SENDING a package of prophylactics signifies a lot less in terms of self-giving in comparison to someone who has left their country and dedicates their lives to caring for people sick with AIDS.
These are the words of the Rev John Wauck, Professor of Literature at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome. His comment was published after the Vatican lashed out at critics this week, saying that they were trying to “intimidate” Ratzinger into silence regarding condom use in the battle against AIDS.
Wauck insisted that the Vatican’s response was diplomatically appropriate and was actually restrained in that it didn’t highlight the enormous work that the Catholic Church undertakes in caring for AIDS sufferers.
Am I right in thinking that Wauck was cynically suggesting that AIDs is a recruitment opportunity for the Church in countries ravaged by the disease? If so, it must rate it as one of the most of the most offensive views ever expressed by the Vatican regarding this issue.
'Angel of Death' Pope Ratzinger
In a strongly worded statement, the Vatican defended the Pope’s view that condoms aren’t the answer to Africa’s AIDS epidemic and could make it worse. On his way to Africa last month, he said the best strategy is the church’s effort to promote sexual responsibility through abstinence and monogamy.
France, Germany, the United Nations’ AIDS-fighting agency and the British medical journal The Lancet called the remarks irresponsible and dangerous. The Belgian parliament passed a resolution calling them “unacceptable” and demanded Belgium’s government officially protest.
Belgium’s ambassador to the Holy See lodged the formal protest last Wednesday, prompting the Vatican Secretariat to issue its tough statement denouncing the Belgian vote. The Vatican said it deplored:
The fact that a parliamentary assembly should have thought it appropriate to criticize the Holy Father on the basis of an isolated extract from an interview, separated from its context.
It said Benedict’s remarks to reporters had been:
Used by some groups with a clear intent to intimidate, as if to dissuade the pope from expressing himself on certain themes of obvious moral relevance and from teaching the church’s doctrine.
According to this report, the Vatican said the criticism of the pontiff had been followed by an “unprecedented media campaign” in Europe extolling the value of condoms in fighting AIDS while ignoring Benedict’s message about the need for responsible sexuality and to care for those suffering from AIDS.
Said a Vatican spokesman, the Rev Federico Lombardi:
The Vatican is responding to this protest in a measured and balanced way, but also firmly and clearly. We are making it clear that the Pope and the church won’t be intimidated by these criticisms or by media campaigns and will continue to staunchly support Catholic positions on moral issues.
The Belgian resolution, passed on April 2, said Benedict’s comments ran against numerous international declarations and actions taken by the UN and groups fighting AIDS and other transmittable diseases. It called the remarks “unacceptable” and said the Belgian government didn’t share them.
The Pope’s views on condoms were parroted in an Easter message by Australia’s Cardinal George Pell. His “dangerous” and “irresponsible” words were immediately attacked by Professor Mike Toole, head of the Centre for International Health at the Burnet Institute, and Professor Rob Moodie, chair of global health at the University of Melbourne’s Nossal Institute.
In an article in The Age, they wrote:
George Pell’s Easter message that condoms have contributed to Africa’s AIDS problem by encouraging promiscuity is not consistent with the evidence, and is dangerous.
In linking religion to effective HIV prevention, Pell might look at Papua New Guinea, where in the last census 96 per cent of households reported being Christian. With two per cent of adults infected, PNG has the most severe HIV epidemic in the Asia Pacific region.
They added:
In PNG and elsewhere, including Africa, condoms are an essential element of efforts to slow the spread of HIV. There is unlikely to be an effective HIV vaccine for at least another decade. Given the evidence, it is irresponsible to suggest that condoms are ineffective. To suggest that condoms increase promiscuity is an old argument for which there is no evidence.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
April 18th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Nice to see ratzi the natzi attempting to appeal to a younger audience by going punk. Nice mohecan.
April 18th, 2009 at 10:36 am
That photo of Ratzinger reminds of the “Father Ted” episode in which Father Jack impersonates Elvis!
Check out 21:08 minutes into the following video!
Father Ted – Competition TimeUploaded by scootaway
April 18th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Own up, Barry. The Pope was placed by you as a long time “sleeper” to sabotage the Roman Catholic faith, church and whatever. Either that or it is early onset brain mush brought on by too much religious indoctrination and an absence of thinking. Use it or lose it applies to the brain as much as it does to the body.
