Our Lady of the Illogical Leaps

Our Lady of the Illogical Leaps

Last week it emerged that none other than the Mother of God herself has appeared to mark the passing of Pope John Paul II. Did she appear in a blinding light before the masses gathered in St. Peters square? Nope. Did she descend over Poland with a heavenly choir singing a thousand hallelujahs? Not quite. Instead the blessed virgin chose a more humble - albeit rather obscure - means of giving the divine thumbs-up to the deceased pontiff.

Mary appeared, allegedly, on a concrete wall of a grimy Chicago underpass. The human-sized yellow and white image appears to have formed from road salt and rainwater that over time has spilt from the Kennedy Expressway overhead. Nonetheless, believers insist that the stain is a miracle. Now, I’ve seen the photographs of this stain and to my eyes it just looks as though a drunk has had a copious piss against the wall. Not so to the eyes of the more religiously enlightened. To them it’s most certainly a picture of Jesus’s old woman with her hands clasped in prayerful thanks and adoration. But, even with the help of an artists impression, I cannot see how this water stain obviously resembles what it’s supposed to resemble. The best I could do was to see a man with a long beard and rather sinister eyes (much more Bin Laden than Blessed Virgin), and then only by holding the picture diagonally and squinting a bit.

Anyhow, 1000’s of people have got eyes - and imagination - to see, and have flocked en masse to the subway to pay tribute. The underpass has been transformed into a shrine, complete with flowers and candles, and the faithful can be found kneeling before the wall, praying and clutching rosary beads. And, in an age in which traditional religious adherence is plummeting in western countries, church leaders are more than happy to sit back and allow this kind of hysterical idiocy to continue unchallenged and unquestioned. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago contends that the apparition reaffirms people’s faith, whether it is real or not. “These things don’t happen every day,” Jim Dwyer, a spokesman, added. Indeed they don’t, but they could if people wanted them to. Just look at the clouds, close one eye, and before long you could see a white fluffy image resembling God himself on his throne (perhaps with Elvis sitting on his right hand side). Such things may indeed encourage peoples faith, but it surely does nothing for the credibility of religious believers, and testifies that the Catholic Church, at least in America, is perhaps a little desperate. Moreover, the Archdiocese is showing a rather cavalier approach to truth. In effect they’re implying that they don’t give a toss if something is true or not, just whether or not it builds the faith of the masses. Shouldn’t truth be much more important than that?

Such a phenomenon is merely the latest in a long line of supposed theophanies caused by God or some supernatural wee beastie. In recent times we have had the name of Allah make an appearance inside a tomato, a hindu cow-god statue drinking milk (gotta love that porous rock, eh?), the face of the devil coming from the wreckage of the World Trade Centre buildings in the billowing smoke and fire, and, my personal favourite, the image of Mary gazing lovingly out at the faithful from a partly eaten ten year old cheese toastie, that was subsequently auctioned on Ebay, bought for $28,000 by an internet casino company, wrapped in plastic, and sent on a nationwide celebrity tour of the USA (unfortunately, perhaps because someone had eaten her arms off, Mary was unable to give any autographs). The virgin Mary obviously likes her food as she has also been found lurking in a knob of popcorn and on a bacon flavoured potato crisp, yet looking remarkably slim all the same. The truth is that people will see what the want to see, and we learn this fairly early on in life. Most of us as children have been out one day with a parent who decides to play the age-old “cloud game” - to see what shapes you can find up in the sky. We can find all sorts of things, but as any sane and rational person knows full well the things we see are not real. There isn’t really a giant mile-wide seagull in the sky. Just a big fluffy white cloud.

It’s certainly not unusual to have a fascination for the mysterious. I can’t remember a time in my life when religious matters didn’t fascinate me. But I’d like to think that my approach was and is rational: investigating religious claims, studying religious practices, and reflecting on the phenomena of religious experience. Unfortunately a rational approach is of little interest to vast numbers of people who can’t be arsed putting the time and effort in. Instead they want a quick fix, an easy answer, an instant miracle to be a part of; and they want it so desperately that they’ll dive at any report - however wacky - so they can feel like they’re part of a generation that witnessed the miraculous. They care not for the leaps of logic required to reach their conclusions. Such types are highly frustrating, as reason simply will not penetrate the dark, dank, thick-walled caverns of their credulous minds. Thus, I’m not sure if it’s wise to waste time addressing these people. Regardless, I shall address the devotees of the Lady of the Underpass, in the hope of achieving a sense of satisfaction in my rant if nothing else.

