The Vatican and their anti birth control stance should also receive a fair share of the blame. Matter of fact, I think the pope should be charged with crimes against humanity for this stance.
The roman catholic church has rules and nobody is forced to follow those rules. If some people like to think they are roman catholics then they should follow those rules which include not having sex unless you are procreating.
Now you can say the church should evolve, become modern, and while that would be fair, it's also fair for the church to stand by their ideals.
You can insist and say they have a fair share of responsability for those who follow them which should make them evolve faster but people need to start thinking for themselves and think about what's more important: being roman catholic or using a condom?
I'd say there's only one way you comply to both: if you're married to someone HIV positive and want to procreate. If that's the case, you might want to think about your child which might carry HIV too.
edit: At the end of my post I said "your child which will probably carry HIV" but apparently it's not a high probability as pointed by sounddust so I changed it to "might carry". Thanks, sounddust!
Pope Benedict said on the eve of his trip that he wanted to wrap his arms around the entire continent, with "its painful wounds, its enormous potential and hopes".
HIV/Aids was, he argued, "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem". [1]
The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk. [2]
The church can invent whatever rules it likes and people can chose to follow them or not, but spreading lies about condoms is not acceptable.
One thing I want to point out: mother-to-infant transmission of HIV is around 2-8% with proper preventative treatment and 15-30% without, so I disagree that the child will "probably" carry HIV, although it is certainly a risk.
I'm not sure what should the church do but I know I'm fascinated by those who follow those rules. I'm not talking about those who follow it blindly but of those who really believe it.
I edited the original post to reflect the right probability of a child carrying HIV from their parents, thanks!
Naturally, if you happen to be among the elite/leadership, maybe encouraging religion seems like the better idea.
This is wishful thinking.
There are many heavily (90%+) Catholic countries with a culture that does not take kindly to outliers. You are forced to follow the rules, if not by threat of violence or social ostracization then by prosaic reality such as low to non-existent availability of condoms.
Further, much as I wish everyone would think for themselves and so on, if you've always been taught that the church is not just right, but divinely infallible, and disobeying the teachings will score you an eternity of damnation and some nice hellfire, for many, many people disobeying will not be quite as easy as saying "nobody is forced to follow those rules."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7967173.stm
It said the Pope's recent comments that condoms exacerbated the problem of HIV/Aids were wildly inaccurate and could have devastating consequences.
The Pope had said the "cruel epidemic" should be tackled through abstinence and fidelity rather than condom use.
Unfortunately, the message could be "if you are really going to sin, at least sin in a way that doesn't endanger yours and your partner's life" not "do not sin and damn the condoms"
Church argument: Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods. http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
I don't follow the church's argument, but crimes against humanity? That's just silly. So why are yall down-voting him?
I'm not a catholic, but you have to try to see it from their perspective. What kind of moral leader are you, if you say "don't sin, but if you're going to sin anyway, here's the best way to do it"?
To draw a parallel: Suicide is very very wrong. But doing it wrong will put you in a lot of pain and might handicap you - so we should make small pamphlets for teenagers saying "don't kill yourself - but here are some tips if you're going to anyway".
For someone who's not opposed to premarital sex or contraception, it's an unreasonably far stretch to compare - but I'm not at all sure that's not pretty much how they feel about it.
Specifically, I disagree with their interpretation of the passage about the man spilling his seed. It wasn't worth death because he spilled his seed, but because he deliberately deprived his brother of a child, rather than simply being infertile as other men who failed to father children were.
[edited]
Isn't that basically the same as "no sex outside marriage"?
Please focus on the first part: "condoms exacerbated the problem of HIV/AIDS".
The statement is wildly untrue, and makes the Church guilty of STD's spread.
Doesn't really seem plausible, does it?
It doesn't, but I think this is what happens in practice.
Her main concern was not for health problems but moral ones: she had sinned for sex outside of marriage and was repentent etc. When I asked if she'd "at least used a condom" she looked horrified "oh no! I couldn't do that"
The problem is that sex outside of marriage is a sin with reward; you get to have sex, that feels good. Condoms are not a necessary part of that act (I don't know of anyone who prefers them! :)) and so the sin is "easier to avoid". There is not necessarily a perceived reward for using contraception (at least at the time of the act). You can lose but not gain. etc.
Certainly an amount of HIV infections may come about due to Church teachings causing a lack of condom usage (for example). But that feels more like a side effect.
If your coming from the aspect of negligence in them failing to address the problem of STD infection properly in their ideals then I agree that is poor form. But crimes against humanity? Bit far perhaps.
(also, if you're talking about the misinformation spread r.e. condom failure that is certainly something we should take issue with)