Dawkins Versus the Pope

It's the age old issue of whether abstinence or condom usage is the appropriate means of reducing the spread of AIDS. Richard Dawkins, a prominent biologist and an avowed athiest, is more than willing to claim that millions will die as a result of Pope Benedict's stance on condoms:

Richard Dawkins yesterday called the Pope 'stupid' for claiming that condoms have made the Aids epidemic worse.

The outspoken biologist - a prominent atheist - said that Benedict XVI would end up with the blood of millions on his hands if they took his words seriously.

On his first visit to Africa a fortnight ago, the Pope said that Aids was 'a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem'.

To play Devil's Advocate, one could also make the claim that if people abstained from sexual relations outside marriage, the incidence of AIDS would be lessened.

The real message that should be spread, both by the Church and people like Dawkins is that you need both abstinence and condom usage to reduce the spread of AIDS - preventing the disease from spreading further than it already has in decimating much of Africa. Both policies should be complementary to each other. It's not an either/or all or none solution, but a combination of the two that will help get AIDS under control.

I understand the Pope's position that as Church Doctrine, abstinence is the method to be used because they do not condone extramarital sexual relations. However, even there, the Pope and Church must take into account human frailty and weakness (sins of the flesh), and contemplate something that will ease suffering for millions.

Advocating a policy that is solely based on abstinence or condom usage isn't the right approach. One that stresses the need for abstinence, but one that suggests condom usage should you find yourself in that position, is not unreasonable.