Well, this is the Benedict XVI quote that has been posted all over the Internet: "It (AIDS) cannot be overcome by the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, they increase the problem."

I can only find one source for the quote: Reuters. To my mind, Reuters seems to be the intellectual equivalent of FoxNews - or maybe it's just the Reuters people who follow the Pope. I've noticed that Reuters tends to quote the Pope out of context and translate him sloppily, and that he makes a lot more sense when you read his entire paragraph instead of the "sound bite" Reuters extracted. In the past, the Pope has said that condoms may increase the problem by giving a false sense of security. This certainly won't satisfy you die-hard condom believers who think that condoms are the infallible cure for AIDS, but I think my understanding of the Pope's position does make some sense.

And, as Smokey says, it's a medical issue, not a religious one. That being the case, one would think people should listen to medical authorities when considering the medical aspects of the issue. For those who have moral concerns about the use of condoms, then it would seem appropriate for them to consult religious authorities for that aspect of the decision. But it seems to me that any damn fool could figure out that as a moral issue, the use of condoms is secondary to the issue of having sex with multiple partners. And if the people aren't following the Pope on the primary issue, why in the world would they fall in line on the secondary issue?

Also, I wonder if Smokey really means this:

"Much as I detest the idea of censorship, such people should not be given a public platform from which to air their irrational prejudices and ideals. In a civilised world, religions should never be allowed to dabble in either medical or political matters."

Sure sounds like censorship to me. I suppose it was wrong for John Paul II to speak out against the American wars in Iraq? Is it wrong for religious leaders to discuss the moral implications of assisted suicide or capital punishment? If Smokey, is right, then I guess we'd best leave the medical decisions to Doctor Kevorkian (or Doctor Mengele?), and the decisions on war and capital punishment to George W. Bush.

I'm sorry, but I think it's foolish to compartmentalize our decision-making and leave everything to the "authorities." Every decision has multiple aspects and implications, and almost every decision has a moral aspect. Surely, a religious leader should have a right to express an opinion on the moral aspects of something - even if people happen to disagree with him. I think that as a thinking person,   I   have a right to express my opinion on almost any matter, including moral decisions. But if we follow Smokey's logic, then doesn't it follow that only religious leaders should speak on the moral aspects of an issue? I certainly don't think that should be the case. Or is it OK for Smokey to express an opinion on a medical issue, but not the Pope?

So, what I hear, is a huge number of people all over the world who are morally outraged that the Pope would dare express his opinion that condoms won't overcome AIDS. Isn't it a shame, that we've come to the point that people are outraged when somebody says what he thinks? Now, admittedly he has expressed an official position, but it's not like a President ordering troops to war. Catholics can ignore the Pope - and on issues involving birth control, they usually do.

For the record, my personal opinion is that the use of condoms may help control the spread of AIDS, and they should be readily available and their use should be encouraged - not that I've used them since I got a vasectomy in 1979. But, hey, I don't question the Pope's right to say otherwise - and I do find some value in his saying that we shouldn't think of condoms as the absolute cure for AIDS - we have to keep working to find something that will eradicate the disease. We can't think we can get off cheap on this one and end the disease by shipping condoms to Africa.

-Joe-