Papal Visit to Ireland

[foxcommander]

I doubt that the people involved weren't thinking of whether the church approved of contraception or not when about to do the deed.
The churches guidelines are clear - don't do it at all outside marriage. If you go against that then who is at fault?

[easytiger95]

All empirical evidence in both the Western world and Africa points to the fact that not only does Catholic teaching on chastity outside marriage not work to prevent sex outside marriage but also boosts rates of teen pregnancy and STDs. If we're talking effectiveness rather than morality, than Church teaching is not the way to go.

BTW I might have rushed to judgement on Franno - going by Declan's post and the links below.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/02/the_vatican_confirms_that_pope_francis_was_ratfcked_into_meeting_kim_davis/

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/02/pope_francis_met_with_openly_gay_couple_and_unlike_kim_davis_who_ambushed_him_he_did_so_intentionally/

Empirical evidence? I doubt that. Empirical evidence would say Chasity is more effective
Statistical evidence maybe?

Regardless the same could also be held to be true for using protection.It gives the impression that its safe to do it thereby casualises s*x. In the real world many people dont use it.

Both methods are fine in theory but are both flawed in the real world.

Jesus Christ Joe, at least look up the word before you try and be smart. Empirical means based on or verifiable by observation or experience, rather than theory or pure logic. Hence statistical evidence is just one version of empiricism.

However, positing that people's religious faith or that specific Catholic teachings will effect their sexual behaviour definitely resides in the theoretical realm. The realm of the outlandish theory.

Here's some of that empirical i.e. statistical evidence you were getting confused by

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/597-abstinence-only-until-marriage-programs-ineffective-unethical-and-poor-public-health

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/

[The Iceman]

The Church didn't fail anyone.For over 2000 years it has led millions of people to eternal salvation

Teachings on contraception has failed millions in Africa for starters. Who was the church failing when the centuries of covered up child abuse came to light? I will tell you everyone that ever believed in it as a guiding light in their life, the children themselves and their families obviously. The church failing noone is like saying Jimmy saville did a lot of good for charity and music. Ignore the bad bits and look at the bigger picture eh?

Do you honestly think AIDS in Africa was caused by a lack of contraception?

No of course not but when aids is rife throughout many African countries does the church teachings on contraception help people or fail them as a responsible organisation?

the Church teaching on sex outside of traditional marriage might help? The Church teaching on chastity in and outside of traditional marriage might help? Very narrow viewpoint to blame the Church and their teaching just on contraception and blame them for the Aids epidemic......

It's not that the Church is responsible for AIDS in Africa, but its position is far from helpful in mitigating the spread of the disease. The Church's teaching on sex might sound great (to you anyway) in theory, but we're living in the real world.

Can't the same be said for everyone's response to the gun problem in the US? Gun crime and death is rife and our response is take away the guns - seems logical and right?
Aids and death is rife and the Church says stop having sex and thats not logical and right....

[omaghjoe]

All empirical evidence in both the Western world and Africa points to the fact that not only does Catholic teaching on chastity outside marriage not work to prevent sex outside marriage but also boosts rates of teen pregnancy and STDs. If we're talking effectiveness rather than morality, than Church teaching is not the way to go.

BTW I might have rushed to judgement on Franno - going by Declan's post and the links below.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/02/the_vatican_confirms_that_pope_francis_was_ratfcked_into_meeting_kim_davis/

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/02/pope_francis_met_with_openly_gay_couple_and_unlike_kim_davis_who_ambushed_him_he_did_so_intentionally/

Empirical evidence? I doubt that. Empirical evidence would say Chasity is more effective
Statistical evidence maybe?

Regardless the same could also be held to be true for using protection.It gives the impression that its safe to do it thereby casualises s*x. In the real world many people dont use it.

Both methods are fine in theory but are both flawed in the real world.

Jesus Christ Joe, at least look up the word before you try and be smart. Empirical means based on or verifiable by observation or experience, rather than theory or pure logic. Hence statistical evidence is just one version of empiricism.

However, positing that people's religious faith or that specific Catholic teachings will effect their sexual behaviour definitely resides in the theoretical realm. The realm of the outlandish theory.

