Abstinence doesn’t make the Pope grow fonder
|
Last year, Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin campaigned around red-meat family values and traditional morality, and so the pregnancy of her unmarried teenage daughter Bristol proved a little awkward. So, in February, Bristol gave an interview to clear up the matter. For the most part, she cleaved to the party line. Of course, she and her boyfriend Levi were going to get married; yes, avoiding s-x before marriage was best. Then, in a momentary divergence from the script, she blurted out that teaching abstinence-only s-x advice to teens “was not realistic at all”. The Pope might take note. If abstinence doesn’t work for a privileged family like the Palins in the richest country in the world, how’s it going to pan out in Africa, where 28 per cent of children have lost one or both parents to AIDS? In the context of the epidemic sweeping the continent, slipping-up leaves you not a little bit pregnant but a little bit dead. As it happens, the comparison between Benedict XVI and the Palins isn’t so fanciful. As Andrew Sullivan points out, the Pope’s prescription for Africa mirrors the official US line — and for very similar reasons. The Bush Administration, in which all policies were half Keystone Cops, half Book of Revelations, reliably lent its support to those African leaders most opposed to condoms and to gays. Now, to non-believers, the religious preoccupation with s-x seems one of the strangest aspects of the whole faith business. Take homos-xuality. There’s only eight references to it in the whole Bible and most of them come from the wacky chapters that no-one really reads. Why, for instance, uphold Leviticus 18:22 on the abomination of homos-xuality while ignoring Leviticus 11:9-12 on the equally abominable shellfish? In any case, Scripture contains hundreds of explicit condemnations of wealth (rich man, camel, needle, etc), yet somehow the devout never seem as uncomfortable around millionaires as they do around drag queens. But such arguments only get you so far, since beyond a certain point you can’t really debate religion. A weeks back, Miranda Devine defended the ouster of liberal priest Peter Kennedy (yes, it was, at least in part, about sex again) from his Brisbane parish on the basis that Catholicism is a kind of private club. There’s rules, you see — and if you don’t like them, start your own damn church. In a way, she’s correct. By their nature, religious doctrines aren’t susceptible to argument. There’s no chemical test that will challenge believers’ faith that wine and bread really do transform into the blood and body of Christ — either you accept it or you don’t. But there’s a difference between private belief and public policy. Recently, in Brazil, a regional archbishop recently excommunicated the mother and the doctors of a 9-year-old rape victim for aborting the fetus she was carrying, an excommunication later defended by a senior Vatican official. What will be the consequences for a country in which the Church is a mass organisation? Quite obviously, abortions for victims of s-xual assault will become harder to procure — and that’s something that will effect believers and non-believers alike. It’s the same in Africa. The Pope’s entitled to hold whatever ideas he wants but the availability of condoms is not a question of private conscience. When Benedict starts up on such topics, world leaders have both a right and an obligation to argue against him. If they don’t, millions will die. Oh, and Bristol Palin popped up in the news again last week. Why? Predictably enough, she and her boyfriend Levi are now kaput. |
|
|
|
13 Comments
The proposition that condoms stop the spread of AIDS is about as valid as the proposition that condoms stop unwanted pregnancies. The same dreary ‘Left”crowd propound this nonsense and of course they’re the same crowd who’ll happily drop into the local abortuary to eliminate that unfortunate “accident”.
To wear a condom and be HIV positive, while having intercourse with someone who is not, is literally to play with their lives. To tell people that if they wear one, they’re SAFE, is almost as bad.
Of course this same dreary crowd are the ones who have converted sex into a life and death issue. The paramount concern now, for many of the “its my life, I’ll do want I want” crowd, when having intercourse, is staying alive. Being faithful to your spouse is so ‘middle class’ . Abstaining? You have got to be kidding! But hang on, aren’t these the same people who’ll tell you that we must abstain from certain foods, MSG, trans isomer fatty acids, illicit drugs, steroids, mobile phones while driving, listening to Rush Limbaugh, producing too much carbon dioxide, and homphobic language? But just to show I can’t control myself, let me say sodomy is the problem. not Benedict.
