I know it's another editorial, but some people took offense that it was a Planned Parenthood editorial the last time, so here is one from the St. Petersburg Times. Has the Pope actually commissioned a study? I will find out, but I think Kristi, you would know this? I will try to find out. I merely find it interesting, since AIDS is such a huge problem in Africa, and this would at least allow partners, in MARRIAGE I mean, to protect themselves.
Vatican shift on condoms
With millions of AIDS deaths in Africa, a change in policy would be welcome.
By Times editorial
Published May 7, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is too early to tell whether Pope Benedict XVI is prepared to relax Roman Catholic doctrine and sanction the use of condoms to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS. Benedict has asked the Vatican to study whether condoms are acceptable for married couples as a means to prevent the transmission of HIV. Such a move would carve away long-held Catholic teaching that artificial contraception violates the dignity of human life. It also could save countless lives, especially in Africa, where the United Nations classifies HIV as "the single greatest threat" to security and economic development.
Many Africans implored Benedict, on his election last year as pope, to find a middle ground to ease a pandemic devastating the church's fastest-growing region. Since the 1980s, the United Nations reports, 50-million in Africa have been infected with HIV and 20-million have died. AIDS has deprived Africa of parents, an able-bodied work force and much of the means to grow economically or even feed itself. Of the 5-million new infections reported worldwide last year, according to U.N. figures, 64 percent were in sub-Saharan Africa. In June, speaking to African bishops, the pope recognized the "epidemic" but said the "contraception mentality" should not unhinge the tradition of abstinence. It is unclear whether this study signals a change or hardening of Benedict's position.
Either way, having senior Catholic clergy refer to the practice as "a lesser evil" brings the debate forward from only several years ago, when the Vatican condemned condoms as ineffective against HIV. It also shows Benedict capable of opening the church to freewheeling public controversy, a confidence detractors did not expect from the conservative German cardinal. Benedict may have focused the issue narrowly on whether condoms should spare spouses a deadly disease. But any doctrinal change would surely be seen as a broader retreat on contraception. Likewise, Benedict forced a more honest debate about the many factors, apart from condoms, that contribute to the spread of HIV in Africa, from the weaknesses in the continent's health care system to societal attitudes toward women that encourage high-risk sex.
By calling attention to its own role in shaping prevention efforts, the church has raised the stakes for itself to do more to help governments and people worldwide make responsible decisions. As many as 80-million people could die from AIDS in Africa by 2025. That makes condoms a life issue. It is good the church sees it so, enough to wade through moral distinctions that could make a difference.
[Last modified May 7, 2006, 09:33:46]
5 comments:
I read an article on CNN that said the vatican was shifting its stance to letting married couples where one partner has aids to wear condoms.
It makes sense that that would be the only exception given their other stances on procreation and extra marital sex.
See, and that's what I was interested in portraying with the editorials. I don't know why people were so upset. I mean, it's more a disease prevention issue, not a procreation and/or pre-marital sex one. Thanks Sara!
I just posted this, but I want to make sure people know I said it.
First of all, who is pixi, and how does she know my name is felix?
Second, Katie, I KNOW. That's why I wrote what I wrote. No need to repeat what I already said. I was just adding more fun info to the topic.
Third, back to pixi, the "church" is so specifically being discussed in this case because the vast majority of other christian religions allow some form of condom use at some point. Condoms are strictly a no-no among the catholic sect.
well, part of the problem with using anything from PP is that it is going to be obviously biased. Like if I posted an article from lifenews.net, it would obviously biased in a pro-life way. Which is why most people prefer to find the most non-biased way to present their message.
You wouldnt want to go looking for non-biased stuff towards Pres. Bush at Fox News, for example, because they obviously love him and think he walks on water.
Speaking of walking on water, we saw the Da Vinci Code yesterday, a group of Catholics, a christian and a pagan, and all of us loved it. Anyone else?
Yes, Loved Da Vinci Code. I do think that you want to find unbiased reporting, but I don't think that using PP automatically makes it biased. I do think there is a bias...but this was about condom use not abortion, which is of course, what PP started out as being - a place to get birth control and health information. I think they are still true to that. Abortion is ony one of the things they advise on, and being against abortion doesn't mean you are necessarily against pp. Oh, and Felix, Pixi is my older sister Judy.
Post a Comment