Here's some of that empirical i.e. statistical evidence you were getting confused by

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/597-abstinence-only-until-marriage-programs-ineffective-unethical-and-poor-public-health

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/

Its sensory evidence and empirical evidence would say that the best way to prevent STDs is through chastity.

Statistical results are based on theory or logic, which as you pointed out are not empirical. They could be manipulated to be empirical but I very much doubt that these are. But since there is no actual proper stats in these articles its hard to know. "Majority" for example would not be considered to constitute empirical evidence.

In any case its irrelevant to your point as these studies seem to be based on kids educated by American Protestant Evangelical Principles. These are virtually irrelevant for the Catholic church and Catholic Education in Africa. Some of the stuff mentioned and told to these kids is pure lies, the Catholic church advocates proper education on ALL options but advocates chastity.

However I am sure you have statistical evidence of Catholic educated kids in Africa as well compared against statistical evidence of the general African population?

[gallsman]

Did you really just equate two people having sex with each other with one human being shooting another?

[Maguire01]

The Church didn't fail anyone.For over 2000 years it has led millions of people to eternal salvation

Teachings on contraception has failed millions in Africa for starters. Who was the church failing when the centuries of covered up child abuse came to light? I will tell you everyone that ever believed in it as a guiding light in their life, the children themselves and their families obviously. The church failing noone is like saying Jimmy saville did a lot of good for charity and music. Ignore the bad bits and look at the bigger picture eh?

Do you honestly think AIDS in Africa was caused by a lack of contraception?

No of course not but when aids is rife throughout many African countries does the church teachings on contraception help people or fail them as a responsible organisation?

the Church teaching on sex outside of traditional marriage might help? The Church teaching on chastity in and outside of traditional marriage might help? Very narrow viewpoint to blame the Church and their teaching just on contraception and blame them for the Aids epidemic......

It's not that the Church is responsible for AIDS in Africa, but its position is far from helpful in mitigating the spread of the disease. The Church's teaching on sex might sound great (to you anyway) in theory, but we're living in the real world.

Can't the same be said for everyone's response to the gun problem in the US? Gun crime and death is rife and our response is take away the guns - seems logical and right?
Aids and death is rife and the Church says stop having sex and thats not logical and right....

I don't get parallel with the gun problem. It just doesn't work for me.

People will have sex (once again, we're in the real world). There's a way for them to do it safely. The Church opposes it, for no logical reason, even if it's sex between a married couple.

[easytiger95]

All empirical evidence in both the Western world and Africa points to the fact that not only does Catholic teaching on chastity outside marriage not work to prevent sex outside marriage but also boosts rates of teen pregnancy and STDs. If we're talking effectiveness rather than morality, than Church teaching is not the way to go.

BTW I might have rushed to judgement on Franno - going by Declan's post and the links below.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/02/the_vatican_confirms_that_pope_francis_was_ratfcked_into_meeting_kim_davis/

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/02/pope_francis_met_with_openly_gay_couple_and_unlike_kim_davis_who_ambushed_him_he_did_so_intentionally/

Empirical evidence? I doubt that. Empirical evidence would say Chasity is more effective
Statistical evidence maybe?

Regardless the same could also be held to be true for using protection.It gives the impression that its safe to do it thereby casualises s*x. In the real world many people dont use it.

Both methods are fine in theory but are both flawed in the real world.

Jesus Christ Joe, at least look up the word before you try and be smart. Empirical means based on or verifiable by observation or experience, rather than theory or pure logic. Hence statistical evidence is just one version of empiricism.

However, positing that people's religious faith or that specific Catholic teachings will effect their sexual behaviour definitely resides in the theoretical realm. The realm of the outlandish theory.

Here's some of that empirical i.e. statistical evidence you were getting confused by

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/597-abstinence-only-until-marriage-programs-ineffective-unethical-and-poor-public-health

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/

Its sensory evidence and empirical evidence would say that the best way to prevent STDs is through chastity.

Statistical results are based on theory or logic, which as you pointed out are not empirical. They could be manipulated to be empirical but I very much doubt that these are. But since there is no actual proper stats in these articles its hard to know. "Majority" for example would not be considered to constitute empirical evidence.

