Thus, abstinence only is dangerous when it isn't abstinence only, which in accordance with basic logic, is a relatively rare occurence. Let's illuminate this through a comparison: abstinence only is an infinite number of times safer than safe sex. (I refer you to the rule of dividing anything by zero.)

I don't take issue with the option of contraceptives, actually. I disagree with the pope here.

I do take issue with parents of public school students lacking veto power.

*Puts on sarcasm hat*
Hrmmm... this shocking stance from the church seems to be just the thing to counter Aids in Africa.

Ya know, because when the government there was trying to hide the facts about Aids and nobody used condoms there wasn't any problem with the virus. That's a new thing. Everyone knows that latex causes Aids.

*for my actual comment*

The church must realize that it does not have all the answers to life, especially in the matters of sex.

If I understand correctly, the church is against condoms as a cure because sex should be between a husband and wife. If husbands were only having sex with their wives then the condoms would not be needed. This view is not a popular world view. In light of current events and education levels this is an unrealistic approach to the proplem.

As a Christian, the Pope is called to set himself apart from our world view and preach the message of Christ. I have not found the New Testament to promote out of marriage sex. If this is a correct understanding of the text then the Pope is on track with the Christian mission.

My understanding is that the prohibition on condom use, even in marriage, is based on the parable of the sin of Onan. This passage can be interpreted in many ways, the most obvious of which is not to disobey a direct command from God. On the other hand, at least the past two popes have acknowledged that the creation story in Genesis is not literal and in no way conflicts with evolution - science and religious belief can coexist even if it requires a much-less-than-literal interpretation of the bible. There is a striking contrast between the strictest possible interpretation of a passage, which requires contradicting science and claiming that distributing condoms will make the problem worse, and accepting a scientific fact that requires a very vague interpretation of the story of creation.

Correct. What most theologians neglect to mention is that Onan spilled his seed because he didn't want to impregnate his dead brother's wife...after God killed him.

Strange the little quirks in the parables that the church has chosen to focus on...at the neglect of other little quirks...like, oh, I dunno...God killing people.

Despite my obvious lack of empathy for the Pope's beliefs--and to pop in rather than address the many large comments--I'd just like to note that I do like that the Church is trying to help with the AIDS epidemic. It puts plenty of money into helping to treat those with the disease while trying to prevent via what amounts to education.

Obviously, the missionaries and other Church workers doing all of this are going to try to convert their patients. I don't agree with that from a personal viewpoint, but this isn't about me, and my overall strategic mindset can't help but note that taking away any silly religious beliefs that could spread the disease (or just plain ruin lives) is actually a very good idea.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with what the Catholic Church is doing.

PS: Sorry for the stupid quip up there. I just can't resist sometimes.

EDIT: I totally skipped two pages of conversation by accident, and I don't feel like reading everything. Sorry if I'm just repeating other comments like a dullard.