I confess: I failed to put a cap on things
Monday 23 March 2009
11:44 am
I’m very struck by the response to the condom debate sparked by our interview following the Pope’s comments last week. More than 50 comments, and an interesting spread.
I have I suppose what the Catholic church would call a “confession” to make. I did not handle it well. One must be honest about these things.
In truth, it’s rare that anyone offers quite what was in the air that night, and the debate perhaps generated more heat than light. Just goes to show, every day in life is a learning experience.
The content in the online debate here is very rewarding, however, and I’m grateful to everyone who has participated. I have definitely learned from the experience.
Now back to the matter of condoms. As I was saying…
Related posts:
- Condoms and Aids
- There's a job for you, Mr Obama Lookalike
- Admit it: the war on drugs has failed
- My interview with Mark Regev
- Meetings with a remarkable man
There are 45 comments on this post
If you have learned something, Jon, I say congratulations and well done. But I wonder if the Pope has learned anything…
It’s certainly fair to say that you weren’t impartial. Thousands though, I suspect, will fully understand the source of your frustration. And the discussion was wonderfully entertaining!
The reasonable estimate is that the condom policy of the last Pope killed two million.
By any standards that’s an important issue. It carries on now under this pope.
Maybe the Catholics will find someone a bit less barmy to put up to argue their (incomprehensible) case next time.
I remain depressed that unlike France, Germany, Belgium etc, no British politician has said a thing about this story.
The reasonable estimate is that the condom distribution policy has killed around 22 million people – which by any standards is an important issue.
It’s amazing that people always criticise the Church for ignoring evidence… and yet when She points out something that is empirically verifiable, people still ignore it. The facts are out there, choose to ignore them if you want. Meanwhile the Church will continue to look after AIDS sufferers with the love and care they need.
“The reasonable estimate is that the condom policy of the last Pope killed two million.”
What a total nonsense to say – how any man with kind of avarage intelligence can blame the Pope for the effect of someone else’s immorality. Difficult to believe how low modern world sunk. Wake up!
I do not know who you are but I do know who the Senior Harvard Research Scientist for AIDS Prevention is, a Dr. Edward Green. Google him. Get informed.
Irrefutable fact is that the Pope’s remarks intend to ‘give back’ to Africans their autonomy in matters of sex. His is a position which says, “Africans have an intellect and a will. They are capable of having faithful relationships. The West is intent on seeing them as blind animals running around jumping into everyone’s trousers. Golly, if I were African, I’d go with the Pope’s defense of my unalienable, sovereign, freedom.
To return to the argument:
Irrefutable fact:
Faithfulness to one partner and/or abstinence is the armour against the spread of HIV/Aids.
The vast majority of people flee from the idea of accepting the Pope’s position for the simple reason that it would shine a rather too immediately light on the sorry state of their moral lives.
Regarding Joanna Bogle, she is a wonderful ambassador for the Catholic Church. Regarding previous comment, how utterly patronising! The Pope is by far the most informed in the AIDS debate, with the Catholic Church the biggest provider of treatment & care for AIDS victims.
Was Joanna Bogle the shrieky hysterical one who didn’t know what she was saying except that African people shouldn’t have sex? Whether they are in a loving relationship or a woman forced into prostitution – all the same in the face of shrill dogma
I was a little shocked when I looked at the comments this morning.
I personally think it is wrong when we turn from criticising actions and criticising ideas to criticising each other as people, which I did see in one or two comments. I have to admit that I switched off and then ignored the more measured responses.
I second Zinoviev’s comment and say well done to you if you have learned something! You’ve been an example to us all, and not for the first time…
Suppose a man about to have sex with a woman using a condom is told that she has AIDS. What would the average man do?
Suppose a woman about to have sex with a man using a condom is told he has AIDS. What would the average woman do?
I’m glad to see you apologising, Mr Snow, but I wonder if you are apologising for the right thing. The way you talked to Mrs Bogle was patronising and contemptuous, and more revealing of your personal views than is appropriate for an interviewer.