***

Right. Listen up you twerps before I have to slap some sense into you. You see Mary, huh? Funny thing that. I’d really love to know how the hell you have any idea what she looks like. Did I miss that part of the Bible that provides her vital statistics? Or did Saint Luke release an illustrated version of his Gospel? We are told that she was a young Jewish woman, but that hardly narrows it down. Presumably some young Jewish women were fat, some thin, some tall, some small, some boot ugly, others stunningly attractive. I’m not sure just what secret documents are sitting in the Vatican, but is there one with the words “and lo, verily, the wise men didst gaze upon the Blessed Virgin and didst remark that she had a pretty face, a firm backside, and big breasts like water melons”? For all you know you could actually be bowing before the Hindu goddess of death and destruction. Lets face it, this apparition is only Mary because a Catholic saw it first and said it was. And even if it is Mary, why assume she has an opinion on the Pope? Surely if she did she would have appeared at Saint Peter’s or the Pope’s homeland? The fact that she appeared in a Chicago underpass might more likely illustrate her backing for the local baseball team, the Cubs.

And, my oh my, how the mighty have fallen. Only 2000 years ago God was knocking out all kinds of amazing stuff: resurrections, yelling at cripples until they walked again, spitting in the eyes of blind people to make them see, walking around on the water for no apparent reason whatsoever, and scaring the shit out of Moses by speaking out of a burning bush. You’d think that a God who managed all these feats with apparent ease would be able to draw a better picture on the walls of a subway, no?

And just how well does this kind of thing build your faith? Do you believe in God even more now that you have looked at a water stain and saw the face of a woman, who you dubiously assume to be Mary? The next time a sceptic asks you to defend your grounds for believing in God, or challenges your faith in some way, it probably isn’t wise to open your defence with, “ah, well I saw this streaky water stain once that looked like the Virgin Mary.” It’s not going to wash, is it?

***

The reaction to this fluke of nature illustrates perfectly what so many people find distasteful about religion. Rather than engage in rational discourse too many religious people are happy to resort to illogical mental gymnastics. In this instance there’s a dodgy starting premise - that this stain is, objectively speaking, the image of a woman. From this highly questionable position we are asked to make the leap to believing that it is there as a result of design rather than accident, when there are no grounds whatsoever for believing it to be so. Only when we can say it was not a result of accident can we raise the question of who actually done it. But such issues simply don’t arise in the minds of the miracle-hunters. It is simply assumed that it wasn’t a human being, but rather a certain God who is responsible. Again, there is no rational basis given for this belief. Next, we are expected to leap further into supposing that this woman painted by the hand of God is indeed the virgin Mary rather than someone else. And finally, we are to presume that she is there - in a Chicago underpass - to mark the passing of a Polish Pope in the Vatican. None of it testifies to anything remotely like a reasonable approach to religion, and until a huge number of religious people meet some fairly fundamental criteria of logic they will fail to convince anyone other than the most gullible.

Stephen Graham (B.Th Hons)

Every Little Helps

Congratulations Tesco!

Some people really hate success. They’d do anything to prevent it, even if that means stopping the rest of us from enjoy its fruits. The supermarket chain Tesco is the most recent example of just how successful people can be. Its advertising slogan is “Every Little Helps.” Every little does indeed help - helps Tesco become the first UK retailer to break the £2bn annual profit barrier. Significant contributing factors in Tesco’s success include its expansion into foreign markets and the addition of a host of non-food products to its stock. Despite facing fierce competition Tesco has managed to continue to grow its market share at an astounding rate.

I love Tesco and buy the bulk of my weekly shopping there - simply because in terms of price and quality it generally offers me the best value for money. But, seemingly many people don’t share my enthusiasm for the store. In light of its success critics have argued that Tesco is having an adverse impact on other businesses and is squeezing prices paid to farmers, despite the fact that all UK supermarkets were recently cleared by the Office of Fair Trading in a review of the implementation of its supplier code of conduct. And lets face it, if you’re on the right side of a twisted bunch such as the Office of Fair Trading, an insidious little quango premised on socialist ideals and understandings of fairness, with respect to this matter then there can’t really be much complaint.

