[jacquesm]

> it was dumb of me to take the bait, and now I regret doing so. Sorry.

An insult in an apology :)

Joke for you: Judge: John, what did you say? John: I said he was an asshole. Judge: Apologize for that! John: Ok. "George, I'm sorry you're an asshole".

It wasn't meant as bait, sorry you interpreted it as such. It's just that the way the church has dealt with scientific stuff (and medicine is science too) is really painful and problematic to me.

Lives are at stake here, millions of them, especially in Africa and one word from one guy could change this, and he chooses not to speak it.

[stonemetal]

Any proof of that? Everything I have read shows that the uptake in condoms in Africa hasn't caused a proportionate decline in AIDS. This makes me question the hypothesis that condoms are the answer to the problem.

[jacquesm]

Condoms are not 'the answer', they are part of an answer.

This is not 'proof' but some background:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7950671.stm

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/opinion/18wed2.html

the Cochrane paper:

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102272852.h...

[stonemetal]

from your links: The Pope says>> believes marital fidelity and sexual abstinence are the best way to prevent the spread of HIV.

Scientist says >>The best way to avoid transmission of the virus is to abstain from sexual intercourse or have a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected person.

Sounds like the old dude knows what he is talking about. From those links it looks like the best plan of attack is condoms for high risk people and partner reduction strategies for the general population. The condoms for everyone approach seems to spend time and materials ineffectively.

[jacquesm]

The old dude has been abstaining from sex as long as he's been celibate (so he says), and has no sense of reality on the ground, and uses his influence to discourage the use of condoms on the grounds that there are 'better solutions', which are wholly unrealistic in practice, but suit his agenda.

If you don't play the game don't mess with the rules.

The reality is: people will have sex, both inside and outside of their relationships.

'Marital Fidelity' as a concept is great, but it is about as mythical as the tooth fairy, contrary to popular belief.

http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/cheating-and-infidelity/s...

The reality is: once a virus is present in a population it will spread, even if you are 'careful', for one because even if you are monogamous your partner that you are sure is too may not be, and they have possibly (make that probably) slept with others in the past.

To willfully ignore the reality on the ground is stupid at best and criminal at worst.

In some countries in Africa there is a 20%+ rate of sero-positivity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_a...

The scientists view is to state the 'optimum' solution, to realize that reality is different and to hold up condom use as the second best solution.

Taking it out of context like that is simply silly.

[rbanffy]

Let's see. The Pope condemns extra-marital sex.

The Pope also condemns the use of condoms.

So, between being unfaithful with a condom and being unfaithful without a condom, a good Catholic should go with #2, the lesser of the two evils.

[jacquesm]

> Everything I have read shows that the uptake in condoms in Africa hasn't caused a proportionate decline in AIDS.

On another note, your expectations are wholly without merit, the use of condoms can only halt the spreading of aids, but not its prevalence, and hence will never cause a decline.

Only the grim reaper causes a decline in aids.