Catholic’s dangerous stance

As with every religion they have their do and don’t positions for their followers. In most cases they can be done without harm. However the position the Vatican is taking is no less dangerous than Russian roulette and may border on criminal.

The most dangerous position the Catholic church is taking has to do with the use of condoms. Seeing that condoms for the most part are undesirable for many men, having a church discourage their use on a religious basis is very simply a public health concern.

With the rise of HIV infections going up not to mention other sexually transmitted health concerns, the Catholic stance now borders on criminal by encouraging people not to use them. If you compare this to drug pushers you can clearly see a very parallel path.

In some places in the world where the Catholic influence is strong being mostly in developing countries, the health services are quick to make a connection with higher than average infections.

Even the Catholic’s stance on priests has cost them billions of dollars in lawsuits for trying to stand in the way of nature. Just because the church says priests can not have sex does not stop our natural desire to procreate. Sex savvy the Vatican is not, and it is costing lives and money. Premarital sex is as common as the sunrise is in the morning.

So the question remains is will government step in and override the position of the Catholic Church. In the US the separation of church and state is very clear, but does that apply when it puts people at risk of death causing infections? In the US some of the regulations to protect people border on the ridiculous. In this case the Catholic stance is ludicrous leaning in the opposite direction. Young people who simply do not know can easily be tricked into getting infected if they listen to closely to the Catholic position.

So the question remains, is it necessary to step in and prohibit the Catholic church from taking positions that lead to unnecessary life threatening health risks related to sex? Clearly there is some meat here for the US Supreme Court to digest weighing health concerns over religious positions. When beliefs are confronted with conflicting facts, who do you follow is the question.

Comments are closed.