But, when it comes to the Left there’s always complaint where profits and success are concerned. The environmental campaign group Friends of the Earth left their tree-hugging to join in the bout of success-bashing, asserting that Tesco’s growth should not go “unchecked” because, so they reckon, its growth is putting smaller shops and UK farmers out of business. They call, surprise surprise, for government intervention: “The government must introduce stronger protection for suppliers and call a moratorium on any further takeovers.” Others critics agreed that Tesco was using “bully boy tactics” in their “aggressive” pricing strategy and negotiation with suppliers, who complain that they are picking up the bill for Tesco’s profits and low prices.

Big successful company being criticised by Friends of the Earth and others of that ilk. Nothing new there. And, as usual, the exaggerated and inaccurate comments of such types illustrates a blinkered and narrow-minded view of reality. In all their polemic they fail to acknowledge that Tesco is committed to competitive prices, customer service and efficiency. If their prices were extortionate, their service piss poor, and their operations sloppy then their business would plummet. Tesco are only successful to the extent that they adequately supply their customers needs. Make no mistake about it, Tesco brings a multitude of benefits to people: they provide thousands of jobs, affordable high quality goods, and investment in local communities. Focusing on “the plight of the supplier” at best provides a distorted half-picture, and at worst illustrates a noxious, stomach-churning sentimentality. Notably, Tesco is a signatory of the 2001 Supermarket Code of Practice, drawn up to regulate trading relationships between the major supermarkets and their suppliers, because it’s in the interests of any business to maintain strong and mutually advantageous relationships with suppliers. No business benefits when its suppliers struggle or go bust.

Now, suppliers do compete with each other for business, and some may feel the strain. But unhappy suppliers still have choices. They can sell their business and go in a different direction. Or they can change their business partners. No supplier of goods is being forced to do business with Tesco. They can do business with any number of other shops and supermarkets who are in direct competition with Tesco. Alternatively they can sell direct to customers. Clive Sage, a Dorset sheep farmer, stopped supplying supermarkets six years ago after prices fell too low for his liking. He now sells direct to consumers and appears to be doing fine.

What then of the “plight of the little store?” The existence of Tesco most certainly puts a strain on smaller retailers.

**Cue soppy violin music**

Ian Proudfoot, joint managing director of independent grocers Proudfoot, accused Tesco of “predatory pricing.” Business at his family owned store in the town of Withernsea plunged after Tesco sent 6,000 local households a 40% voucher for its own store.

**Pass the handkerchiefs**

“It was the wrong thing to do, it was bully boy tactics. They weren't going to keep those magic prices for ever,” says Mr Proudfoot.

**Someone call the frickin‘ police**

“Tesco are raising the standards in this country, but they also have a blind spot for fair and square.”

It’s difficult to see Mr Proudfoot’s argument here, except, obviously, that he’s getting his arse kicked. Quite frankly giving out vouchers was a brilliant business idea to win custom to a new store. It has absolutely nothing to do with not playing “fair and square.” This isn’t like stealing £500 from the bank in a game of monopoly. The purpose of business is to make money, and this is done by providing customers with a better deal than your competitors. There appears to be an assumption in some people’s minds that it’s somehow intrinsically bad to take business from another shop. In fact, it’s difficult not to conclude that such arguments are cheap attempts to rationalise the romantic notion of sticking up for the little guy and rooting for the underdog. In my experience, however, most smaller retailers are nothing other than predatory little viruses that simply seek to capitalise on their location for custom rather than on their quality of service or value for money. These businesses exist because it’s more convenient to us to walk 2 minutes for a pint of milk at 45p than go a bit further for a pint of milk at 35p.

No retailer - big or small - has a natural right to exist and stay in business. Small retailers might lament that their livelihood is at stake, but this is a falsehood. Of course, they may indeed be put out of business, but this is far from being the end of their lives or even of their careers. Millions of people throughout the country seem to manage just fine without owning a convenience store. Small-business owners can find work elsewhere, and shouldn’t have much of a problem doing so with the wealth of experience that they have. They could very well apply for one of the thousands of jobs that Tesco creates: if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

Not that this washes with the great unwashed. Calls for government intervention simply get louder in proportion to the size of the profits. But by what right can we lobby government to save failing, less efficient businesses? And by what mechanism should government do so? Any government intervention would involve using money taken from the millions who pay taxes and do not run small businesses to prop up those who do run small businesses, simply to allow those businesses to charge people more money for products. Great idea, eh? Penalise success and assist the worst performers - the Socialist Ideal.