Accusing the Pope of spreading AIDS in Africa (only) is a very fanciful idea. A friend of mine, who is a surgeon in Australia, spent 12 years in Botswana. The reason he migrated to Australia 10 years ago was AIDS- he has four sons. He is worried now that his sons are not safe in Australia, either. But it would be enlightening to ask African shamans what they think about AIDS and how to cure it. Here, the Pope has a graet competition in advocating sex practices, hygiene and certain attitudes. Perhaps some questions should be asked before we make one person responsible for spreading AIDS across the continent: from South Africa to Egypt. :
How many Catholics in Africa suffer from AIDS? How many Protestants, shamans, victims of war or genocide?
How come that AIDS is spreading rapidly in Australia, China and in many countries where condoms are freely available? What are the statistics on other continents?
It was not long ago that Australia rejected the whole transport of condoms Made in China because ‘the product was too porous”.
Pope has no executive power. So people in Rome do visit brothels and do use condoms and do get sick. .
How many people have been infected by Dalaj Lama who also condemns all forms of contraception and abortion? Why is the Pope singled out? Do they listen to him in Brazil or Mexico? Do they use condoms in the Philippines? Or Italy, for that matter?
How many AIDS sufferers are in Iran, Brunei, Malaysia, Kazachstan, Russia? Do we know?
Only if we can compare statistics we may come to certain conclusions. Jumping into conclusions without evidence is nothing short of some propaganda.
Robert, too true. To a great majority of his “flock” he could say anything and be believed. My big problem is how the Ratzingers, Hilalys, Pells and their ilk can have such an influence on our leaders and lawmakers - not to mention all the other punters. Scary stuff.
Jeff Sparrow since when did we start spelling foetus the American way? Is Crikey going the same way as the SMH?
It appears JJames you know a good deal about sodomy, I hear practise makes perfect.
Shane - I understand that the Pope/Catholic church does have a major impact on people in Africa; and it certainly does in the Phillipines and other places that you mentioned. Grandmothers are raising their grand children, which in many cases includes at least one child with HIV or AIDS. There’s also an incorrect view (Sth African President is one) that HIV is not related to AIDS, therefore the drugs for pregnant women with the AIDS visus are not available or only in small numbers in many countries, and those babies are then born with full blown AIDS - which I believe is tanamount to murder! There are many women who are infected by their husbands, who’ve contracted the virus from outside their marriage. Promoting the use of condoms makes social, healthy sense. To speak out against it from a dogmatic and bigoted viewpoint as the spokespeople for the Catholic Church(mostly men) is an act of genocide, and should be treated accordingly; as crimes against humanity. For the Pope, who lives in the richest city on the planet, who has no experience of being a parent, and definitely no compassion for those who are dying, and the horrific numbers who will be affected in future is beyond my comprehension.
If the Catholic Church was as active and vocal against the wealthy countries in the West, US, Britain and of course Australia, as they are forcing incorrect and unjust views down the throats of impoverished people, there may not be children dying even as I type this. They don’t speak out against the evils of multinational greed, wars and slave labour in order to make huge profits - human beings are expendable fodder - no doubt to go to a better ‘place’?
It’s been proven, that where there’s an educational program coupled with finances in the health arena, the stats re HIV/AIDS are lowered. The rates of infection rise when people get complacent - when they believe that the threat is reduced, or that medicine has or will find a cure, or a combination of all these beliefs!
Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the Pope has announced, to the largely illiterate sub-Saharan hotbed of HIV, that “the distribution of condoms aggravate the problem.”
The cruel history of religious authority, leading from the rear, continues - no matter what the subject of contention - witches, slavery, evolution, cosmology, democracy, and now public health.
The scenario plays out the same way every time: human reason discovers a truth and must fight for it against religious dogma. The battle ends with the religious position in tatters; yet the religious generals declare victory - the new paradigm is God’s will!
