>Some question the wisdom of the Catholic Church taking a position against the use of condoms. At the same time this action is said to be a cause of AIDS. Step back for a moment and look at the logic.
>
>Not everyone is Catholic nor is everyone who has AIDS Catholic. If some feel that the Church’s position on the use of condoms creates an atmosphere that promotes AIDS, then answer this question: If the use of condoms is wrong why do people contract AIDS? The Church also states the position of a Catholic in regards to material relations. Fidelity is to be upheld and sex for the purpose of enjoyment is not condoned.

I am not to sure if this is correct as the church does present the option that other forms of contraception are ok but not artificual ones. it condones and encourages using a womans cycle to measure the best time that sex can take place with minimum risk of conception. it sees sex as a natural act thats primary use is to create new life (which is correct as we are all just animals and the only other life forms on the planet who have sex for pleasure are dolphins), and artificial means to stop this should not be taken.
I remember there was a huge demonstration here a few years ago during an abortion referendum. i never really took much notice of this issue until then but it did emerge that the hiv virus is smaller than the pores in a condom but that because semen molocules are larger than the holes you should be fine. add to this that condoms are only 98/99% effective, forget the exact figure but not 100% anyway, even using condoms does not guarentee risk free sex from hiv. although it does reduce the risk and their use should be condoned we must educate people more on the risks of hiv and the consequences of their actions. i find that the hiv/aids issue really has disappeared off the main stream in recent years, i can remember when a celeb would not walk outside their front door without a red ribbon but now it is almost never mentioned. one interesting point is that in the uk either this week or last a person has been convicted with intentionally infecting someone with hiv, i am not too sure what the sentence was but this is another side of the debate that needs to be addressed. people who contract hiv are treated as outcasts when this becomes public and very little support is given, much like the leppers of old. it is probably natural for them to hit out at people and one way to do this is to purposely infect others, maybe with support and understanding these people would never get to this point in their lives where they feel like they have to lash out at others.



>
>It appears that the argument about the position the Church has taken is looking at one issue and not the overall subject. The answer is not to use condoms and engage in whatever your sexual preference may be. Following half of the doctrine is not the answer.
>
>I recall the answer the pope gave when he visited San Francisco, and was asked why the Church was “against” homosexuals”? The pope answered (I was a few steps away), “The Church is not against homosexuals, but it is against the homosexual act”! I think too many people do not understand or care for the message. It is better to do as you please in which case why worry what a Catholic pope says? Not everyone can have his or her way with the world. You can try but why chase windmills?