Your expression, ‘We’re talking about God and Christ and stuff’, or whatever your exact words were, I felt was little short of disgusting. Joanna Bogle had every right to become impassioned, as anyone who really cares about the sufferers would do – and actually, talking about Christ and His teachings (through the Church) and the sort of perfect love which is preached, is the only way to solve the world’s problems.
I hope in time this is what you will come to understand.
Oh for goodness sake you mad god-botherer.
Religion has no place in such vital areas as public health and a global pandemic (or indeed in any areas of public policy).
Joanna Bogle does not care about the people at all. She cares about upkeeping dogma. The world can go to Hell as long as she has said what she believes, loudly and hysterically and hopefully secured her place in heaven. A disgrace to humankind
I’d just like to counter those who are complaining about Jon’s interview style being snide.
Quite simply, the job of an interviewer is to challenge the interviewee’s beliefs in order to make them justify their position and hopefully shed more light on each side of the subject. That Mrs Bogle lost her cool when her beliefs were challenged was no fault of Jon’s and he clearly made an effort to calm her down by attempting to lighten the tone of the interview somewhat. Of course this seemed to have the unfortunate side effect of riling her up even more as she assumed he was trivialising the issue.
As a Catholic, I have to say that find the church’s stance on condoms in Africa entirely misleading. I find their reporting of ‘the facts’ highly selective and manipulative. In fact, it’s almost as if they had decided their stance on the issue before consulting with the evidence… surely not?
I also find the argument that because the Catholic church are heavily involved in AIDS charity work, this somehow makes them experts on methods of prevention. They may do good work in helping HIV and AIDS sufferers, but I’d rather the effectiveness of contraception in combating AIDS was measured using empirical scientific data, rather than 2000 years of religious dogma and cherry-picked statistics which do not tell the entire story.
For example, Uganda’s highly successful education policy (the one that Mrs Bogle was so keen on quoting) actually encouraged condom use as a last resort… Something which flies in the face of the Pope’s comments last week.
Did the rabid catholic bloggers out there somehow miss that bit of information?
“More than 50 comments”
I’m surprised there weren’t more… Religion, Channel 4 and arguments about condoms – the perfect receipe for an endless comment argument!
Jon just can’t bear not to scratch the itch. It goes on.
Look at the number of comments that other posts tend to get on this blog. 50 is a lot.
It just shows that the heated debate got people thinking about the issue and talking about it. And frankly that’s good.
I love the title of this Blog Posting by the way. It’s Dutch humour. Has it passed everybody else by ?
Jon, I think you did a wonderful job there! keep up the good work, sometimes religion can blind the real argument and in this case it’s exactly what it had done..xx
Sorry Alan, you’re missing a crucial point. Uganda doesn’t prioritise condom use. It provides them out of axiomatic necessity [there are people with hiv who will resort to sexual activity irrespective of the fact that as condoms are only 85% safe; they will regularly allow the hiv virus to be transmitted and eventually their sex partner will contract hiv - albeit in a longer statistical time period that without a condom - but it will happen !]
Uganda doesn’t promote condom use as the first line of attack as some miracle preventative cure – lifestyle and socio-cultural change is the mandatory imperative for the pandemic to diminish.
Yes, some Catholic bloggers have reacted quite vociferously and belligerently towards Mrs Bogle’s treatment; but Joanna’s record of blowing her top, taking offence and being unable to argue coherently anywhere outside her journalistic endeavours without resorting to a flustered quarrel is becoming monotonously embarrassing [and I've regularly said this to her]
Yes, Jon Snow goaded her with his dismissive swipe which was not only offensive about the Pope, it suggested he was responsible for AIDS deaths. But a more professional Catholic commentator could have caught the blow and sent it flying back at Mr Snow’s head – with calm clinically precise facts. Mrs Bogle should have allowed the facts to fight her corner and not become sidelined with Harare prostitutes…
But bear this in mind – why was Joanna there and not some bishop, priest or leading Catholic professional journalist? Well that’s another story; but be aware that Mrs Bogle is an enthusiastic amateur and even though she’s occasionally very well-informed, she’s not trained in debating or rhetorical skills or today’s media spin [she doesn't even own a tv], so will easily become flustered or consider the obvious to her as not really requiring necessary explanation. Give the lady a break!
