the light of a new revelation in the expereinces of
these married couples.
Nemesio
Nemesio, the prevalence of HIV in Africa is one thing. The manner in which it is spread is quite another.
If the figures showed that the majority of infections were caused by intravenous drug use, surely that would have had a bearing on the argument?
Just because the prevalence of HIV is a notorious fact, doesn't mean that the 60-70% figure is widely known. You yourself didn't know it.