April 18th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
“…as if to dissuade the pope from expressing himself…” We certainly don’t want to do that. Every time this asshole opens his mouth, he shows up the RC church for the vile and disgusting organization it is. By all means Ratzi, rant on.
April 18th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
As an ex catholic long time ago, I am continually reminded why in the history of the catholic church, greed, homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, castration, slavery, murder, war and general perversion is so necessary in the practices of the church, money. The church is a bunch of men who dress up in gold stolen from poor helpless ignorants and utilized for their own pleasure. Ain’t it sweet. The largest percentage of followers are uneducated third world persons. Most money comes from the smallest percentage of the uneducated first world.
Religion is dope for the ignorant.
April 18th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Ratzinger’s remarks and the Vatican’s handling of this situation have been reprehensible, but I think you’re dramatically misreading Wauck’s quote – in fact, there’s no reason to assume he is saying anything “cynically,” and nowhere does he even hint at a recruitment opportunity. Wauck was merely suggesting that a package of condoms was an inadequate response to the AIDS crisis, and that going to AIDS-ravaged countries to provide medical aid for the sick would be a better one. In fact, that’s exactly what he said.
I find no basis for your interpretation; in fact, it seems like you’ve worked quite hard to put the most nefarious possible spin on this quotation. I’m not convinced.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Re : Am I right in thinking that Wauck was cynically suggesting that AIDs is a recruitment opportunity for the Church in countries ravaged by the disease? – no I don’t think you are at all correct – I think you are reading things into what people are saying that aren’t actually there . Rev John Wauck is talking about making the hard moral decisions . It’s nothing about spreading the influence of the Catholic Church – at least not in the sense you seem to be thinking .
April 19th, 2009 at 12:54 am
Yes of course the catholic church goes and helps the sick in the third world, without even considering it as an opportunity to convert the godless heathens. /sarcasm
April 19th, 2009 at 3:27 am
Let me remind you Catholics that going to help AIDS ravaged people has been going on for many years now, by organisations other than the RCC.
Also let me remind you that helping people is only what you’re supposed to be doing in the first place, considering you all bleat about how self sacrificing you all are and how grateful we all should be towards you for all your self sacrifice, and also let me remind you that most of the sick and dying people with AIDS are sick and dying of AIDS because the RCC put them there in the first place. The number of people who have contracted AIDS directly because of the no-condom policy of the RCC must be legion.
It’s like the RCC is saying, there’s a nasty illness out there, but don’t worry, if you get it because we won’t let you take precautions, we will look after you when you get sick of the illness we stopped you from protecting yourself from in the first place: thus a vicious circle is set up.
No prevention of the illness, means wards in catholic run clinics are full of people who are there because of catholic dogma.
Regardless of whether this priest was being cynical or not, the fact remains that the no-condom stance of the RCC is adding and abetting the spread of a very serious illness that causes monstrous human suffering that could be helped in prevention through educated condom use; no one is saying condoms are the cure–they are a helpful prevention, not a cure. Only a vaccine will help with that, and what is the RC church doing to help SCIENCE research for a vaccine? Nothing I would suggest. and if we do find an effective vaccine for AIDS I can bet my bottom dollar the RCC will then come out against it
Go screw yourselves, catholics…preferably without a condom for your safety of your personal sexual health.
April 19th, 2009 at 9:27 am
“If we do find an effective vaccine for AIDS I can bet my bottom dollar the RCC will then come out against it.” Just like they did regarding the vaccine against the virus that causes cervical cancer. Also the very idea of vaccination was opposed by the RCC when it was first invented.
Ratty helps the Atheist cause every time his opens his moronic mouth and ordinary Catholics prove themselves to be contemptible excuses for human beings when they come on here to defend him.
April 19th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
dick musser. Apart from that they are just great. Dick I liked our post. I am reading Hitler’s Pope by John Cornwell and I just do not get it. Why are people still being taken in? They must be ignorant; unthinking, priest fodder. You are on target.