Some folks attempt to justify government interference on the grounds that consumer choice is reduced when Tesco puts smaller retailers out of business. Aside from the absurd notion that government exists to increase our culinary choices, this argument is bunkum - in its purest form - and I conducted my very own experiment into the matter. My own area has a large number of small shops and medium-sized stores (all of whom do incredibly well despite there being a Tesco 10-15 minutes walk away). By and large these stores sell all the same stuff that you get in Tesco: Heinz baked beans, Uncle Ben’s Bolognese sauce, lettuce, Kingsmill bread, Coca Cola, Mars bars, Denny sausages, Coleraine cheese, Toilet roll, Goodfellas pizza, to name just a few. There are only two substantial differences: (1) these stores do not hold as many product types as Tesco, and, (2) the smaller stores can charge as much as 40% extra for the same product. I pay 55p for a tin of Coke in my local shop, and only 39p for the same frickin’ thing in Tesco (who occasionally sells me 12 tins for the price of 6). So, my choice is this: where do I go to do my shopping? Do I go to Tesco where I have a far bigger range of cheaper goods all under the same roof, or do I dart around several other smaller shops paying more for the same stuff? Perhaps Tesco does restrict choice after all, since it’s difficult to see why anyone would choose the latter. But, they can if they wish.

Some people choose to avoid stores like Tesco, charging them with selling characterless food in an equally characterless environment. Whilst I should repeat that the food is largely the same stuff, I will add that this argument is a matter of taste, and thus merely subjective. It hardly provides a solid basis on which to lobby government for intervention. People who do not like the environment of Tesco stores can take their snobbish attitude elsewhere. Tesco is a supermarket, designed to make shopping as easy as possible, and personally I’d much rather shop in such an environment than in some grotty, dusty little store with black bananas hanging in the window.

Tesco’s success is not down to how much it has reduced our choice, but rather is a testimony to the fact that people have chosen: they have chosen to shop at Tesco, and can choose other shops and retailers if Tesco begins to screw up in the way Mark’s & Spencer did after it became the first retailer to break the £1bn profit barrier. Most customers have a good choice of retailers, and a retailer can only grow profits by growing their sales, and can only grow their sales by making their stores more attractive for customers. Businesses know very well that their customers came from somewhere, and could go back.

I will only continue shopping at Tesco if it continues to meet my needs. And since this is the case the retail sector already has the only justifiable and necessary regulator: the customer.

Stephen Graham (B.Th Hons)

Booing - A Crime

Booing: A Crime

I never thought I’d live to see the day when arrests would follow a bout of booing and hissing at a football match. Alas, that day has arrived. Six football supporters have been charged with sectarian hate crime following last Sunday’s Scottish Cup semi-final between Hearts and Celtic at Hampden Park, after a number of Hearts fans decided to disrupt a one minute silence in memory of Pope John Paul II with booing and hissing. The one minute mark of respect had been called by the Scottish Football Association, but referee Stuart Dougal had to cut the tribute short. Hearts Football Club have since issued an apology and are considering banning the offenders (“a small section [of our support]”) from future games. Former Hearts chairman Leslie Deans commented that, “There is no place for bigots of any kind at [Heart’s Football Ground].” Hearts chief executive Phil Anderton added: “It is disturbing that some fans failed to see the significance of the occasion. There is no need for that sort of behaviour in the game. We are trying to generate an atmosphere where families are happy to return to football grounds around the country and the fact that their actions will have been covered live by Sky across the UK and beyond will have done those ambitions no favour at all.”

Well well well. No place for bigots, eh? I wonder why the B word has been used on this occasion, when week after week some Scottish stadiums reverberate with song lyrics such as “we’re up to our knees in Fenian blood, surrender or you‘ll die,” or: “If you hate the Orange bastards clap your hands.” Compared to the weekly atmosphere in football grounds across the whole country - not just Scotland - booing a one minute silence is the least of things about which to get your knickers in a knot. But, given the occasion - the media hype and emotional outpouring surrounding the funeral of the Pope - it is quite understandable that knickers were indeed knotted.