It’s interesting to note that part of the Pope’s solution to HIV includes “friendship for those who suffer”. Despite this sanctimonious platitude, the Pope keeps his own suffering to a minimum. Like Mother Theresa before him, Benedict avails himself of the best that scientific medical advances can offer.
Accusing the Pope of spreading AIDS in Africa (only) is a very fanciful idea. A friend of mine, who is a surgeon in Australia, spent 12 years in Botswana. The reason he migrated to Australia 10 years ago was AIDS- he has four sons. He is worried now that his sons are not safe in Australia, either. But it would be enlightening to ask African shamans what they think about AIDS and how to cure it. Here, the Pope has a graet competition in advocating sex practices, hygiene and certain attitudes. Perhaps some questions should be asked before we make one person responsible for spreading AIDS across the continent: from South Africa to Egypt. :
How many Catholics in Africa suffer from AIDS? How many Protestants, shamans, victims of war or genocide?
How come that AIDS is spreading rapidly in Australia, China and in many countries where condoms are freely available? What are the statistics on other continents?
It was not long ago that Australia rejected the whole transport of condoms Made in China because ‘the product was too porous”.
Pope has no executive power. So people in Rome do visit brothels and do use condoms and do get sick. .
How many people have been infected by Dalaj Lama who also condemns all forms of contraception and abortion? Why is the Pope singled out? Do they listen to him in Brazil or Mexico? Do they use condoms in the Philippines? Or Italy, for that matter?
How many AIDS sufferers are in Iran, Brunei, Malaysia, Kazachstan, Russia? Do we know?
Only if we can compare statistics we may come to certain conclusions. Jumping into conclusions without evidence is nothing short of some propaganda.
John James - What planet are you living on, and who gave you the right to get on the bandwagon of another male who doesn’t know what he’s talking about; who’s a misogynist of the first order, and who in the past served in Hitler’s youth - yes, the present Pope?
The Catholic Church’s nonsense that the “pope cannot err in what he teaches” is offensive and insulting. One day he’s fallible, the next day, after he’s installed as Pope, he’s infallible! Please, give me a break! John, as a male, you can take the high moral ground whenever you like; women like me sense the bullshit and either get angry or turn off. You have not the slightest idea of being a woman; of being scared from one period to the next, let alone the threat of HIV and AIDS! All you do is reinforce the misogynist and patriarchal views of the Catholic Church. It’s quite interesting by it absence, any idea, commitment to or outrage of mens’ irresponsible attitude to sex, and their blatant disregard for what may happen as a result of their unprotected sexual encounter?
Many years ago, I had a young baby, and I found out I was pregnant again. I did want other children, but not that close - 11 months, 2 weeks and 6 days. I spoke to 5 priests about what I could do after this child was born. I received 5 different opinions, the over riding one was, that I had to decide for myself. Of course, with over 40 years life experience, I’d never have done that. I’d have taken the advice of my doctor - don’t get pregnant again - well not as soon as you did this time. I had the script for the pill before I left the hospital. I wanted to stay alive and look after my babies. Dying in childbirth in a blaze of Catholic Church ‘glory’ was not entertained! I loved my babies too much!
The Catholic Church should be taken to the International Criminal Court to face charges of genocide. To take advantage of their bigoted, unrealistic and irresponsible dogma of speaking out against the use of condoms is obscene.
How any sane person or church could excommunicate or even be critical of a 9 year old rape victim for having an abortion is beyond belief.
The Pope tells all who will listen that the use of condoms does nothing to help reduce the spread of HIV Aids. What he omitted to follow it up with is that well-known cure for the disease - the garlic, olive oil and lemon diet.
Steve, you’re wrong. Lots of people are taking notice - the Pope is very influential in many parts of the world, including Africa. A fruitcake he may be, but a fringe-dweller he is not.
As you say the pope has the right to say what he likes about condoms and their use, but fortunately no one is listening, or rather taking no notice.