Seems clear enough to me, but I think you are underestimating two conservative positions here.
First, conservative Christians enjoy seeing women bear the economic disaster of unwed pregnancy, they made their decision now they must suffer for it.
Second, conservative Christians delight in seeing people suffer and die of Aids, that is the just fruit of their sexual relations. If they happen to be gay or black, so much the better.
This is a mentality which is incapable of accepting any solution except the one they favor. If people are not capable of following their version of Christianity, then they should suffer the consequences.

One of the benefits of being a good secularist is that one can read a story like this and chuckle at the stupidity of it all and say, “Ok, we knew he was a nut,” but I would imagine the folks in Ghana who actually have to deal with AIDS are a bit annoyed at him right now.

Steven, please link to the start of an article, not a specific page. I’ve seen this many times in your blog.

Mr. Waldmen: as a Catholic, I would answer your two questions as follows…
1) Reducing abortion is more important to me than discouraging teen sex.
2) Even if I could be convinced that greater condom use reduced the number of abortions, I would NOT support its wider availability.

It seems to the question–especially in Africa–is how many people need to die of AIDS in order to prove a “theological” point about condoms and sex? While the Vatican is not the public health ministry for Africa, its teachings have consequences. How many women will die in Africa because men aren’t going to be abstinent and the women aren’t able to insist on condom use (or men would voluntarily use them but are afraid of going to hell).
For non-Catholics–who aren’t burdened by nonsensical encyclicals based on questionable theology–the question is even more important. People die by the tens of thousands in Africa every month. Many aren’t going to abstain, for a whole host of reasons. So why stigmitize condom use for those who aren’t going to abstain just to prove some theological point?

Seems like Bill just proved the point that many of us have suspected. Catholics like Bill care more about morality (condom use) than avoiding abortions. rigid ideology over reality. a disgrace.

Bill, could you elaborate on why you wouldn’t want greater condom use if reducing abortion is your paramount goal? thanks

If condoms and abstinences weren’t seen as mutually exclusive teachings then that would be a start. One idea is that it could be taught as a hierarchy, where they emphasize condoms as the least you can do, but in order to be a Christian you should abstain. Often churches will take an interest in their congregations health,i.e. by having seminars on healthy living etc. So maybe with education on various STD’s and condoms, that will be the health part..and then there can another segment on abstaining with teachings on how to resist temptation…which is often left out.

I think Bill just proved my point. Wow – I figured it would take at least ten posts ’till we got hateful, spiteful on the discussion.
Question for you Bill. Since we know Aids is fatal and we know it can be prevented by condoms, which you oppose, let us suppose a similar situation. An adult, in full possession of their faculties, decides to cross the street without waiting for the light. You are driving towards them. By your moral lights, there is no problem with you running them over – after all they didn’t have to violate the law. Would you do it? Why?

Panthera: by my “moral lights”, there certainly would be a problem running them over. And of course I would not do it, because there would be a perfectly acceptable moral alternative, i.e. applying my brakes and stopping or swerving out of the way.

Mr. Waldman: I’m sure that many Catholic moral theologians and Doctors of the Church have elaborated on these types of moral dilemmas much better than I could. But the reason is along the lines of “not promoting an evil to achieve a good” or “the ends do not justify the means”.
And I apologize for misspelling your name in my first post. I imagine you get that a lot.

Bill,
Ah, so, you would brake even tho’ there is not enough time to make 100% sure that in braking the car or motorcycle or bicyclist behind you will have time to stop or swerve…and, in fact your braking might well cause harm to someone behind you.
I ask because many years ago – two weeks after I got my driver’s license – I was confronted with exactly that situation. Idiot runs out in front of me, I brake and the motorcyclist behind me ended up in the bed of my truck.
She survived, but her bike didn’t, the idiot sued me (!) and the whole mess ended up in court. Well, the judge ruled that I had to brake, the damage to the motorcyclist was caused by my intention but by the behavior of the idiot.
So, you, see, things aren’t always black and white.
I repeat my question, why won’t you kill the jerk in front of you but it is OK to orphan millions of children and condemn millions of people to a horrid death by denying them condoms?
It’s not a theoretical problem, it’s reality.

make that ‘not by my intention’

Panthera,
I agree that things aren’t always black and white, in fact usually they aren’t. But, in the case of contraception, the Catholic Church teaches that it is — the term the Church uses is “intrinsically evil”.

