I might be totally wrong here...

... but while in Germany a couple of weeks ago, I overheard a discussion of some people in a cafe about the rapid success of the HI-virus in Africa and the vital role of the Catholic Church concerning the issue. The point on which everybody seemed to agree was something that might be summed up as: "Yeah, it's obvious that everybody in Africa has aids, because the Church says nobody should use condoms."

I didn't really pay attention to what every individual had to contribute to the discussion afterwards. I paid my coffee and walked home. The phrase with the condoms though still sort of ligered around in my head. And then it struck me. "Wait a minute!" I thought. "On the one hand you have Catholics that are willing to follow the Church's teaching and demands as far as to the point where they endanger their lives directly. 'We are not supposed to use condoms, but we still want to have sex. So let's just do it without'. On the other hand you have the same Church teaching the same people that they should not have sex outside of marriage and not if it doesn't serve reproduction. Following this teaching, the people would not risk their lives but would only have to learn to control their desire. Why would these people listen to the Church in the first case and not in the latter?" So something doesn't quite make sense there, does it?

"But it is ruthless to not allow condoms, when you know what evil might result in it," I hear some on the people in the cafe cry. Right. Because everybody knows that the HI-virus is transmitted by absent rubber skins, not by sexual intercourse.

"But," some might argue. "They are human beings after all. So they just have to have sex every now and then." Well, they also have to stay alive. So, have I missed the re-definition of "man" from "rational animal" to "lust-controlled shag-robot", or what is going on?

Just wondering...