In any case its irrelevant to your point as these studies seem to be based on kids educated by American Protestant Evangelical Principles. These are virtually irrelevant for the Catholic church and Catholic Education in Africa. Some of the stuff mentioned and told to these kids is pure lies, the Catholic church advocates proper education on ALL options but advocates chastity.

However I am sure you have statistical evidence of Catholic educated kids in Africa as well compared against statistical evidence of the general African population?

Joe, sorry to come across as a bit of a pedant here, but the highlighted passage above not only shows that you know nothing about the different scientific schools of investigation, you also seem to have a problem with basic English.

Empirical evidence is based on observation - so you observe a phenomenon - in this case sex education in American schools - in the process of this observation you measure your outcomes - in this case the rate of pregnancy and STD infection in American schools - you compile this into statistics and you publish your results. That is empiricism.

The other school is theoretical - take astrophysics for instance - in this case advanced maths are used to posit a theory - say the existence of a Higgs Boson particle - but there is no observable evidence - so the scientists work essentially backwards, saying that it must exist, and then build something like the particle accelerator in CERN to prove it. Which is what you are doing when you say the best way to pevent STDS is through chastity - you think it is, but you can't prove it physically. Unfortunately your theory wll stay unproved because it is wrong and has already been proven so, empirically.

Statistical results are based on theory or logic, which as you pointed out are not empirical.

I'm sorry Joe - this is the most factually incorrect sentence ever produced on these forums. A - statistical results are not based on theory or logic, which was the point of my post. Statistical results are based on observation and measurement, which makes them - you guessed it - empirical. B - I never pointed out that statistical results are not empirical.

They could be manipulated to be empirical but I very much doubt that these are.
This makes no sense, logically or grammatically.

But since there is no actual proper stats in these articles its hard to know. "Majority" for example would not be considered to constitute empirical evidence.
There are stats Joe, you just have to read down to get them. I did you the courtesy of posting the links, at least try and read them.

In any case its irrelevant to your point as these studies seem to be based on kids educated by American Protestant Evangelical Principles. These are virtually irrelevant for the Catholic church and Catholic Education in Africa.
Both studies were based on schools who had chastity only sex education, schools who had chastity and contraception, and schools who had contraception only (that's a simplification but you get the point). There was no distinction made between religions.

the Catholic church advocates proper education on ALL options but advocates chastity.
Eh, I don't think so Joe - certainly there is no central edict from the Vatican on this, except for the ban on artificial birth control, and very much depends on local tradition and leadership, as we see in Africa and Latin America especially. Letting students know there are other options, certainly does not constitute "educating" them in their use.

As for the African statistics - they are there, first page of google - but given you missed the point of my original post so much, and didn't bother reading the links, find them yourself.

[The Iceman]

Did you really just equate two people having sex with each other with one human being shooting another?

equating two issues and drawing parallels to their responses isn't the same thing.....

Aids is killing people in Africa. The Church bans sex outside of traditional marriage and you all go crazy.
Guns are killing people in America and you say ban the guns.

Why can the response to problems not be the same? Because the Church proposed it?

It's a tired old debate anyway. Blaming the church yet again.
What about the spread of Aids in America?  Who's fault is that? Look it up. Who is the main transmitter of the Aids virus in America?

[easytiger95]

Did you really just equate two people having sex with each other with one human being shooting another?

equating two issues and drawing parallels to their responses isn't the same thing.....

Aids is killing people in Africa. The Church bans sex outside of traditional marriage and you all go crazy.
Guns are killing people in America and you say ban the guns.

Why can the response to problems not be the same? Because the Church proposed it?

It's a tired old debate anyway. Blaming the church yet again.
What about the spread of Aids in America?  Who's fault is that? Look it up. Who is the main transmitter of the Aids virus in America?

The response to them can't be the same because they are different problems. Also, one of the bans proposed actually works - look at the Australian model in banning guns and reducing mass shootings. Whereas the Church response to ban sex outside of traditional marriage is proved not to work to stop the spread of AIDS - it just doesn't. Now, one hand I recognise the right of the church to uphold Christian morality and theology, it's like a club and if you want to be in the club, you have to obey the rules etc. However if one of these rules is contributing materially to the spread of a deadly but very preventable disease, then I think all involved should start thinking of practicalities.