I think that is the most ridiculas thing I have read. Condoms should be available. I have been married for 19 years to the same man. We use them. That is why I have two totally planned children. I am a Christian and I personally resent any man other than my own husband deciding reproductive descisions. My own husband isn’t even in charge of that. That is complete nonsense about safe sex making people have more sex. In earlier times when their was no “safe sex” Men would still have sex and bring all manner of filthy diseases home to their wives such as siphilus. Women were not given health care back then and most doctors would not inform the wife of the disease anyway. Maybe we should go back to those good ol days huh?

So, Bill, the position of the Church on this is sufficient ground to condemn millions of orphans to hideous deaths through starvation and neglect?
Wow – and I thought you folks hated me for being gay.
Boy was I wrong. The ones you really hate are the black babies.
Thanks so much for cluing me in.

“in the case of contraception, the Catholic Church teaches that it is — the term the Church uses is “intrinsically evil”.”
1. Mr. Warren’s church is not Catholic.
2. Millions of married (and unmarried) folk, Catholic or not, use them to prevent pregnancy and the subsequent resultant abortions.
Ergo, the Catholic church is nuts – imnsho.

“1. Mr. Warren’s church is not Catholic.”
Your Name: Mr. Waldman posed two personal moral questions to his readers at the end of his post, and hence this discussion. I don’t think anybody here has attempted to analyze Mr. Warren’s positions in terms of the Catholic Church’s teachings.

Given Mr. Warren’s charming comments equating me to a pedophile and perpetrator of incest, I personally regard his opinions as more than slightly evil.
What matters is preventing these millions of children from being orphaned, abandoned and condemned to dying horrid deaths.
Preventing the spread of Aids would achieve this goal.
Condoms prevent the spread of Aids.
Anyone who rejects their use must either present a better alternative or accept condemnation as the racist monsters they are.
Is that black and white enough for you, Bill?

1. The Roman Catholic(there are other sorts of Catholic than Roman)position on any sort of birth control other than rhythm, also known as Vatican Roulette, is based on pre-scientific, primitive, and ideologically driven notions about the nature and function of sexuality in the human being. It condemns all sex which places anything, mechanical or biologic, in the way of the possibility of reproduction. It does so because its pre-scientific views are based on ignorance and superstition, not on available modern knowledge. The basis of this attitude reduces the sexuality of human beings to that of lab rats, dogs and cats and rattle snakes where the only reason for sexual behavior is the production of young.
2. The so called conservative non-Catholic Christian churches who follow this line of reasoning usually have little in the way of thought out philosophical reasoning and simply parrot Bible quotations and then interpret them in radically non-contextual ways to prove their point.
3. Behind both positions and driving them like an out of control steam roller, however, is the same uber dogma: men have the power over women’s bodies and they call the shots. It is after all men who developed the pre-scientific basis for these religious doctrines – Aristotle/Aquinas are the most prominent culprits. The patriarchal nature of Christianity from late Apostolic times to the present considered this pagan and his medieval follower definitive experts on the science of the natural world
4. In order to bolster the power position of men over women the Christian Churches have for millennia found every possible Biblical and non-Biblical way to justify their anti-womanist positions and practices. The Roman Church and the majority of Orthodox churches are so ridden with anti-woman prejudice and flat out ignorance on the topic of women and women’s lives as to be pathetic remnants of the past and can be used as good examples of what happens when reason is subjected to ignorance and superstition and raw power is used to enforce primitive superstitious beliefs. IT IS, IN THE END, ALL ABOUT POWER: WHO HAS IT AND WHO SUFFERS FROM ITS ABUSIVE EXERCISE. And the Christian churches are historically notorious for the abuse of power and violence against their own people and those outside their particular sectarian fold.

Abstinence, fidelity and condoms. Go!!!

I have always found many of the sentiments contained in these posts to be intriguing. The position of the Church is very clear and very simple.
1. The only people who should be having sex are married couples. Period. Anything else is fornication. On this, the Bible and teachings of the Apostles are quite clear. It is contrary to the Church’s mission to teach people how to sin without consequences. We are in the business of teaching the benefits of virtuous living. As Cardinal O’Connor used to say, “Good morality is good medicine.”
Parenthetically, the same narcissists who blame the Church for the magnitude of the AIDS crisis because we do not promote condoms would blame the Church for the consequences of condom failure and the promiscuity they promote. That’s just the nature of the narcissistic beast.
2. Pope Paul VI reiterated the Church’s constant teaching in Humanae Vitae, that sex has two interwoven strands, or dimensions: Unitive and Procreative. The unitive strengthens the bonds of intimacy and love between the couple. The procreative grounds the generation of new life as a part of the unitive, with the new life of the child flowing as a natural extension of the life-giving expression of love from the couple. All too often, narcissistic self-indulgence is the consequence of separating the responsibilities of the unitive and procreative.
By now many are, no doubt, hysterical laughing. That’s fine. To the extent that Catholic married couples remain faithful to our Church and its teaching, we do not share your experience of AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, serially failed relationships, erosion of intimacy that goes with promiscuity, etc.
I fail to see why the Church consistently comes under fire for teaching that each of us possesses the dignity and capacity for self-control. If people wish to fornicate, they are free to do so. Rome chooses fidelity to Jesus over orgasm without consequences.

