So it appears there is now a slight shift from the catholic/Pope on the use of contraception. As most  are aware, the catholic have a stance against the use of Contraception as it is seen "interference with God's work".  These objections from the pope and catholic in general are well documented.

However, it appears there is now a slight shift and the Pope appears to be okay with the use of condom, but only to prevent AIDS. See quote below.

After decades of fierce opposition to the use of all contraception, the pontiff will end the Catholic Church's absolute ban on the use of condoms.

He will say that it is acceptable to use a prophylactic when the sole intention is to "reduce the risk of infection" from Aids.

While he will restate the Catholic Church's staunch objections to contraception because it believes it interferes with the creation of life, he will argue that using a condom to preserve life and avoid death can be a responsible act – even outside marriage.

Asked whether "the Catholic Church is not fundamentally against the use of condoms," he replies: "It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution.

"In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/the-pope/8148899/Pope-approves-use-of-condoms-in-fight-against-Aids.html



So there you have it ladies and gentlemen, the catholic church or should I say the pope is gradually joining the rest of the world in to the new century.

As to why the Pope would have been against the use of condom for decades now is beyond me. Let's not forget that there are society that is rampaged by excess childbirth rates and High HIV rates, some of this society actually take the words of the Pope as words spoken by God.

Anyway, let us hope we hear some more common sense.

Here is a comment posted by one Sebamurphy.

There are moments when one has to temper one´s opinions and comments. This is not one of them. The role of the church in passively facilitating the spread of AIDs in sub-Sahara Africa in the last 25 years is criminal and deplorable.

The last pope had more blood on his hands than Stalin and Hitler combined. The shameless declarations by the church inn recent times that the use of contraceptives does not assist in the prevention of AIDs was dishonest and corrupt.

When are we going to learn? This is the very same church that declared the world was flat, that the use of medicine was an act of heresy, that stood idly by during world war two and in doing so, facilitated the abominations of the nazis.

It is remarkable and a damning condenmation of mankind that the church has been allowed to continue to be involved in the education of young people.

The Catholic church has been a insidious and tangibly dangerous institution for many centuries now.

When is mankind going to finally rid itself of this jingoistic, bigotted and malicious company?

I wholeheartedly agree.

this will fare better at Religion board. Well its the changing face of the world. We are closing in.

xtians for you hypocrites

As I see it, and not being overly biblical, the solution to all of the diseases and plagues associated with sex (strictly speaking -immoralitly and NOT procreation) remains strict adherence to biblical principles on fornication and adultery and also the time tested, divorce-fobidding stand of the bible on marriage.

This is purely my views - the way I see it. If the Pope's position is in tune with mine, fine.

ono:

As I see it, and not being overly biblical, the solution to all of the diseases and plagues associated with sex (strictly speaking -immoralitly and NOT procreation) remains strict adherence to biblical principles on fornication and adultery and also the time tested, divorce-fobidding stand of the bible on marriage.

This is purely my views - the way I see it. If the Pope's position is in tune with mine, fine.

Not sure I follow your point here. Please explain to me as to how all of those will help stop the spread of disease, given the fact that having sex - be it protected or unprotected pre-dates the bible. Also bear in mind that sexual disease can be transmitted without sex.

Abi I dey miss your point?

ElRazur:

Also bear in mind that sexual disease can be transmitted without sex.

Pardon me, I'm not a medical student - and I have very limited knowledge on pathology. Tell me how sexually transmitted diseases can be transmitted without sex.

I'm afraid I can't explain beyond what's up there Bro or is it Sis. If you want me to spell out the Bible's position on fornication, adultery and divorce, sorry. I've not all the time in the world for that now.

ono:

Pardon me, I'm not a medical student - and I have very limited knowledge on pathology. Tell me how sexually transmitted diseases can be transmitted without sex.

I'm afraid I can't explain beyond what's up there Bro or is it Sis. If you want me to spell out the Bible's position on fornication, adultery and divorce, sorry. I've not all the time in the world for that now.

A baby born with HIV as a result of having a HIV positive mother/father will be one.