I believe the saving of lives trumps theology, every time.

By the way, you are now conflating the spread of AIDS in Africa with the spread of AIDS in the USA - which are two very different phenomena. So be careful. And before you reveal your patient zero, make sure you have a good source. Handy hint - Weekly World News or Alex Jones don't count.

You can see where this is going from a mile out.

[omaghjoe]

I dont mind you being pedantic Tiger but attempting to insult and belittle me might make you feel better but it makes you look like a bit of an eejit. Especially as you dont seem to be able to get the concept that statistic analysis and manipulation is based on theory. Here's a wee tip.... ask for clarification if you don't understand something, you'll be more knowledgeable for it.

It seems that you are getting mixed up in the actual evidence being empirical and the collective data being empirical. Evidence from an experiment can give empirical data but when compared against other results it becomes a statistic. To try and make sense of the collective results statistical analysis is used, if they come within a range they can be considered empirical.

Your links didn't have any tabulated data just various tidbits speckled through the articles and certainly no statistical manipulation applied to that data that could make it empirical.

I dont know why you are are so insulted as to not post your links especially since it is you who is dishing out the insults and when I spent time reading your links, which as it turned out where irrelevant to AIDs in Africa and the Catholic Church.

Anyway I googled "catholic church aids africa statistics" for your study you wouldnt post and all the statistics I could find were ones that showed that catholics and catholic country's in Africa have lower rates of HIV infection rates.
Here's one, although I know you will scoff at the site
http://shamelesspopery.com/what-impact-does-catholic-teaching-have-on-aids-in-africa/

I must say I am surprised at these stats as the mainstream press has led us to believe that the Catholic church teaching is actually having the opposite effect, and then didnt that leading AIDS guy support the church's position? Africa is a very different place to the West with education in particular not being anywhere near as good as the West. Basically what that equates to on the ground is when you give a guy a condom and tell him he will make him safer, he thinks he can ride the country. But that's just not the case at all, he is in fact putting himself and others more at risk.

Now with that said I wouldn't be on board with some thing senior Catholics clerics in Africa have said about condoms regarding AIDS. Monogamous relationships and Chasity are the best method for preventing the spread of AIDS and HIV. However if  that aint possible then protection is the best backup although by no means sure fire as Chasity. The church is not really in a position to put in that IF in its doctrine. "If you gonna sin, sin like this" However they absolutely should educate people and inform them of the options and consequences, they should not spread lies about condoms or oppose their availability. Education is key.

[omaghjoe]

Did you really just equate two people having sex with each other with one human being shooting another?

equating two issues and drawing parallels to their responses isn't the same thing.....

Aids is killing people in Africa. The Church bans sex outside of traditional marriage and you all go crazy.
Guns are killing people in America and you say ban the guns.

Why can the response to problems not be the same? Because the Church proposed it?

It's a tired old debate anyway. Blaming the church yet again.
What about the spread of Aids in America?  Who's fault is that? Look it up. Who is the main transmitter of the Aids virus in America?

The response to them can't be the same because they are different problems. Also, one of the bans proposed actually works - look at the Australian model in banning guns and reducing mass shootings. Whereas the Church response to ban sex outside of traditional marriage is proved not to work to stop the spread of AIDS - it just doesn't. Now, one hand I recognise the right of the church to uphold Christian morality and theology, it's like a club and if you want to be in the club, you have to obey the rules etc. However if one of these rules is contributing materially to the spread of a deadly but very preventable disease, then I think all involved should start thinking of practicalities.

Apparently it doesn't, but its proving to be the most effective method in Africa where the disease is most rampant

I believe the saving of lives trumps theology, every time.

That is the basis of Catholic theology, all life is sacred, remember?

By the way, you are now conflating the spread of AIDS in Africa with the spread of AIDS in the USA - which are two very different phenomena. So be careful. And before you reveal your patient zero, make sure you have a good source. Handy hint - Weekly World News or Alex Jones don't count.

You can see where this is going from a mile out.