BUT – remember this too – the gracious demure lady from Christian Aid who seemed to be ‘above the argument’ – speaking with condescending authority – she is fully aware of the facts regarding condoms [i.e. that they don't prevent infection - they merely delay it] but nevertheless she was ready to sit there and smugly counter Mrs Bogle’s contentions – even when she knew that the Pope, to an extent, was right that condoms aggravate the issue if they are misconceived or misportrayed as completely safe and totally protective.
Mrs Bogle likes to boast of the absence of television in her house as if it confers some sort of moral superiority but she has a PC on which it is perfectly possible to watch both live and recorded TV programmes. Perhaps someone who claims not to watch TV is not the best person to appear on the medium.
If it was only the church doling out this ‘advice’ then it would be no problem, if people want to put their lives at risk for their beliefs so be it. But they are spreading lies about the effectiveness of condoms and so condemning millions of non-Catholics to death by a horrible disease.
Of course, being non-Catholics means their souls will burn for eternity in hell. How do the Catholics out there feel about that?
Your comments show a complete misunderstanding of the Church’s stance on both condom use re restricting the spread of HIV-AIDS and Catholic theology on what the criteria are for getting into heaven!
By the way, I think that you are being just a litttle overgenerous about how big an effect you think the Catholic church’s teaching is having on non-Catholics – or on many Catholics for that matter.
Please do a little research.
Why is it the interviewer’s job to join one interviewee in attacking the other? This is becoming standard practice in the BBC. It’s not journalism, it’s bear-bating.
The claim about people being condemned to death by the Pope is not ‘challenging’ anyone – it’s just hate-speech. Would the brave Jon Snow say something like that about a Muslim leader, or even a secular politician? I don’t think so either.
Encouraging condom-use encouraged promiscuity – of those who have HIV and of those who don’t. That spreads AIDS. It’s not rocket science. But there’s none so blind as those who will not see.
I am amazed there are people disagreeing with the ‘fact’ that condoms help prevent the spread of AIDS. Its a FACT and NOT an opinion. Its no point debating a fact.
What is FACT is that abstinence prevents the spread of AIDS/HIV.
What is FACT is that Mankind loves to define himself a merely an animal instead of going one step further and giving himself the possession of an intellect and a will – meaning, it is quite wrong for him to think of himself as a sex-crazed animal on the rampage.
It is FACT that good advice is to say “remain faithful to one partner” -
and we certainly know them by their fruits (oh, that’s another fact..)
In response to Paul’s comment which reads…
“Sorry Alan, you’re missing a crucial point. Uganda doesn’t prioritise condom use. It provides them out of axiomatic necessity [there are people with hiv who will resort to sexual activity irrespective of the fact that as condoms are only 85% safe; they will regularly allow the hiv virus to be transmitted and eventually their sex partner will contract hiv - albeit in a longer statistical time period that without a condom - but it will happen !]”
Again, this is more misinformation. The 85% statistic that you have quoted is completely wrong. You are either wilfully misinterpreting the real statistic for your own ends, or you simply do not understand it in the first place. In either case please allow me to enlighten you.
The actual statistic is that condoms reduce the *chances* of HIV transmission by 85% when compared to using no protection. This is a VERY different statement than ‘condoms are only 85% safe’.
Okay, so what does that actually mean then?
Well, in truth the actual chance of infection through intercourse isn’t very high to begin with. Even unprotected sex is more safe than the 85% figure that you have been throwing around.
The actual rate of transmission per a single act of unprotected has been found to be between 1/300 to 1/1000 according to various different studies that take into account a variety of circumstances. Considering that condom use will reduce this figure by 85%, do you now realise how small the risk of transmission actually is when proper protection is used?
The study from which the 85% statistic originated from can be found here http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/about/organization/dmid/PDF/condomReport.pdf
And one of the conclusions reached by this study is this little gem – “These data provide strong evidence for the effectiveness of condoms for reducing sexually transmitted HIV.”
