SEX!
The pope came out again today in defence of the Vatican's position against condom use in Africa to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. From Al Jazeera (great world news site):
"The only solution is two-fold," he said. "The first is a humanisation of sexuality, a human, spiritual renewal which brings with it a friendship, especially for those who are suffering, a willingness to make personal sacrifices."
And Jon Stewart's reply:
"The pope went on to say that smoking can cure cancer, and that if you need a morning pick-me-up, try heroin!"
True that. But seriously, we have ourselves a very good example of religious dogma running up against sound empirical research and statistical fact. The Vatican has a long history of denying or ignoring contrary scientific claims to the bitter end, before finally giving in only after no sane person could possibly deny said claims.
I think what the Pope means to say (let's phrase his argument as generously as possble here) that condom distribution will encourage the development of cultures in which non-monogomous sexual relations are acceptable or even preferable. In such a culture, HIV infections could conceivably be higher, even with condom availability, than they would be in a culture where only monogomous sex is acceptable or preferable.
The argument has its merit, but it just doesn't hook up with the realities of sex and HIV in Africa. The Pope's vision is impossible, and the problem now is that his prescription only makes the real situation worse. Much like America's so-named Abstinence Only sex ed. programs, this kind of religious prescription only works if people follow both the rules, namely not using contraception and abstaining. Most people (as studies show) who are educated to avoid sex and avoid contraceptives end up breaking the first fule and following the second. Why do they do this? Simple: it's easy to not use a condom, but it's damn near impossible not to have sex if one has and likes a willing partner.
I do, I really do, have a certain sense of understanding of what potential future religious people see in encouraging an abstinence-only philosophy. And I do believe some aspects of our nature can be, and even ought to be, controlled and overcome by our higher thoughts. Just not this one.
"The only solution is two-fold," he said. "The first is a humanisation of sexuality, a human, spiritual renewal which brings with it a friendship, especially for those who are suffering, a willingness to make personal sacrifices."
And Jon Stewart's reply:
"The pope went on to say that smoking can cure cancer, and that if you need a morning pick-me-up, try heroin!"
True that. But seriously, we have ourselves a very good example of religious dogma running up against sound empirical research and statistical fact. The Vatican has a long history of denying or ignoring contrary scientific claims to the bitter end, before finally giving in only after no sane person could possibly deny said claims.
I think what the Pope means to say (let's phrase his argument as generously as possble here) that condom distribution will encourage the development of cultures in which non-monogomous sexual relations are acceptable or even preferable. In such a culture, HIV infections could conceivably be higher, even with condom availability, than they would be in a culture where only monogomous sex is acceptable or preferable.
The argument has its merit, but it just doesn't hook up with the realities of sex and HIV in Africa. The Pope's vision is impossible, and the problem now is that his prescription only makes the real situation worse. Much like America's so-named Abstinence Only sex ed. programs, this kind of religious prescription only works if people follow both the rules, namely not using contraception and abstaining. Most people (as studies show) who are educated to avoid sex and avoid contraceptives end up breaking the first fule and following the second. Why do they do this? Simple: it's easy to not use a condom, but it's damn near impossible not to have sex if one has and likes a willing partner.
I do, I really do, have a certain sense of understanding of what potential future religious people see in encouraging an abstinence-only philosophy. And I do believe some aspects of our nature can be, and even ought to be, controlled and overcome by our higher thoughts. Just not this one.
Comments