I agree, nip it in the bud Ice, its irrelevant

[easytiger95]

I dont mind you being pedantic Tiger but attempting to insult and belittle me might make you feel better but it makes you look like a bit of an eejit. Especially as you dont seem to be able to get the concept that statistic analysis and manipulation is based on theory. Here's a wee tip.... ask for clarification if you don't understand something, you'll be more knowledgeable for it.

It seems that you are getting mixed up in the actual evidence being empirical and the collective data being empirical. Evidence from an experiment can give empirical data but when compared against other results it becomes a statistic. To try and make sense of the collective results statistical analysis is used, if they come within a range they can be considered empirical.

Your links didn't have any tabulated data just various tidbits speckled through the articles and certainly no statistical manipulation applied to that data that could make it empirical.

I dont know why you are are so insulted as to not post your links especially since it is you who is dishing out the insults and when I spent time reading your links, which as it turned out where irrelevant to AIDs in Africa and the Catholic Church.

Anyway I googled "catholic church aids africa statistics" for your study you wouldnt post and all the statistics I could find were ones that showed that catholics and catholic country's in Africa have lower rates of HIV infection rates.
Here's one, although I know you will scoff at the site
http://shamelesspopery.com/what-impact-does-catholic-teaching-have-on-aids-in-africa/

I must say I am surprised at these stats as the mainstream press has led us to believe that the Catholic church teaching is actually having the opposite effect, and then didnt that leading AIDS guy support the church's position? Africa is a very different place to the West with education in particular not being anywhere near as good as the West. Basically what that equates to on the ground is when you give a guy a condom and tell him he will make him safer, he thinks he can ride the country. But that's just not the case at all, he is in fact putting himself and others more at risk.

Now with that said I wouldn't be on board with some thing senior Catholics clerics in Africa have said about condoms regarding AIDS. Monogamous relationships and Chasity are the best method for preventing the spread of AIDS and HIV. However if  that aint possible then protection is the best backup although by no means sure fire as Chasity. The church is not really in a position to put in that IF in its doctrine. "If you gonna sin, sin like this" However they absolutely should educate people and inform them of the options and consequences, they should not spread lies about condoms or oppose their availability. Education is key.

Joe, it is clear from the above that you don't know what you're talking about. Whether that is science or language is the thing that is under discussion.
http://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html

Try that - it's a beginners site, but should make some things clear to you. I'll spare you the embarassment of asking you what theory statistics are based on, given that statistics are part of the quantitative reseach method, one of the two two methods that form the backbone of empiricism.

As for the link to your stats? I gave you peer researched papers which you discard because they don't back up your bias. You give me that site. Well done. Enjoy your time in the echo chamber.

[omaghjoe]

I dont mind you being pedantic Tiger but attempting to insult and belittle me might make you feel better but it makes you look like a bit of an eejit. Especially as you dont seem to be able to get the concept that statistic analysis and manipulation is based on theory. Here's a wee tip.... ask for clarification if you don't understand something, you'll be more knowledgeable for it.

It seems that you are getting mixed up in the actual evidence being empirical and the collective data being empirical. Evidence from an experiment can give empirical data but when compared against other results it becomes a statistic. To try and make sense of the collective results statistical analysis is used, if they come within a range they can be considered empirical.

Your links didn't have any tabulated data just various tidbits speckled through the articles and certainly no statistical manipulation applied to that data that could make it empirical.

I dont know why you are are so insulted as to not post your links especially since it is you who is dishing out the insults and when I spent time reading your links, which as it turned out where irrelevant to AIDs in Africa and the Catholic Church.

Anyway I googled "catholic church aids africa statistics" for your study you wouldnt post and all the statistics I could find were ones that showed that catholics and catholic country's in Africa have lower rates of HIV infection rates.
Here's one, although I know you will scoff at the site
http://shamelesspopery.com/what-impact-does-catholic-teaching-have-on-aids-in-africa/

I must say I am surprised at these stats as the mainstream press has led us to believe that the Catholic church teaching is actually having the opposite effect, and then didnt that leading AIDS guy support the church's position? Africa is a very different place to the West with education in particular not being anywhere near as good as the West. Basically what that equates to on the ground is when you give a guy a condom and tell him he will make him safer, he thinks he can ride the country. But that's just not the case at all, he is in fact putting himself and others more at risk.