However, there is fairly fundamental question to be answered by the Scottish Football Association: why the hell did they feel the need to observe such a ritual at a football match? Of course, holding a one minute silence, for all kinds of things, is becoming the done thing at football matches. When wee Maggie who sells the hamburgers at half-time dies you can bet your ass that they’ll hold a minute’s silence the following week. Actually, I don’t really have much beef with that, since Maggie was a part of the life of that particular football ground and club, providing nutrition and food poisoning to football fans for decades. But, the Pope? Was he a fan of the Scottish cup? Did he bless the pitches or call for God’s abundance to fall upon the fans? The death of a religious figure has nothing whatsoever to do with Scottish football and there was no need to hold a minute of silence in respectful remembrance. Given the culture of Scottish football - one in which there is enormous antagonism between Catholics and Protestants - demanding the observance of such a ritual was a completely mindless thing to do. Mixing football with religion is never a good idea at the best of times, even more so when two religious cultures really despise one another.

I’m a little frustrated that the fans who booed during the ritual are being labelled bigots. Of course, they may indeed be bigots, but not because they booed the Pope. They might be bigots if they attack Roman Catholic people in the street just because they are Roman Catholics. But, disliking the Pope and not wishing to show respect for him is not necessarily bigotry. I don’t hold the Pope in very high esteem myself, and I would very much resent someone trying to force me to observe a ritual of respect for him. This doesn’t make me a bigot. There are lots of people - dead and alive - that I don’t particularly respect, and I fail to see how the making of such judgments is a character flaw.

In fact, contrary to the labels of “sectarian bigot” being slapped on to Hearts fans, the very fact that there was a mark of respect for a particular religious figure was itself far more sectarian than any number of boos during the ritual. In this instance we had a bunch of Protestants finding themselves in a position where others were attempting to force them to show respect for the leader of a different religion. In effect it was an attempt to force people to observe a respectful silence for someone that they may, for good reason, not have respected. I had little respect for the Pope myself. His philosophy was diametrically opposed to mine in a great many fairly fundamental areas. His teaching on contraception was downright batty, misleading countless numbers of people, and endangering their lives on the basis on a highly questionable piece of moral philosophy. His views on homosexual marriage were premised on an antiquated piece of theology with little regards to sound political and moral principles. Despite the fact that he strongly opposed communism he ended up running his own church in a way that mirrored communist political control. Pope John Paul II had little time for theological dissenters, and his treatment of some of the best Catholic theologians illustrated a shocking disregard for open debate, questioning, and freedom of speech. Most of the Pope’s defenders have pointed out how great he was to travel the world giving hope to all people. I, and many others, see it a little differently. I saw a man who got to travel the world all expenses paid, who spent a lot of his time waving from behind glass, kissing the ground, and filling people’s heads with bullshit for most of the time. Was there really all that much for which to show respect? Just why should Hearts fans have stood by and played nice? They didn’t like the Pope, or simply saw no reason why he should be afforded respect, and yet they are being made out to be sectarian bigots.

I have been ranting about this story for days, and have consistently met with the same response: “Yeah, but he’s dead. You should show more respect for the dead.” Good God. This is downright confusing. By what mechanism do people suddenly become respectable by virtue of the fact that they keel over and breathe their last? Should we afford similar respect to the late, great Adolf Hitler? Stalin? What a guy. Idi Amin? He was lovely, don’t you think? Pol Pot? Now, there was a fine example of how to run a country if ever there was one. The truth is, no, of course we don’t show these people such respect. Why? Because we didn’t like them and don’t think they deserved it. Respect must be earned, not blindly dished out on receipt of a death certificate.

The Hearts fans who were arrested have experienced a flagrant breach of their right to freedom of thought and expression. Those who wanted to show respect for the Pope could have very easily done so. They could have went to a chapel, or to some other suitable event organised with respectful remembrance in mind. When you go to a football match you go there to watch a game. The Scottish Football Association is the real bully-boy in this episode in their attempts to force everyone who attended a football game to show respect for the Pope, regardless of their own religious views, thoughts and opinions. And yet somehow it is they who come out smelling of roses, looking compassionate, and being given the moral high ground from which to patronise a group of fans. It’s a real topsy-turvy episode.