It is all about morality and the lack of it. Sex was created for marriage by the Creator. It’s funny how the secular world has turned this issue upside down and it’s the “church’s” fault. Promiscuity has it’s dire consequences.

Gerard Nadel and Andrea,
The reason why I get angry with your slavish obedience to these policies is simple, they result in the death and suffering of millions.
Your self-righteousness just oozes from every letter of your postings. How, dear, wonderful oh-so-righteous ones, do you justify the suffering and death of those who contract this epidemic through no fault of their own? The loyal, monogamous women whose less-than-monogamous men have sex with infected women? The orphaned children who are now condemned to horrid deaths?
Too simple to stand there and pass judgment as you do. Your actions are not based on love of God, but pleasure at seeing black people get ‘what they deserve’.

What sort of fruitcake hangs out with ministers who “exorcise” boxes of condoms? This story, and that of Sarah Palin’s ministerial pal casting spells against “witches”…oy veh.

Panthera,
From your postings here and elsewhere on this site, it’s clear that you have a genuinely good heart and desire the very best for people. Where we differ is how to arrive at what is best for people. Believe me when I say, as a medical microbiologist, no one deserves HIV/AIDS.
I’m not certain that I understand some of your reasoning. The slavishness of which you speak is not Andrea and my obedience to God’s wise design for the use of His creation, which includes our bodies. “Slavish obedience” describes the sexual addiction and narcissistic selfishness of the men (and women) of whom you speak, who bring home HIV to their spouses. They are so enslaved to their passions that they act with utter disregard for their own lives, as well as their spouse’s lives and the welfare of their soon to be orphaned children. We offer the dignity of self-control and a moral code that focuses on the impact of our behavior on others.
Panthera, do you really think that all of these people are contracting HIV because the Catholic Church will not approve of condom use during fornication? Therefore they are faithful to the Church in not using condoms during fornication, even if it means risking their own lives? Absurd.
You ask, “How…do you justify the suffering and death of those who contract this epidemic through no fault of their own?” I don’t. It’s not my place to purpose the deaths of the innocent or guilty.
God’s wise laws are like guard rails on the road. They delineate what makes for safe passage and hat makes for tragedy. We drive through them at our own peril. Go to cdc.gov and look at CONDOMS AND STDs: FACT SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PERSONEL. Permit me two quotes from the document:
“Consistent and correct use of male latex condoms can reduce (though not eliminate) the risk of STD transmission.”
“The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner.”
That’s not the Catholic Church speaking. That’s the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention talking. CDC got to the top of the mountain and found the Catholic Church sitting there.
Finally you say, “Your actions are not based on love of God, but pleasure at seeing black people get ‘what they deserve’.” My actions only affect my wife and me. The ‘black people’ of whom you speak are not helpless, feeble-minded individuals. They have the same human dignity, the same capacity for self control, the same degree of intellect, the same responsibilities toward their families as you and I do. That’s why we offer a plan that even the CDC endorses as the surest way to avoid HIV: Abstinence first, followed by mutual fidelity in a long term relationship (we say marriage).
God Bless.

It is the truth that safe sex should be encouraged. Reality and truth are one in the same. Those that oppose condoms because they encourage sex are unrealistic. How can one person control the hormones of teens and adults? People are going to have sex regardless of religious beliefs because it is a natural act. God did not intend for man to use sex as only a means of procreation. If you believe this then you must believe God has no mercy, love, or happy intentions for you. A loving intimate relationship does involve sex as the physical and fun part of the relationship. Why does the USA sexually repress their youth by teaching them sex is dirty? Are these parents so inhuman to deny their own sexual pleassures. This sounds like a physcological hang-up they personnally have. Perhaps they should seek counseling and learn that it is okay to be sexually happy and healthy, too.