Hooray for science and hooray for those who are able to understand statistics!
People will have sex, fact. It is free, it is pleasurable and it is natural.
Condoms make sense to a logical mind – yet the church aims to prevent the un-preventable desire for physical satisfaction, and that the debate got so heated seemed to reflect that.
Jon behaves like a human being and I respect his natural responses more than any staid, suited, newscaster-scripted response.
Jon Snow remains my voice and echoes my questions and reactions in perfect synchronicity.
Namaste,
Tina Louise
Can I point something out? Catholics make up only 17% of the population of Africa; the rest belong to other religions. The countries in Africa that do have a significant Catholic population do better in HIV prevalence than others. Therefore it is ridiculous to assert that the Pope is responsible for the spread of HIV. At least 83% of the continent don’t listen to him, and those that do are staying alive. Work it out.
Joanna Bogle has every right to support the Holy Father and what the Catholic Church teaches, as every Catholic should. Why can’t the society promote self respect for one self and others? By promoting abstinence It is 100% guaranteed to work, it respects the dignity of the person. Children have the right to be brought up by a mother and father who care for them and each other.
Jon Snow was quiet wrong to speak to Joanna Bogle as he did. Would he use the same approach to non-Christian people? Most people believe in God; as the Australian Prime Minster recently said people should stop apologising for their beliefs. I am also sick and tired of the Holy Father and the Catholic Church being attacked for promulgating their beliefs and what the Church teaches for fear of offending some individual or their culture. Abstinence is 100% effective , whatever faith we belong too. If the Church doesn’t speak on our behalf, who will!
PEM
If we promote 100% abstinence won’t the human race die out?
At least at Channel 4 News you don’t even pretend to be impartial. At the BBC the coverage would have been biased in a much more subtle fashion and that is far more dangerous.
I note that French foreign ministry spokesman Eric Chevallier said: “We consider that such comments [the Pope’s] are a threat to public health policies and the duty to protect human life.”
German Health Minister Ulla Schmidt and Development Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul said in a joint statement: “Condoms save lives, in Europe as well as on other continents.” Modern assistance to the developing world today must make access to family planning available to the poorest of the poor – especially the use of condoms. “Anything else would be irresponsible.”
Dutch Development Minister Bert Koenders said it was “extremely harmful and very serious” that the pope was “forbidding people from protecting themselves. There is an enormous stigma surrounding the subject of Aids and Aids sufferers face serious discrimination. The pope is making matters worse.”
Rebecca Hodes, of the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa, said the Pope’s “opposition to condoms conveys that religious dogma is more important to him than the lives of Africans”.
The UN program against HIV/AIDS, UNAIDS rebuked the pope’s comments, saying condoms are an essential and effective component in preventing the disease: “With more than 7,400 new infections each day, the world cannot stop the AIDS epidemic without stopping new HIV infections. Condoms are an essential part of combination prevention.”
German EU parliamentarian Wolfgang Wodarg, a medical doctor, told AFP the pope’s “ideological unworldliness and irresponsible comments” put him “severely at fault.”
German Green European MEP Daniel Cohn-Bendit said: “We’ve had enough of this pope.” He described Benedict’s remarks as “close to premeditated murder.”
A French foreign ministry spokesman called the stance “damaging to health policy,” and said the condom “is an important element in the fight against the spread of the virus.”
Belgium’s Health Minister, Laurette Onkelinx, said the pope’s comments “Reflect a dangerous doctrinaire vision [that could] demolish years of prevention and education and endanger many human lives.”
I’m glad you found the time to locate all these wonderfully unbiased [not] quotes!
Do you really think that a load of liberal, atheistic, left-wing, old socialist, politicians from Europe (where the polictical sphere is very polarised – and it would appear that it still remains a duty for the left to hate and destroy the Church) would support the Pope? Do you think that politicians and members of NGOs with a possibly protestant (nominal, probably) background, or an unquestioning “liberal” approach would support the teachings of the Catholic Church?