April 20th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Oh white Professors in their University ivory towers. The accepted wisdom in the scientific community,such as Professor Mike Toole, and Professor Rob Moodie,is that condoms lower the HIV infection rate, but after numerous studies, researchers have found the opposite to be true. As Senior Harvard Research Scientist for AIDS Prevention, Dr. Edward Green admits “We just cannot find an association between more condom use and lower HIV reduction rates†Two countries that have the highest infection rate of AIDS in the world, Botswana and Swaziland, have recently launched campaigns to promote fidelity and monogamy, the Harvard researcher said. These countries “have learned the hard way†about the failure of condoms in preventing AIDS, he said, noting that “Botswana has probably had more condom promotion†than any other county on a per capita basis.
Dr Green supports the belief that increased Condom promotion actually worsens the problem as the result of a phenomenon known as risk compensation or behavioral disinhibition. Risk compensation is the idea that if somebody is using a certain technology to reduce risk, a phenomenon actually occurs where people are willing to take on greater risk.
Despite intensive condom promotion in schools more Australians are catching sexually transmitted diseases than a decade ago. Perhaps the two Professors and others who follow the condom cult, believe this failure is also due to the Catholic Church, rather than admit condom promotion to young adults actually encourages them into risky sexual practices, a fact that those young adults actually admit to.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
My daughter did a gap year in Cambodia working with children born with the HIV virus. The agency (MAGNA) she worked for adopted HIV children or in some cases took care of children with HIV where their parents could not afford treatment. With the proper medication the children can live up to 40 years and can have children (through sperm washing or some kind of medication given to their children at birth). The older children are taught about the use of condoms and further spreading of the disease.
A similar Catholic agency in Cambodia also adopts HIV children and if they are orphaned, they are automatically converted from Budhists to Catholics. This agency would only take in children if their guardians and the children converted to Catholicism. These HIV infected children were then removed from society and sent to a remote but isolated area where they would have no normal intervention with the general public.
It is disgusting and sickening when Catholics receive directive from a Pope who does not understand the simple mechanics of preventing the sperm from fusing with the egg, which is not ‘murder’ of an unborn child, but prevention of an incurable disease (at the moment). Or is it his intention that these children through no fault of their own live celibate lives until they die. It may be his choice but not theirs!
April 24th, 2009 at 4:31 am
The Catholic agency that looks after HIV victims in Cambodia is Caritas Cambodia which was registered with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1990. It started working in Boeung, Tumpon, Phnom Penh Suburb and Battambang. Over the years, its has extended it activities to Kompong Cham, Kompong Thom, Siem Reap, Kandal and to more districts in Battambang, covering 203 villages.
Caritas Cambodia provides curative, preventive, and promotive health facilities in the rural areas. Bringing health care as close as possible to where people live and work, especially women, children and elders.
Caritas Cambodia works through Peoples Organizations namely Village Development Associations. As of now, Caritas has formed and strengthen over 250 Village Development Associations in 6 Provinces.
To improve the qualities of the life of PLWHA (people living with HIV/ AIDS) and their families, Caritas Cambodia provides comprehensive home based care, rather than isolating them from their family and villages.
In any country that Caritas works in especially those where the religion is Buddhists or Hindu it is especially sensitive to the charge of Proselytism, however the charge is often heard, based on fear rather than facts, that the agency forces people to convert, a charge if it was factual would bring strong sanctions from the government of that country.
I commend sas001 daughter who gave up a year of her life to work with Magna which opened its own permanent mission in Cambodia in 2003 and currently operates in Phnom Penh, Kandal and Takeo, and has similar aims as Caritas.
In regards ‘sas001′ charge that “Catholics receive directive from a Pope who does not understand the simple mechanics of preventing the sperm from fusing with the egg, which is not ‘murder’ of an unborn child,”
I assure you that is not what the Pope or catholics think, however the inference from that statement can be made that ‘sas001′ believes that once the sperm does fuse with the egg then abortion that terminates it after that event is ‘murder’ of an unborn child,”
April 24th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
@ brian ingram
Firstly I do believe all life is sacred, and am against abortion. But I also understand the choice to terminate or not to terminate cannot be determined in black and white. There are always circumstances surrounding those life and ‘death’ decisions. In the cases where stupidity is involved i.e. careless sex I am 100% against abortion.