Steven Waldman,
To answer your question for conservatives, I would say no. Even if condoms could guarantee physical wellness in the short term, with increased sexual activity as a consequence for our teens, this sets up a horrendous tradeoff over the long term.
In a master’s thesis by Sherie Christensen of BYU, entitled The Effects of Premarital Sexual Promiscuity on Subsequent Marital Sexual Satisfaction, we have the answers. For every sex partner an individual has above the mean prior to marriage (11.35 for men, 4.25 for women), marital sexual satisfaction reported as extremely satisfying goes down 3.9%. This thesis is available as a pdf online.
Given those numbers, this erosion of the unitive dimension of sex by the time promiscuous adolescents grow up spells disaster for their marriages. So, no, I will not be pushing condoms on my children. I’ll be pushing self-love, self-respect, and fidelity to the loving plan of a loving God. Not everyone is “doing it”. Those who wait arrive in their marriage bed disease free, their reproductive capacity intact as well as their capacity for marital sexual satisfaction and intimacy.

First of all Blumenthals recount of the history is flat out wrong. It was the “Christian church” that stepped in to take care of the AIDS infected people when the Ugandan goverment was overwhelmed with the magnitude of the problem and in so doing let the church develop and institute the ABC program that began the reversal of the upward trend of the disease in that country. This is the same program that is being used in South Africa that has lead that country from having not only the most numbers of AIDS patients and highest rate to taking it out of the top spot in rate.
It was not the “evangelicals” that pressured the Ugandans to back off of the condom portion of the program but the United States lead by then President Clinton and his administration that threatened the withholding of funds if the Ugandans didn’t put more emphisis on the pushing of the condom portion of the program. This led to a reversal of the downward trend that Uganda had witnessed.Also it was a Colombia University study that also made the claim, though erroniously, that it was due to the higher emphisis on condoms that led to this reversal. So in fact Blumanthal is just regurgitating that highly dubious work.
So he can smear Rick Warren and all the “evangelicals’ all he wants but he does so with an agenda and bias against the Christian church and the facts of the real battle in Africa against AIDS and how the church has been on the for front of this battle

I find this whole condoms vs abstinence thing to be somewhat bizarre. The debate seems to devolve into a “there should be consequences for sex” thing. As Gerard Nedal said, “The only people who should be having sex are married couples. Period. Anything else is fornication. On this, the Bible and teachings of the Apostles are quite clear. It is contrary to the Church’s mission to teach people how to sin without consequences. We are in the business of teaching the benefits of virtuous living. As Cardinal O’Connor used to say, “Good morality is good medicine.” So you see disease and/or pregnancy as divine punishment? Thus people are escaping it when they use condoms? The whole idea of escaping divine punishment is ridiculous? An omnipotent god is inescapable. The church seems to get upset when people can do things that it forbids without punishment or remorse. If god doesn’t punish the trangressor, people might start to think that no crime as committed.
Personally, I think reckless sex always has consequences even it’s just psychological. However, married couples aren’t supposed to use condoms either. In regards to the forementioned unitive and procreative aspects; when condoms are used does that mean the unitive aspect disappears? So people who can no longer have children should quit having sex? Of course, I don’t understand how the so-called rythem method varies from any other birth control except for the fact that it’s effectiveness seems to be remarkable low. Yet condom failure is usually brought up.

Your Name,
The Catholic Church doesn’t say that there SHOULD be consequences for extramarital sex. The Church recognizes that there ARE consequences for extramarital sex. CDC recently released the statistics on American teen females. By age nineteen, one in four will have an STD. For African American girls, that number is 48% !! Other physical and emotional consequences are mentioned in my posts above. A loving God doesn’t want this for His children.
Even if CDC guaranteed the safety and efficacy of condoms, which it will not do based on the data, there are the psychological, emotional and spiritual consequences of promiscuity.
As regards condom use in marriage, google HUMANAE VITAE and spend some time with that document for deeper answers to why we believe what we do. The same goes for Natural Family Planning (NFP). The rhythm method is to NFP, what a banjo is to a symphony orchestra.. All the Best.

Gerry,
Your position is explicit, informed, endowed with reason, and absolutely accurate. It has been reassuring amd refreshing reading your posts. I am delighted that you are still revealing the way to our Father. Whatever your vocation is today, I believe that you were always called to inspire us, just as you were in the ’80s.
God bless you!
Suzanne

Suzanne,
Wow! Thanks for the affirmation. I’m a molecular microbiologist, homeschooling my children and writing. I’m still in the same phone book as in the 80′s. Give a call. God Bless You. Gerry

This response is in harmony with the writer that mentioned people who are beyond child bearing age no longer having sex. I just wonder what religion says about using artificial methods to have sex such as viagara? Older people enjoy sex too.