Hermenuetics

Comments

Amen to that. I won't go into what the Pope's role is or isn't, but, as a Christian, I must look for the way that looks out for those who cannot look out for themselves. Thanks for posting this.

Posted By: Vinita Wright | April 3, 2009 9:37 AM

Amen, again I say amen. People too often -- popes among them -- presume a "just like me" scenario when they go pontificating about how others should behave. [Okay, so granted, it's the pope's job to pontificate...] They presume the same experience, knowledge, privilege, mores, rights. And when it's the LIFE of innocent women and children that hang in the balance -- children who become orphans and unadoptable -- if their dads have brought AIDS home and robbed them of a mother as well as a father -- then practical ways of stemming aids (if/until something else truly works better) might in fact be the most "pro-life" stance to take. But that doesn't mean that education (about abstinance also) isn't critical, because it is. I mean, just a look at your chance of pregnancy from using "condoms alone" makes you realize that condoms-vs-aids is like playing Russian Roulette. But at least condoms are a start -- yet ALWAYS need to come with some realistic stats about their true effectiveness, lest users mistakenly kid themselves into a sense of false security. Personally, I don't buy the "either/or" argument on contraceptives. It's both/and. I've counseled teen moms who thought that oral contraceptives were an iron-clad guarantee that they'd NEVER get pregnant -- and so acted accordingly. Smart girls who've had to have a doc tell them and their moms why they were feeling nausea and bloated! That's how clueless people have become when they buy into the false "quick fix" presupposition...

Posted By: Mary Lynn H. | April 3, 2009 11:04 AM

Very well put, LaVonne. Your calling the pope on the "either-or idealism" picks up on something his defenders did not.

A lot of commentators who wrote in defense of the pope did it in articles in which they also promoted the ABC strategy. They failed to mention, of course, that ABC--insofar as it combines condoms with abstinence and faithfulness promotion--is something the pope's recent statements are *incompatible* with (because of the either/or rhetoric).

So these commentators defend the pope and as an example they stress combination of faithfulness/lifestyle education and condoms. They advocate on behalf the pope's unequivocal exclusion of condoms by pointing to remedies that include condoms.

That was the tack in the CT article "Why the Pope is Right about Condoms." Similarly, once Green was done defending the pope, he said he had "no problem having condoms as a backup to fidelity-based programs.” Bottom line for me, without pitting statistics against statistics: Even the pope's defenders attest to the power of condoms to prevent AIDS, at least in some measure.

Posted By: Agnieszka | April 3, 2009 5:45 PM

I'm curious as to why the success of Uganda in battling HIV/AIDS isn't even mentioned?

Kamilla

Posted By: Kamilla | April 3, 2009 5:53 PM

Apparently Christianity Today now aspires to be the voice of what Schaeffer described as "post-Christian America".

Posted By: David Gray | April 3, 2009 6:04 PM

Mrs. Neff:

I live in sub-saharan Africa and you and your missionary friend have no clue.

The pope is exactly correct and so is Kamilla.

David

Posted By: David Wegener | April 4, 2009 12:43 AM

Personally, I don't think the use or non-use of condoms is any of the Pope's business, however I found the scenario used to support the use of condoms ludicrous:

"what about the wife and mother who stays in the village to care for her family while her husband goes off to a distant city to work?"

So, what you are saying is, that the wife and mother should automatically suspect her husband of being unfaithful and demand that he wear a condom? Wow, that will make for good marriage relationships.

How many women readers here, if their husbands are away on business, when they come home demand that their husbands wear a condom "just in case". Isn't the demand that they wear a condom an accusation that they have been unfaithful?

How many women readers here think that their husbands are unfaithful the minute they leave town?

Besides, do you really think that men will wear a condom simply because the Pope tells them to? After all, the Pope is telling them "do not commit adultery", and if they don't listen to the Pope on this issue, what makes anyone think they will listen to the Pope on condoms? I can see it now, the man goes to the prostitute and says, "wait - I have to wear a condom before I sin because the Pope tells me to".

Posted By: Jim Sparks | April 6, 2009 11:45 PM

Why is there a general expectation that it's the pope's job to grant moral exceptions based on a person's particular circumstances? The Church's job is to teach us God's will and God's moral code -as it applies to ALL humans. Then it is up to each individual conscience -ideally a conscience well-formed in the faith and guided by an ojective, mature counsellor- to decide if one's particular circumstances warrant an exception. I'm sure that a devout African wife could -in GOOD CONSCIENCE- ask her husband to use a condom if she knew he was unfaithful. (Whether he WOULD use one is a different story.) But honestly, how many actual cases of this situation exist in the world? This hypothetical woman doesn't need the pope's blessing or permission, nor does her situation or decision affect in the least the pope's position that theologically speaking, condoms are IMMORAL in God's eyes, and practically speaking, they do NOT offer reliable protection against AIDS in the long run.

