The pope is a dick. And not the fun kind.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7947460.stm

Rewind to 2009, when Pope Benedict XVI communicated this little gem to AIDS-ravaged Africa;

"a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem".

Yes. Apparently, condoms increase the AIDS problem. How? I don't know. I cannot fathom what goes on in the minds of popes.

This proclaimation was made despite scientific evidence to the contrary (http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/condoms/en/).

Now, I ask myself, "What on earth would make the leader of such a large demographic act in ways that actually harm his followers?". The answer is this; Scripture. Scripture dictates the lives of those who enter the church. It gives them a guide on how to live life, and gives them rules to follow in order to get into heaven. As such, even if a pope was inclined to ease the suffering of millions by suggesting the use of contraceptives, he would not be able to without being in direct violation of scripture (as interpreted by the church).

The relevant scriptural dictate is this;


"God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." - Genesis 1:28 (http://bible.cc/genesis/1-28.htm)

Fast-forward to 2010;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/20/AR2010112003601.html

"There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility,"

Hmm. That's a bit (read: a lot) of a backtrack, isn't it? And took a long while coming.

Now, again, he is issuing statements that will not be in contradiction to the church's interpretation of scripture. Male prostitutes do not engage in procreation in any case, so there is no scriptural basis for disallowing contraception in such a scenario.

But why would the pope specify 'male prostitutes'? Presumably because he thinks there are only a select number of situations in which the using of condoms is acceptable.

Why wouldn't he go into more detail about who, and in what cirumstances, can use condoms? Why not explicitly include homosexuals in general, who are not prostitutes? They don't face the scriptural problem of procreation, either.

Thousands upon thousands of people are influenced by his words. As it stands, he has only given the formal okay for male prostitutes to use condoms.

Surely he knows that people hang on to his every word. Surely he would think to include all possible situations in which condom use is condoned, in the interests of stopping the spread of AIDS.

But no. No, all we get is 'male prostitutes'.

This is too little, too late.