There are a lot of “do-gooders” in this world who work for NGOs, governments and charities trying to “save” people from developing continents, and who also try to convert them to their own liberal, secularist, and materialistic agenda… Isn’t this a form of Imperialism?
The Catholic Church provides aid and relief in the form of medicine, care and so on in places that Western, secular, governments hardly toss a coin at. The Church educates and employs some of the very best doctors and teachers, social workers and aid workers (many who also volunteer their time and skills).
The Catholic Church also, contrary to popular belief, doesn’t require conversion to its beliefs, or condemns anyone to hell – it seeks to serve, and heal in accordance with the teachings and life of Christ. It also holds steadfast to the truth as it believes it to be (i.e. that people are ultimately responsible for their own actions), which will still be believed many centuries after the decline of “post-modern” Europe.
Many policticians with an anti-Catholic bias give aid but, it seems, with conditions attached, i.e. that certain ideas have to be accepted, or that contracts with family planning agencies be entered into, or laws be changed, etc. How patronising we can be over here in “liberal” Western Europe – maybe something left over from our imperialist, racist past? To give, in order to control is not charity… It is the same as what China is doing on the continent of Africa, building a hidden, yet powerful, empire of ideas and political allies.
It’s no wonder that our Government didn’t respond (like some of the characters you quote responded), as we don’t live on the continent where the right = religion and the left = atheism, something which is a hangover from the 60s. I think that we’re fortunate to be able to argue our points in the centre-ground of politics here in the UK. It’s because of this that we can be a bit more measured in our responses.
It remains a fact that a sense of morality helps the fight against HIV/Aids. Chastity is the only 100% safe option. Yes, condoms do work, bit they still aren’t 100% effective. If a man/woman knows that they are infected then they shouldn’t have sex with another person. To do so is bordering on the horrifically criminal and utterly selfish – and handing a free condom might actually encourage suck a person to think that sex with them is now 100% “safe”.
Here in the UK HIV and Aids is combatted using condoms and by “trying” (in a half-hearted way) to change lifestyles… But, as is now happening, here in London, HIV is on the rise, in a way not seen for 20 years… maybe there’s been a bit too much emphasis on condoms and not enough on plain moral responsibility? The generation now in their teens and early 20s think that HIV is a problem in Africa or something we dealt with here in the 80s, so it’s fine to be “hedonistic” (in the manner depicted in such C4 programmes as Skins). It’s never fine to be promiscuous, as it lacks in basic dignity, self-respect and love…and anything that isn’t “good” will always have bad consequences.
PS – Jon, if you ever need someone to come in and give a Catholic perspective feel free to get in touch, I live just off Horseferry Road!
Ssssshhhh. Don’t tell the Government it’s free and pleasurable. They’ll tax it !
But that would wipe out the national debt in a couple of years, I should think…
Given that we have some of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe, I’m willing to wager that condom use isn’t to blame for the rise in HIV infections.
Also, the idea that politicians cannot credibly speak out against the Pope without being accused of bias is nothing but a childish oversimplification of the issue. But anyway, as a Catholic (born, raised, educated, baptised, confirmed… the whole 9-yards), I can safely say that I agree with every single one of those quotations above. Although obviously this is because of my liberal, atheistic, yet somehow also probably protestant bias, yes?
The Pope’s comments last week basically amount to “Condoms promote promiscuity, therefore can make the spread of HIV worse”.
The problem with this is it is nothing but speculation and conjecture.
I ask you, is there any evidence that condoms promote promiscuity? Well… no. At least not according to any empirical, peer reviewed data on the subject. Although I’m sure you’ll be able to dig up at least a few out-of-context anecdotal tales to back up the Pope’s rather spurious claims.
Has the Pope done a study in the correlation between condoms and promiscuity? Does the Pope know ANYTHING AT ALL about the correlation between condoms and promiscuity? Has he looked into the subject any further beyond the ideas that he has formed in his own head? The answer to all of these questions is clearly NO! So why on EARTH does he feel that he is qualified to make ANY kind of judgement on the subject, much less issue the statement that he did?