Ironically, given the Pope’s own approach to those who stood out of line, the fact that people have been arrested for dissent is actually a fine way for this Pope to have been remembered.

Stephen Graham (B.Th Hons)

Ding Dong the Pope is Dead

Ding Dong the Pope is Dead.

Have you ever noticed that only good and flawless people die? Listen to the words at any funeral service and you’ll always hear that the departed was a great person who brought joy into the lives of other people. Where do all the bad people go? You never hear that the departed was really a bit of a bastard who ignored his kids and abused his wife. What happened to all those people who bored us to tears, who had their heads stuffed firmly up their arse, who we just wanted to slap purple? Maybe they’re immortal. Since the death of the Pope I have read all kinds of eulogies to him: “died with dignity,” “exemplary faith,” “highly intellectual,” “remarkable stamina and energy,” “a moral voice for the world,” “theologically sound,” “a great influence.”

But, there’s another tale that must be told. Some might accuse me of speaking ill of the dead, but, well, who gives a damn? In fact, by giving the other side of the story I’m honouring the memory of the Pope much more than those who will only entertain certain aspects of the man. These people aren’t really remembering the Pope at all. They’re remembering some other person - one who never existed. We should remember the whole person or forget them altogether.

The Pope’s views on many issues were not only highly questionable but downright dangerous, and even destructive. Whilst I disagreed with his views on abortion, homosexual marriages, the ordination of women, and his opposition to divorcees remarrying, I had no real difficulty with his position. However, often his teaching was not the sort of thing you would expect from a so-called freedom-loving and life-affirming person. His centralisation of power and his horrendous treatment of theological dissenters should make any person who values freedom of thought and of speech shudder. His opposition to euthanasia was little other than a “keep people alive at all costs” approach with no regard for their own wishes or quality of life.

But, even worse was the Pope’s teaching on birth control, a position that has caused countless deaths in Africa, the very continent that the Pope has been greatly praised for helping. His approach to birth control was as far from being life-affirming as east is from west. It was neither theologically sound, nor moral.

In a vastly over-populated continent where AIDS was rampant he was a staunch opponent of the use of contraceptives. His stance ran contrary to all the best evidence we have telling us that condoms are of fundamental importance in the fight against the global AIDS epidemic. Despite this the Pope sponsored programmes that were detrimental to the health of thousands, and which went so far as to claim that condoms actually contribute to the spread of AIDS. Rafael Llano Cifuentes, Auxilliary Bishop in Rio de Janeiro, put it like this: “using a condom to stop AIDS is like putting out a fire using petrol.” So, in the mumbo-jumbo world that is Catholic morality condoms help to spread AIDS. I suppose umbrellas make you more wet, Father? This kind of statement shouldn’t surprise us coming from the church that gave us the rhythm method of birth control - to which comedian Billy Connelly claims to owe his very existence.

Leading Catholic Cardinals have defended their position by arguing that the AIDS virus can pass through the tiny holes in condoms. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujill, President Pontifical Council for the Family, states that, “this is something the scientific community accepts.” This is quite a serious claim. If it is false then the Catholic Church is in big trouble for misleading people. In fact, if the Church is wrong it could be responsible for thousands, maybe millions, of deaths, and thus guilty of a crime against humanity.

It should be noted that the Pope (and his buddies) was not against condoms because he thought that they spread AIDS. Even if he thought condoms were wholly safe he would still have opposed their use. Although condoms are not actually mentioned in the Bible, the Catholic Church holds to a natural law ethic, which had is classic statement in the work of the theologian Thomas Aquinas. According to their version of natural law ethics, the use of condoms offends the natural law that everyone, Christian or not, should obey. Bishop Cifuentes puts it thus: “The church is against condom use. Sexual relations between a man and a woman have to be natural. I’ve never seen a little dog using a condom during sexual intercourse with another little dog. Animals have natural sex. Man likes pleasure but not the consequences.”