Now with that said I wouldn't be on board with some thing senior Catholics clerics in Africa have said about condoms regarding AIDS. Monogamous relationships and Chasity are the best method for preventing the spread of AIDS and HIV. However if  that aint possible then protection is the best backup although by no means sure fire as Chasity. The church is not really in a position to put in that IF in its doctrine. "If you gonna sin, sin like this" However they absolutely should educate people and inform them of the options and consequences, they should not spread lies about condoms or oppose their availability. Education is key.

Joe, it is clear from the above that you don't know what you're talking about. Whether that is science or language is the thing that is under discussion.
http://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html

Try that - it's a beginners site, but should make some things clear to you. I'll spare you the embarassment of asking you what theory statistics are based on, given that statistics are part of the quantitative reseach method, one of the two two methods that form the backbone of empiricism.

As for the link to your stats? I gave you peer researched papers which you discard because they don't back up your bias. You give me that site. Well done. Enjoy your time in the echo chamber.

Tiger the only thing that your scoffing proves is that you dont understand what I am talking about.

Your link simply proves my point.I said that statistics can be manipulated to make data empirical. Statistical manipulation is based on mathematical theory. You do get that maths and numbers are theory?

Although I must concede I only read the abstract of your 2nd study, a closer study of their data manipulation and it would appear to be empirically proven for America at least.

However it is completely irrelevant to the Catholic Church and AIDS in Africa. Mine at least was relevant and while the source may be bias I presume their figures are right they look to be pretty close according to wikipedia. Data backing this position is the only data I could find while googling this subject area. Those that countered this position did not use any demographic data or studies to back it up.  It also seems the debate on the Catholic Church and AIDS in Africa have gone very quiet in recent years.

To the contrary that this is echo chambers for myself, I was much surprised to find this out as I had been led to believe it was to the opposite by mainstream media, but I could not find the data to back this up that you had mentioned but refused to post.

But in a way it actually makes sense. Condoms 80% effective, Chasity 100% effective against the spread of AIDS/HIV. Condoms promote promiscuity, Chasity the opposite. Both are prone to deviation but couple this with the former 2, and this amplifies the danger of promoting condoms, especially in an uneducated society to combat the spread of AIDS/HIV.

[bennydorano]

Quit while you're (well) behind ffs. a Fearonesque muddying of the waters fools no one. https://youtu.be/9wWUc8BZgWE

[easytiger95]

I dont mind you being pedantic Tiger but attempting to insult and belittle me might make you feel better but it makes you look like a bit of an eejit. Especially as you dont seem to be able to get the concept that statistic analysis and manipulation is based on theory. Here's a wee tip.... ask for clarification if you don't understand something, you'll be more knowledgeable for it.

It seems that you are getting mixed up in the actual evidence being empirical and the collective data being empirical. Evidence from an experiment can give empirical data but when compared against other results it becomes a statistic. To try and make sense of the collective results statistical analysis is used, if they come within a range they can be considered empirical.

Your links didn't have any tabulated data just various tidbits speckled through the articles and certainly no statistical manipulation applied to that data that could make it empirical.

I dont know why you are are so insulted as to not post your links especially since it is you who is dishing out the insults and when I spent time reading your links, which as it turned out where irrelevant to AIDs in Africa and the Catholic Church.

Anyway I googled "catholic church aids africa statistics" for your study you wouldnt post and all the statistics I could find were ones that showed that catholics and catholic country's in Africa have lower rates of HIV infection rates.
Here's one, although I know you will scoff at the site
http://shamelesspopery.com/what-impact-does-catholic-teaching-have-on-aids-in-africa/

I must say I am surprised at these stats as the mainstream press has led us to believe that the Catholic church teaching is actually having the opposite effect, and then didnt that leading AIDS guy support the church's position? Africa is a very different place to the West with education in particular not being anywhere near as good as the West. Basically what that equates to on the ground is when you give a guy a condom and tell him he will make him safer, he thinks he can ride the country. But that's just not the case at all, he is in fact putting himself and others more at risk.

