In Rare Cases, Pope Justifies Use of Condoms
August 8, 2012 2:16 PM Subscribe
Pope Benedict XVI has said that condom use can be justified in some cases to help stop the spread of AIDS, the Vatican’s first exception to a long-held policy banning contraceptives. The Telegraph also has the story. Two years ago, The Catholic News Agency offered "What the pope really said about condoms," pointing out the Pope was already considering the use of condoms in the fight against AIDS.
Between 1999 and 2000 more people died of AIDS in Africa than in all the wars on the continent, as mentioned by the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan.
UNAIDS estimates for 2008 (which are latest figures available) there were roughly:
-- 33.4 million living with HIV
-- 2.7 million new infections of HIV
-- 2 million deaths from AIDS
-- Approximately 7 out of 10 deaths for 2008 were in Sub-Saharan Africa, a region that also has over two-thirds of adult HIV cases and over 90% of new HIV infections amongst children.
Between 1999 and 2000 more people died of AIDS in Africa than in all the wars on the continent, as mentioned by the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan.
UNAIDS estimates for 2008 (which are latest figures available) there were roughly:
-- 33.4 million living with HIV
-- 2.7 million new infections of HIV
-- 2 million deaths from AIDS
-- Approximately 7 out of 10 deaths for 2008 were in Sub-Saharan Africa, a region that also has over two-thirds of adult HIV cases and over 90% of new HIV infections amongst children.
This post was deleted for the following reason: Pope Seen Engaging in Controversial "Double-Dip" Technique -- cortex
"But what if you're not married?"
You shouldn't be having sex if you're not married.
"But I don't want AIDS! What if you're not married?"
If you're not married, you shouldn't be having sex.
"Why is it okay for married people to use condoms but not unmarried ones?"
Because if you're not married you aren't having sex.
"But I am!"
No, you aren't. Go away.
posted by charred husk at 2:24 PM on August 8, 2012
You shouldn't be having sex if you're not married.
"But I don't want AIDS! What if you're not married?"
If you're not married, you shouldn't be having sex.
"Why is it okay for married people to use condoms but not unmarried ones?"
Because if you're not married you aren't having sex.
"But I am!"
No, you aren't. Go away.
posted by charred husk at 2:24 PM on August 8, 2012
Or, you know, he could just be decent guy and say:
"Well, it's an old book and they didn't really have contraception back then. Just pulling out. All it gives us is some anecdotes that seem somewhat related when taken out of context, but other than that, nothing really.
I would just recommend using your best judgment and try to stick to married sex. Go in peace."
posted by Bathtub Bobsled at 2:25 PM on August 8, 2012
"Well, it's an old book and they didn't really have contraception back then. Just pulling out. All it gives us is some anecdotes that seem somewhat related when taken out of context, but other than that, nothing really.
I would just recommend using your best judgment and try to stick to married sex. Go in peace."
posted by Bathtub Bobsled at 2:25 PM on August 8, 2012
Ignore my previous comment. Apparently this is for outside of marriage, too, so a bit of a change from two years back.
posted by charred husk at 2:31 PM on August 8, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by charred husk at 2:31 PM on August 8, 2012 [1 favorite]
He said it was acceptable to use a prophylactic when the sole intention was to “reduce the risk of infection” from Aids.
While he restated the Catholic Church’s staunch objections to contraception because it believes that it interferes with the creation of life, he argued that using a condom to preserve life and avoid death could be a responsible act – even outside marriage.
This is a big deal; a sea change.
posted by oddman at 2:33 PM on August 8, 2012 [1 favorite]
While he restated the Catholic Church’s staunch objections to contraception because it believes that it interferes with the creation of life, he argued that using a condom to preserve life and avoid death could be a responsible act – even outside marriage.
This is a big deal; a sea change.
posted by oddman at 2:33 PM on August 8, 2012 [1 favorite]
The one grudging bit of respect I had for the Vatican was for its intransigence.
Naturally its doctrines were evil in being a cause of unnecessary suffering and increasingly doomed it to the dustbin of history but they had their story and by God they were going to stick to it.
Now it's just any other corporation bowing to market pressure.
posted by Egg Shen at 2:37 PM on August 8, 2012 [1 favorite]
Naturally its doctrines were evil in being a cause of unnecessary suffering and increasingly doomed it to the dustbin of history but they had their story and by God they were going to stick to it.
Now it's just any other corporation bowing to market pressure.
posted by Egg Shen at 2:37 PM on August 8, 2012 [1 favorite]
Two years ago, The Catholic News Agency offered "What the pope really said about condoms," pointing out the Pope was already considering the use of condoms in the fight against AIDS.
Yeah, this. I thought this was old news (I swear there's even been a post about it). And, uh, that the Pope doesn't actually want people using condoms. But that he's noticed they exist and they might help with that HIV thingy.
posted by hoyland at 2:37 PM on August 8, 2012
Yeah, this. I thought this was old news (I swear there's even been a post about it). And, uh, that the Pope doesn't actually want people using condoms. But that he's noticed they exist and they might help with that HIV thingy.
posted by hoyland at 2:37 PM on August 8, 2012
Am I incorrect in that the NYT, Telegraph, and the CNA articles are all from November of 2010? What am I missing here?
posted by HuronBob at 2:45 PM on August 8, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by HuronBob at 2:45 PM on August 8, 2012 [2 favorites]
Oh wow! Thanks funny hat wearing celibate guy!
posted by BrodieShadeTree at 2:47 PM on August 8, 2012
posted by BrodieShadeTree at 2:47 PM on August 8, 2012
This is huge! Said the bishop to the priest.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:50 PM on August 8, 2012
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:50 PM on August 8, 2012
"But I am!"
"Then why the hell are you asking me? If you can ignore me on the sex, just ignore me on the damn condoms!"
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:50 PM on August 8, 2012 [1 favorite]
"Then why the hell are you asking me? If you can ignore me on the sex, just ignore me on the damn condoms!"
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:50 PM on August 8, 2012 [1 favorite]
You are not wrong, HuronBob.
posted by laconic skeuomorph at 2:50 PM on August 8, 2012
posted by laconic skeuomorph at 2:50 PM on August 8, 2012
Am I incorrect in that the NYT, Telegraph, and the CNA articles are all from November of 2010? What am I missing here?
i don't think this post was a stunt or troll, but if the OP had wanted to graphically illustrate the fact that only like 10% of all early-posters have actually read the post, they woulda just nailed it
posted by facetious at 2:53 PM on August 8, 2012 [2 favorites]
i don't think this post was a stunt or troll, but if the OP had wanted to graphically illustrate the fact that only like 10% of all early-posters have actually read the post, they woulda just nailed it
posted by facetious at 2:53 PM on August 8, 2012 [2 favorites]
« Older There is no Mr. Hyde | Painting the first of life's molecules, circa 1961 Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by no regrets, coyote at 2:23 PM on August 8, 2012 [6 favorites]