I laughed the first time I read that quote. Then I realised he wasn’t taking the piss. Firstly, it may indeed be true that dogs do not use condoms, but does that mean that humans also must not use them? Since when was the behaviour of dogs taken to be the arbiter of what is right and wrong for a human being? I’ve also never seen a dog take a vow of chastity, or commit itself to one other dog for the rest of its life. In fact, if little dogs are a prime moral example then I guess I’ll nip out into the street, piss against a few lamp-posts, hump someone’s leg, and shag the first female that comes along. Moreover, it would be quite difficult to advocate monogamy on the basis of ‘natural sex.’ Secondly, what is wrong with liking pleasure while at the same time trying to avoid horrendous potential consequences? If my partner has HIV should I not try to avoid the consequences of also becoming infected? Thirdly, just what is ‘unnatural’ about using a condom? Is it anymore unnatural than wearing warm clothes on a cold day to avoid hypothermia? I’ve never seen a dog put on warm clothes on a cold day.

Anyhow the fact of the matter is that the position advocated by the last Pope and preached to the masses by his cardinals and bishops is untrue and not by miles something that “the scientific community accepts.” Dave Lytle is a leading researcher on condoms and the question of leakage. His research concluded that 0.21% of condoms might conceivably leak any infectious virus, and that there was no real risk to worry about: “The latex condom is a very effective barrier…a few may allow minimal exposure to virus…[but] if I were to give my children or grandchildren advise about whether to use condoms, I’d say ‘absolutely.’”

This, then, leads us to a further question: what are the chances of being infected even by a leaking condom? Just because a person is exposed to the virus doesn’t mean they will get infected. It is a question of risk, and there are a number of factors that affect the risk: the viral dose, or amount of the virus a person is exposed to; the infectivity of the virus, or how ‘active’ the viruses are in any given instance; and the existence of genital lesions. Dr Pietro Vernazza, world expert and Head of Infectious Diseases at St Gallen’s Hospital in Switzerland, says: “We’re talking about such miniscule risk that in our regular life is a zero risk. . .it’s [a combination] of several unlikely events: the unlikely event that a condom will have a tiny hole. . .the very unlikely event that a virus will pass. . .and even after that it’s very unlikely that a virus that has passed actually causes transmission. . . [You‘re as likely to die in a plane crash].” He goes on to say that of course there is always a risk of a plane crashing, but the risk of it is so small that it doesn’t, and shouldn’t, stop us from getting on one to go on holiday.

Thankfully not all Catholic leaders are opposed to the use of condoms. Cardinal Godfried Dameels, Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels, says that if 1 member in a sexual partnership has HIV then they are morally obliged to wear a condom, otherwise they would be guilty of breaking the 5th commandment: do not kill. He correctly stresses that condoms are not just birth controls but help prevent a plethora of sexually transmitted diseases. Although the same dodgy natural law ethic is in place, at least there’s a better conclusion deducted from it.

The claims of many Catholic bishops and cardinals are simply false, and thus the position of the Pope and, by extension, the Catholic Church, is seriously addled. Admittedly though the church is right about one thing: the use of condoms is not the best way to reduce HIV/AIDS. As the Pope told us on numerous occasions, abstinence from sex altogether would indeed hinder the spread of AIDS much more successfully. However, this does not mean that the use of condoms is wrong. The Catholic Church would need to recognise that abstinence programmes are only going to work to a certain extent. Millions of people are still going to have sex, and it should be realised that many people in Africa catch AIDS from their spouse. Saying that condom use is wrong because abstinence from sex better controls AIDS is a little like saying that sterilising medical instruments is wrong because abstinence from medical treatment better controls diseases passed by dirty instruments.

The case of Harriet Nakabugo is particularly tragic. Despite the fact that her husband has HIV, her Catholic teachers have lead her to believe that condoms are unholy, that she cannot get to heaven if she uses them, and that she would miss God’s blessings and end up in Hell if she goes against church teaching. She now fears she has HIV herself, and thus is going to die for a point of theology that relies on dubious science and questionable ethics.

Thousands across Africa find themselves in a similar position. What has the Pope done for those who do not have the opportunity to “die with dignity” as he had?

The Catholic Church now needs to address this question: Is a supposedly loving and good God really honoured by a theology that tells people like Harriet Nakabugo that they will go to Hell if they protect themselves by using a condom from a spouse infected with AIDS?

Pope John Paul The Great, to his shame, certainly thought so. Lets hope his successor isn't as ignorant and naive about this matter.

Stephen Graham B.Th (Hons)