Secondly, I can understand why it is considered to be a sin to have sex before marriage because catholics believe in the sanctity of marriage, but the Pope and the catholic hieracrchy are against condom use even when the couples are married. Why is that considered a sin? Is it not a choice for married couples to control their own reproduction?
Lastly, rather than look up charities and read what they actually do, perhaps you should take a visit and investigate how they operate – I did. You will note that they do proselytise and then count the number of Buddhist and Hindu children in their groups. Also note that governments in developing countries through lack of funding or corruption turn a blind eye to how charitable works are carried out.
For your information I was raised a Roman Catholic, but walked away from the hypocrisy and bigotry. I also help raise funds for HIV children in Malawi and once a year visit that country to review progress.
April 25th, 2009 at 5:36 am
sas001
I take it you consider the condom to be central to combating aids. However your very point “In the cases where stupidity is involved i.e. careless sex I am 100% against abortion.†is equally valid for those who catch HIV/STD through stupidly. Though they know all about condoms and safe sex 20/30% of couples who engage in sex do not always use them. Do you say to these people who subsequently pick up HIV/STD “I will not treat you because you were stupid� Is this not moral relativism?
In regards Catholic charities, no, I have no first hand knowledge, however the Sunday past I was at a convention and listened to a religious sister working in Vietnam with children, many who had been abandoned, who had been born deformed by the use of Agent Orange in the Vietnam war. She testified that she was prohibited to identify herself as Catholic, a nun, or mention any thing about Christianity. Where ever she went she was followed by Government agents.
In regards contraception in marriage, it was widespread in the Roman world, at the birth of Christianity. From the beginning up to the present it was condemned by the Church. The first instance recorded being in the ancient church document the Didache (written 80-100ad)
A Catholic couple may for serious reasons may limit the number of children, but may use moral methods such as NFP. There is an essential difference between contraception and NFP. With contraception, the marital act is perverted from its natural purpose and meaning. The procreative aspect is deliberately blocked. With NFP, the act takes place in an entirely natural way. Nature renders a woman periodically infertile, and the couple chooses to have sex only during these times.
Lastly I would like to know what Catholic Charities your daughter and yourself say “adopts HIV children and if they are orphaned, they are automatically converted from Buddhists to Catholics”. and “would only take in children if their guardians and the children converted to Catholicism.” A statement which I strongly dispute
April 25th, 2009 at 5:45 am
sas001
I take it you consider the condom to be central to combating aids. However your very point “In the cases where stupidity is involved i.e. careless sex I am 100% against abortion.†is equally valid for those who catch HIV/STD through stupidly. Though they know all about condoms and safe sex 20/30% of couples who engage in sex do not always use them. Do you say to these people who subsequently pick up HIV/STD “I will not treat you because you were stupid� Is this not moral relativism?
In regards Catholic charities, no, I have no first hand knowledge, however the Sunday past I was at a convention and listened to a religious sister working in Vietnam with children, many who had been abandoned, who had been born deformed by the use of Agent Orange in the Vietnam war. She testified that she was prohibited to identify herself as Catholic, a nun, or mention any thing about Christianity. Where ever she went she was followed by Government agents.
In regards contraception in marriage it was widespread in the Roman world, at the birth of Christianity. From the beginning up to the present it was condemned by the Church. The first instance recorded being in the ancient church document the Didache (written 80-100ad)
A Catholic couple may for serious reasons may limit the number of children, but may use moral methods such as NFP. There is an essential difference between contraception and NFP. With contraception, the marital act is perverted from its natural purpose and meaning. The procreative aspect is deliberately blocked. With NFP, the act takes place in an entirely natural way. Nature renders a woman periodically infertile, and the couple chooses to have sex only during these times.
Lastly I would like to know the Catholic agencies that you and your daughter accuses of “only taking in children if their guardians and the children converted to Catholicism.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
The reason why Catholics are against condom use, even in marriage is it destroys any chance of reproduction. We prevent the hand of God from becoming present. Sex then becomes merely an act of pleasure. Pleasure is good but shouldn't be the sole purpose. The woman then only becomes an object of the man's lust and vice versa. Hypocisy does not exist in the teaching of the Church, people have just become accusstomed to hear what they want and only want to follow their own beliefs instead of what Christ preached.