Christians have used hypothetical worst-case scenarios to grant exceptions for abortion and divorce, with the end result that abortion and divorce are now widely accepted among Christians. The Pope knows FULL WELL what would happen if he so much as uttered the suggestion that a devout, married woman could in good conscience use condoms to protect herself from her errant husband. The world is clamoring for the pope to back down; Christians should be asking themselves why they are in agreement with the world.

Posted By: Gaby | April 7, 2009 2:43 AM

Based on many of the comments made, as well as the article, here is my current conundrum:

WHY is everyone so pissed at the pope? Why aren't we pissed at the African men who regularly cheat on their wives (with or without condoms)?

AIDS is spreading due to infedility and promiscuity. The numbers suggest condoms aren't making a big enough difference in Africa, so why expect the pope to promote them (particularly when we already know the Catholic stance on contraceptives)?

People think it's a contradiction when they defend the pope and then simultaneously prop up ABC as the solution. But it's not, because we know it's not the pope's job to become a humanist/pluralist. Jim Sparks' point is extremely relevant: if a man is ignoring the Pope's call to abstinence/fidelity, what makes you think they'll jump on board if the Pope says "oh, and try condoms too?"

From the Pope's perspective, it *is* an either/or, and that's okay. He's not the only voice on the issue. We need the Pope to stress that abstinence/fidelity is a FAR more effective solution, that condoms *won't* guarantee you immunity from AIDS, etcetc. And for all the contingent plans, well, I think Africans have already been inundated with ABC and pro-condom propoganda. And we also see the failures in this regard.

Posted By: Patrick Gann | April 7, 2009 9:56 AM

LaVonne:

You say you are concerned about women and children but you seem to be turning a blind eye to the facts: condom promotion is NOT preventing AIDS or protecting women and children. It is encouraging promiscuity and giving a false sense of security to the unfaithful who only use them irregularly.

It is bigoted for us to assume that African men are not capable of learning the value of monogomous relationships. True, the continent has a long history of sexual unfaithfulness, but the AIDS epidemic is an opportunity to teach them the absolute necessity of faithfulness. It is imperialistic to impose the failed ideology of the 60's sexual revolution on a continent in peril--teaching them they can have it both ways, implying by condom education and distribution that they can continue in their multiple relationships but now without consequence.

You are claiming you are against extremes: either condom-only distribution or fidelity-only education. Instead, you say, you are for both--teaching about condoms and fidelity. What you don't understand that your "middle ground" way has failed statistically. All the "condom first" programs already do teach about fidelity, on the side--the facts are in and those programs are not reducing AIDS!!

What if I consistently taught my son the value of staying chaste until marriage and then sent him with a pack of condoms every time he went on a date, just in case. I would be insane to expect him to heed my empty words. Instead, I should expect him to have a pregnant girlfriend before too long. But that's why I gave him the condoms, so this wouldn't happen.

What Timothy Morgan wrote was:
"Government-supported efforts to promote condom use have the result (intentional or unintentional) of also promoting extra- or pre-marital sexual relations, also putting a population at risk of other sexually transmitted diseases."

Like it or not, this is just a fact. The only program that has reduced AIDS is the abstinence/fidelity program promoted by Ugandan President, Yoweri Museveniin. His ABC program did advocate condoms as well (A for abstinence, B for Be Faithful, C for condoms) but the promotion of condoms was not main thrust, as they have been in all the previous failed programs.

If the jury was still out, we could argue all day about who's theory to reduce AIDS is better--your condoms first program with a little fidelity mixed in or my abstinence-emphasis program. But now the results are in and those who really care about women and children will promote the only program that has been proven to work--whether or not it lines up with our ideology.

Posted By: Leslie Taylor | April 14, 2009 9:32 AM

The attitude that "we can't stop the behavior, so let's just distribute condoms" is patronizing and borderline racist.

Oh, those black Africans, they can't control themselves!

Until we admit to ourselves that AIDS is a behaviorally-spread disease and recognize that the only truly effective way to combat the disease is to significantly reduce the behaviors that spread the disease, we'll never come close to solving the problem.

Posted By: Scott Tibbs | April 14, 2009 8:18 PM

My wife always requires me to wear a condom, I never leave town on business but I'm gone from work for 8 hours per day, and she figures, "you never know if he'll pick up more than a Big Mac at lunch."

I respect her right as a woman to protect herself. I also wear condoms because I don't trust her alone with the milk-man during the day.

Posted By: Konrad Mueller | April 15, 2009 3:19 PM