So yes, I too question the Pope’s decision to make this statement as he has no idea if what he is saying is true (although I have no doubt that he actually believes it himself).
In truth, what he has said last week is little more than ‘a hunch’. Albeit a hunch which conveniently allows the Catholic Church to maintain its *long held* stance on contraception. I mean, it’s almost as if there was a vested interest in maintaining the status quo? I understand that this couldn’t possibly be the case, especially not with regard to the Catholic Church.
So to conclude this long ramble, the outrage that these politicians, aid workers and doctors have been expressing over these comments aren’t in any way an attack on the Catholic Church, nor are they the product of some atheist-protestant-liberal-imperialist agenda. They are simply concerned persons, voicing their disapproval at a highly influential and powerful person, who has been making irresponsible, unverifiable and potentially harmful claims about a subject on which he is NOT AN EXPERT.
But there is one thing I will agree with you on… Get him on the show Jon! I could use another laugh.
lol!
In the words of Michael Winner, “Calm down, dear!”
You accuse the Pope, a world leader (whether you agree with him or not) of “…nothing but speculation and conjecture” in his conclusions/teachings re condoms, etc, but then go on to ask rhetorical questions about whether or not the Pope knows anything about the subject of HIV and its prevention, which would appear to most people as being, “…nothing but speculation and conjecture”!
I love it how “armchair popes” act in the exact same way that they accuse the real one of behaving (in all but the moral content of their beliefs)! I think there’s a novel in here, somewhere, “The Pope of Suburbia”! lol!
I think I’m correct in thinking that the use of capital letters in postings such as these represent frustration and anger… If so then you’d make a wonderful opposite number to Joanna when she’s next on!
PS – as for how you agree with the quotations from the (mainly Northern European) politicians, that’s your choice, but it doesn’t mean anything, bar that your ego’s led you think that somehow your approval of them brings them merit! As for your great Catholic background, well others were born, raised, baptised, educated in the faith, too, but then decided to set themselves up as moral arbiters opposed to the Church… One famous one (whom I’m NOT comparing anyone to, by the way) became a rather infamus leader of Germany.
Capital letters are meant to denote emphasis, not frustration. There is no facility to bold text on here that I know of.
Anyway folks, the Hitler card has now been played, so I think we can safely put this discussion to bed.
You need {b}text to be bolded{/b} – with angle brackets. Just like this. You can also use standard html for links. I have long ago tried and failed to discover what other html can be used – particularly text colours.
I note your invocation of Goodwin’s law.
From the New Scientist website: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/03/why-the-pope-is-wrong-on-hiv-t.html
Those of you who value expert-led discussion might be interested to see this interview with the head of Harvard’s AIDS Prevention Department. He supports the pope’s comments. It’s a Catholic website I believe, but it’s been quite widely reported on the internet. Pretty interesting stuff…
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTNlNDc1MmMwNDM0OTEzMjQ4NDc0ZGUyOWYxNmEzN2E
And note also the ignorance.
The last time I looked, both Germany and France had right-wing governments. They are neither “left-wing” nor “old socialist”. I think both Angela Merkel and Niclolas Sarkozy would be extremely surprised at this odd characterisation of their respective administrations.
Rather their governments seem to care rather more about this dreadful pandemic than does ours or indeed this foolhardy and culpable Pope.
Oh, dear… I must confess that I’m getting rather tired of this game of ping-pong, but, for some reason don’t like to be called ignorant, therefore, will take this one last opportunity to reply to a post which has been personally vindictive.
It seems that you are not aware that the French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, is the left-wing founder of Médecins Sans Frontières. When he accepted the invitation by Sarkozy to become his Foreign Minister he was formally expelled from the Socialist Party (though, doubtless remained true to his convictions). Sarkozy appointed other ministers from the left, including Eric Besson, who had previously served as Ségolène Royal’s economic adviser. I can only guess that Bernard Kouchner’s spokesman share’s his master’s ideals.
