[mlizzy]

I hope in this instance the cardinal is also a Christian...

"In response to a question regarding the position of the synod on AIDS, and particularly the use of condoms, the cardinal first noted that there are two prevailing answers: the use of condoms, and a greater availability of antiretroviral drugs." Link

The cardinal did go on to say condoms are "risky," but didn't condemn their usage altogether. Our own parish priest told me condoms are to never be used no matter what the reason. He didn't go into it regarding AIDS, but I would imagine he would say abstinence is the only answer. I'm going to have to speak with my brother-in-law, an orthodox R.C. priest on this ... now I'm already leery of this cardinal.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Turkson's present claim to fame is in resisting strong international pressure on Africans to accept three great modern evils:

(1) Abortion (being pushed by the UN and by many international development donors). Turkson's position is "No."

(2) Condomization (as a way to combat AIDS: Turkson backs the much more medically and morally sound course of abstinence before marriage, fidelity in marriage, which yields zero AIDS transmission)

(Not ruled upon yet, is the question whether a married couple could be permitted to use a condom if the husband ---but not the wife --- is HIV-positive. It might also be OK to use a condom if the married couple is past the age of childbearing, or where they are having intercourse only when the wife is in her naturally infertile time, that is, when they're practicing NFP. In such cases, the condom would have no contraceptive effect, just a disease-transmission-preventing effect.)

(3)Islamization/Shari'a. Turkson's strong position is "No."

Sounds like he has some good Justice creds. As defined by Catholic Christianity, not as defined by those who wrote the Politically Correct Dictionary.