Now with that said I wouldn't be on board with some thing senior Catholics clerics in Africa have said about condoms regarding AIDS. Monogamous relationships and Chasity are the best method for preventing the spread of AIDS and HIV. However if  that aint possible then protection is the best backup although by no means sure fire as Chasity. The church is not really in a position to put in that IF in its doctrine. "If you gonna sin, sin like this" However they absolutely should educate people and inform them of the options and consequences, they should not spread lies about condoms or oppose their availability. Education is key.

Joe, it is clear from the above that you don't know what you're talking about. Whether that is science or language is the thing that is under discussion.
http://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html

Try that - it's a beginners site, but should make some things clear to you. I'll spare you the embarassment of asking you what theory statistics are based on, given that statistics are part of the quantitative reseach method, one of the two two methods that form the backbone of empiricism.

As for the link to your stats? I gave you peer researched papers which you discard because they don't back up your bias. You give me that site. Well done. Enjoy your time in the echo chamber.

Tiger the only thing that your scoffing proves is that you dont understand what I am talking about.

Your link simply proves my point.I said that statistics can be manipulated to make data empirical. Statistical manipulation is based on mathematical theory. You do get that maths and numbers are theory?

Although I must concede I only read the abstract of your 2nd study, a closer study of their data manipulation and it would appear to be empirically proven for America at least.

However it is completely irrelevant to the Catholic Church and AIDS in Africa. Mine at least was relevant and while the source may be bias I presume their figures are right they look to be pretty close according to wikipedia. Data backing this position is the only data I could find while googling this subject area. Those that countered this position did not use any demographic data or studies to back it up.  It also seems the debate on the Catholic Church and AIDS in Africa have gone very quiet in recent years.

To the contrary that this is echo chambers for myself, I was much surprised to find this out as I had been led to believe it was to the opposite by mainstream media, but I could not find the data to back this up that you had mentioned but refused to post.

But in a way it actually makes sense. Condoms 80% effective, Chasity 100% effective against the spread of AIDS/HIV. Condoms promote promiscuity, Chasity the opposite. Both are prone to deviation but couple this with the former 2, and this amplifies the danger of promoting condoms, especially in an uneducated society to combat the spread of AIDS/HIV.

Joe, seriously, stop embarassing yourself. You don't know what the scientific method is. Arguing with you is like talking to a recalcitrant child. You are using words you don't understand.

I said that statistics can be manipulated to make data empirical. Statistical manipulation is based on mathematical theory.

There is literally no sense in this sentence. Data that is gathered by observation and measurement is always empirical. The use of statistical manipulation (which you haven't defined by the way - look it up and come back to me) is merely another way of analysing data which has already been empirically gathered. Good Jesus, you need a dictionary.

Statistical manipulation is based on mathematical theory. You do get that maths and numbers are theory?
Ok I'm going to make this very simple for you. Statistical analysis is based on mathematical principles which are observable and measurable, such as arithmetic. Some strains of maths are based on theorems such as geometry. However, the difference between the scientific method (empiricism) and the hypothetical method (theory) is that rather than measuring a phenomena, the scientist posits a theory (like evolution) and then they work backwards to try and find proof to validate it. And finally, statistical manipulation is a way of skewing empirically gathered data to fit a pre-conceived bias. So you should stop using the phrase, it takes away what little credibility you have.

Although I must concede I only read the abstract of your 2nd study, a closer study of their data manipulation and it would appear to be empirically proven for America at least.
Cheers, thanks, specialist subject the bleedin' obvious.

But in a way it actually makes sense. Condoms 80% effective, Chasity 100% effective against the spread of AIDS/HIV. Condoms promote promiscuity, Chasity the opposite.
This is a bogus statistic and a pure example of what statistical manipulation is all about. Condoms, if used properly, are high 90s in the prevention of HIV. Chasitity (ie the avoidance of any sexual contact) of course is 100% - if people stick to it. Which they don't as every peer reviewed, reputable study says, no matter what their public piety makes them profess. Here's a hint - google "Africa HIV rates abstinence only sex education" and tell me what you come up with.

Actually don't bother. Good Jesus.