Those who work in high risk environment are known to have caught these things when protocols are not followed. Working in a screening facilities (Lab) is one example.

Drug addicts who share needles and what not have been known to transmit disease as a result (Sexual ones included)

Dubious sexual practices will be another one. (A guy once called a radio program I was listening to, he complained of having what appears to be conjunctivitis after having his partner "spunk" in his face. It turned out he caught some form of std (which may have been Syphilis)  No joke)

You see, it is not clear cut as you are making out.

As per your last point, I really do not get your point hence why I asked, but no big deal if you cannot explain. Perhaps there is never much to explain in the first place? 


PS
May I just add that STD is used in a sexual context as we all know, but it is entirely possible to transmit sexual infections without having sex.

ElRazur:


A baby born with HIV as a result of having a HIV positive mother/father will be one.

Those who work in high risk environment are known to have caught these things when protocols are not followed. Working in a screening facilities (Lab) is one example.

Drug addicts who share needles and what not have been known to transmit disease as a result (Sexual ones included)

You see, it is not clear cut as you are making out.

As per your last point, I really do not get your point hence why I asked, but no big deal if you cannot explain. Perhaps there is never much to explain in the first place? 

Ok. Thanks. But the way you put it, can't we just say those people were not infected with STDs?

Now, lets face all of the above one after the other:

1. The HIV Positive mother who passed on the disease to the child: Fact is that she got that disease from someone - her adulterous husband or unfaithful boyfriend or from her whoremongering activity somewhere. Sin is at the root of the unfortunate episode. The wages of sin is death - sounds biblical, but true. And the death here is not just the physical you see - it's spiritual as well.

2. Those who work in high risk environment: I wager it's only in very rare cases that we see/hear of these unfortunate incidents. And nowadays, with the type of protective gear medical workers kit on and all of the precautions, we can only pray that we do not hear of such cases anymore.

3. The Drug addict: Sin is at the root of it all.


Conclusion: Follow Bible principles on fornication, immorality (including sex and non-sex related), adultery - in short anything that goes against the commandment of God, and then see if we will not have a safe and disease free world.

ElRazur:

Here is a comment posted by one Sebamurphy.


I wholeheartedly agree.

You agree with what? That the former Pope was responsible for the deaths of people who went against the doctrine of no pre-marital sex and adultery and caught HIV? Every man is responsible for his or her action. Please leave the Pope out of that.

I am also very much in agreement with Ono's argument.

ono:

Ok. Thanks. But the way you put it, can't we just say those people were not infected with STDs?

Now, lets face all of the above one after the other:

1. The HIV Positive mother who passed on the disease to the child: Fact is that she got that disease from someone - her adulterous husband or unfaithful boyfriend or from her whoremongering activity somewhere. Sin is at the root of the unfortunate episode. The wages of sin is death - sounds biblical, but true. And the death here is not just the physical you see - it's spiritual as well.

That is not always true. I think you are making a bit of a generalisation.

During wars in Africa, women are rapped and left to look after the result. In some of these case, these women were rapped and infected with HIV.  You see, this do not fit into your theory. Also, in  the first world, it is becoming more and more an issue now where people with HIV deliberately infect others as a sort of "pay back". What do you say to that?

A good example, will be one German pop-star who was in a relationship with another man and infected him with HIV.

You see, my point is that things are different these days that they do not even fit with the bible at times in my opinion.

2. Those who work in high risk environment: I wager it's only in very rare cases that we see/hear of these unfortunate incidents. And nowadays, with the type of protective gear medical workers kit on and all of the precautions, we can only pray that we do not hear of such cases anymore.

The point is these things happen. From my experience of working in a lab, there really isn't much "protective gear" one have to wear. Your standard lab coat and hand gloves is what most use, but there are protocols and SOP (Standards of Practice) to follow.

3. The Drug addict: Sin is at the root of it all.

See the bigger picture. People fall into these things because of various reason. Another example that do not fit into your theory will be those who are addicted as a result of being forced into it. It is well known that "pimps" will actively inject women who have been trafficked with heroin and other drugs so as to have "customers" sleep with them.