Needless to say, after several centuries of mistrust the Church and State in France remain firmly separate and the Constitution of the Fifth Republic declares the nation to be “a secular, democratic and social Republic” and emphasises France’s “attachment to The Right’s of Man and…the Declaration of 1789.” You might not be aware of the fact that the Church in France was persecuted throughout the Revolution and well into the 20th Century, and that most of the political establishment see it as a duty to “stand up” to the Church.
It is also quite apparent that you have no idea that Angela Merkel heads a coalition government, and that Ulla Schmidt is a member of the Social Democratic Party, and was previous to that a member of the Communist League! Ulla Schmidt is not a member of Merkel’s party, which is the Christian Democratic Union (closely allied with the Christian Social Union). As far as I know the Health Minister has no religious belief, though I am not sure about that. My guess is that she isn’t a fan of the Catholic Church!
Anyway, needless to say I need not go into the other parliamentarians, NGO reps and so on who were quoted… Unless you think that the German Green MEP is somehow a right-wing traditionalist Catholic? Lol!
A gentleman would not try and call his “opponent’s” character/intelligence, etc into question. This just shows how desperate you are to score points. Unfortunately, this is, yet again, a matter of seeing the speck in your brother’s eye and missing the plak in your own! An apology would be nice. As for the contributions to the debate I will not post any more replies on this subject… I do not want to hijack Jon’s blog. Which, may I say, I rather enjoy reading!
From Der Spiegel:
Facebook Users to Flood Vatican with Condoms
Pope Benedict XVI triggered yet another scandal when he criticized the use of condoms in the fight against AIDS in Africa. Now the protests are taking an unusual form: The pontiff is about to receive a deluge of condoms by post — gifts from international members of a Facebook group.
When Benedict XVI travelled to Africa, the continent worst-hit by AIDS, he stumbled, once again, head first into an international controversy. His remarks that condoms were not the answer in the continent’s battle against the killer virus sparked vociferous criticism from experts and politicans alike.
Now that anger is being expressed in an unusual way: An Italian group on the social networking Web site Facebook is urging people to post condoms to the pope in protest over his remarks. It expects 60,000 subscribers will send a condom to the Vatican on Friday.
The postal protest is “a peaceful provocation … a reaction to the pope’s absurd words on condoms,” wrote the Italian organizers of the Facebook group, which now has more than 26,000 members. It said it represented young people “who are the closest and most interested in this kind of question.”
Similar social networking groups supporting the condom campaign have sprung up elsewhere on Facebook, triggering pledges of participation from across Europe and beyond. Some estimate that deliveries to the pontiff may total 5 million. One Web site calls on people to either send a real condom addressed to “His Holiness” at the Vatican or a photograph of the contraceptive to his email address.
The pope’s comments, made to journalists aboard his flight to Cameroon, also came under attack from expert quarters on Friday. Britain’s The Lancet, one of the world’s most influential medical journals, argued in its latest edition that the comments distorted scientific evidence. It singled out Benedict’s remark that condoms do not help and even ’’increase the problem’’ of AIDS for particular criticism.
“By saying that condoms exacerbate the problem of HIV/AIDS, the pope has publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on this issue,” the London-based journal said in an editorial. “Whether the pope’s error was due to ignorance or a deliberate attempt to manipulate science to support Catholic ideology is unclear.”
The journal also called on him to make a retraction. “Anything less from Pope Benedict would be an immense disservice to the public and health advocates, including many thousands of Catholics, who work tirelessly to try and prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS worldwide,” it wrote.
Jon
There is really no need for you to apologise for your demeanour during the interview.
Auntie Joanne is clearly deluded and is too easily swayed by Herr Ratzinger and his invisible zombie friends.
I am troubled by the use of Dr Green’s research by catholic apologists in this debate – it makes you wonder whether the catholic church has paid for his education and awarded him a Templeton Foundation grant in each of the past 7 years…….?
Dr Green is a man who has spent time on the issue being debated. I chose to cite him as an independent researcher. I did so in good faith. I have no knowledge of any agenda – other than factual – he wishes to propose. Do you know something about him that might add to the debate?