How will the bible apply to these people when they become hooked, even though it was never their fault?

Conclusion: Follow Bible principles on fornication, immorality (including sex and non-sex related), adultery - in short anything that goes against the commandment of God, and then see if we will not have a safe and disease free world.

I disagree, the bible say a lot of things that do not fit into the modern world. Do you think it is appropriate to stone a woman who committed adultery to death?  Or should a woman sleep with his dead husband brother, in order to bear a son?  And please do not tell me it is some part of the bible. You cannot be selective about what you believe in a book that represent the teachings of your religion.


All I am saying is that your point as to how the bible makes the world disease-free so to speak is probably not workable in real life application.

Katsumoto:

You agree with what? That the former Pope was responsible for the deaths of people who went against the doctrine of no pre-marital sex and adultery and caught HIV? Every man is responsible for his or her action. Please leave the Pope out of that.

I am also very much in agreement with Ono's argument.

Did the Pope actively discourage the use of contraception of any kind or not?

Did people take this word as the biblical truth?

Did people lose their lives as a result?


There lies your answer.

Why should the pope be left out? He is a man, and not above being disagreed with or questioned. Sorry.


PS
No the pope/catholic was responsible for actively discouraging the use of contraception and even went as far as saying condom do not prevent HIV. No?

ElRazur:

That is not always true. I think you are making a bit of a generalisation.

During wars in Africa, women are rapped and left to look after the result. In some of these case, these women were rapped and infected with HIV.  You see, this do not fit into your theory. Also, in  the first world, it is becoming more and more an issue now where people with HIV deliberately infect others as a sort of "pay back". What do you say to that?

A good example, will be one German pop-star who was in a relationship with another man and infected him with HIV.

You see, my point is that things are different these days that they do not even fit with the bible at times in my opinion.

Are you blaming the Pope for rapists not wearing condoms?

Also, relationship is not the same as marriage. You shouldn't be having sex outside marriage.

Katsumoto:

Are you blaming the Pope for rapists not wearing condoms?

Also, relationship is not the same as marriage. You shouldn't be having sex outside marriage.

No I am pointing out how one can have HIV and do not apply to the scenarios Ono painted. I thought that was obvious?


Really? Who said so, the bible? Please bear in mind that mankind has been having sex before the bible and marriage was even invented.


Are you serious?

ElRazur:

No I am pointing out how "immorality" "cheating" etc outside a relationship/marriage can lead to having HIV.  I thought that was obvious?


Really? Who said so, the bible? Please bear in mind that mankind have been having sex before the bible and marriage was even invented.


Are you serious?

The Pope's message is for Catholic who follow the Bible for guidance. You can't hold the Pope responsible for non-Catholics who have pre-marital sex without condoms.

Katsumoto:

The Pope's message is for Catholic who follow the Bible for guidance. You can't hold the Pope responsible for non-Catholics who have pre-marital sex without condoms.

His words have lead to poor people having families that they cannot look after. One can argue this increases poverty, crime and can lead to other things. No?

Also to claim his words are not influential to non-Catholics is probably not true. He is an influential man (He is in Forbes list of most influential people) so whatever he says will go a long away in swaying opinions of people. (whether good or bad is another thing)

Elrazur,
While I very much empathise with you on the need to protect people from dying in droves as a result of STDs related cases around the globe, I think your standpoint of ''on the ground reality'' is in opposite direction to my reasoning here. And I daresay your knowledge of God's Word and the way He works is somewhat limited. But that's ok.

I should let you know that I simply follow the Bible as per anything that pertains to the affairs of this world - old fashioned or not, modern or ancient. So our discussions on this may end up deadlocked as we continue.

I still stand by my word that SIN is at the root of all of the STDs related cases you mentioned up there - and even the Africa wars (wars are all over the globe anyways, and women get despoiled in other places - some contact STDs, others don't). Opinion may differ, but I know the Bible's stand on issues have remained unshaken over the centuries. . . . ever constant.

Now, to the unfortunate cases out there, thank God they're few - compared to cases we know are really sin-prone. And I know there will come a time cure to this diseases will come - just as it came for many other diseases before them. And the world will be a better place for that.

Ono

You are doing exactly what most believers or those who share the bible do. Ignore the message at hand and claim the bible rule all or something along those lines.

I have pointed out as to how it is entirely possible (and it happens) for some scenarios not to fit into the biblical views you appeared to use as your basis for all etc.

Sin in some cases are not the root of all std. It is entirely possible to have HIV and other STD without sin involve. Do you read the link I posted? Please do if you haven't.

[size=40pt]POLITICS SECTION[/size]

Elrazur,
That I used a blanket biblical generalisation is your making - not mine. I indeed requestd for clarification on cases other than sexual that can bring about STDs - and you came up with some. And 90% of the cases presented were SIN related - in my opinion. Rest of the cases stated are work related and so on.

I think if we can get 90% sin out of the world, the world will be a better place.

By the way, can you help research on the number of women/people who contacted HIVs during the First and Second World Wars? Cases of rape were rampant and reported too right?

[size=90pt]THIS SECTION IS FOR POLITICS!![/size]

ono:

Elrazur,
That I used a blanket biblical generalisation is your making - not mine. I indeed requestd for clarification on cases other than sexual that can bring about STDs - and you came up with some. And 90% of the cases presented were SIN related - in my opinion. Rest of the cases stated are work related and so on.

I think if we can get 90% sin out of the world, the world will be a better place.

By the way, can you help research on the number of women/people who contacted HIVs during the First and Second World Wars? Cases of despoil were rampant and reported too right?

I hear you.

HIV was prominent in the 80s (discovered??) 

It wasn't known during the two great war eras I think.

Mariory is still on Nairaland?! Thank God you're not yet an Admin.


Elrazur,

Tell those you treat to change their ways and it will be well with them.

Where is dobodobo, this news should be on the romance - sexuality section

still observing the situation.

I don't know where you got thjs your story frm,but know this for sure, the Roman catholic church/Pope will never approve contraception of any sort never!!
No amount of secular pressure will influnce the church's policy.

How can you claim the pope is responsible for the death of people who had premarital and extramarital unprotected sex and died of Hiv.If they listened to his message against contraception,they should also have listened to his message against fornication and adultery

All foreign media are carrying this news though it appears he said it in passing in one of his books.

This world has officially ended

chukwudi44:

I don't know where you got thjs your story frm,but know this for sure, the Roman catholic church/Pope will never approve contraception of any sort never!!
No amount of secular pressure will influnce the church's policy.

How can you claim the pope is responsible for the death of people who had premarital and extramarital unprotected sex and died of Hiv.If they listened to his message against contraception,they should also have listened to his message against fornication and adultery

If you have taken time to read the actual post I made, you for don realise say I answered all your questions.

The quote below may even speak to you more

Does anyone find it a little off (to put it lightly) that many practising followers of particular denominations of faith must follow the word of one man (as fallible as the rest of us, I might add), and it is only "morally acceptable" to do something with that particular persons say so?

As a religious person myself, am I compelled to follow the word of God or the word of whoever is currently in charge?

Taken from BBC comment webpage.

Quote from El-razur:
PS
No the pope/catholic was responsible for actively discouraging the use of contraception and even went as far as saying condom do not prevent HIV. No?

As per your quote, can you give me any link from Gold Cirlce, Magnum or any other condom producer where they openly and firmly claim their products to be 100% foolproof?

These are serious issues and when you try to tackle them, you've to take a side and stick to it - over the long haul.

nastydamus:

Quote from El-razur:
PS
No the pope/catholic was responsible for actively discouraging the use of contraception and even went as far as saying condom do not prevent HIV. No?

As per your quote, can you give me any link from Gold Cirlce, Magnum or any other condom producer where they openly and firmly claim their products to be 100% foolproof?

These are serious issues and when you try to tackle them, you've to take a side and stick to it - over the long haul.

Do you mind rephrasing your post?