If you read the news, you would think that the Pope needs to be arrested for opposing condom use and contraception in Africa.
This is interesting, since he is giving these talks in areas where the marjority of African are non Catholic Christians, Muslims, or follow traditional belief systems. And if you notice, the local religious leaders don't seem to be as upset about his message as the elites in Europe or the press.
Well, let me tell you the other side of the story, using an example from the BBC.
A couple months ago, the BBC was blasting the Bush HIV initiative for not providing funds to push "safe sex" education in high schools.
To illustrate the problem, the BBC used the story of a young girl who was infertile from her "illegal abortion".
But if you read her story, instead it provided the best story to show why the "safe sex" approach is not the answer.
First, she had had sex in high school.
Unlike many girls, she was not coerced into sex by a relative, employer, or neighbor. Nor did she have sex because it was the only way to survive. This girl admits it was her "boyfriend".
Well, in African tribal societies, often courting couple have sex, often with approval, as a way to prove the girls' fertility, or to pressure her parents to agree to a marriage.
But in a lot of tribes, even if the couple doesn't marry, the man is responsible for the child's welfare, paying her family to help support it, or even taking it into his family to raise.
The girls "boyfriend", however, didn't follow the traditional rules. He followed the new "rules": He abandoned her.
Lesson one: the modern Western ideas of "safe sex" without responsibility is devestating for women in third world countries, where the "social umbrella" is a strong family.
Of course, the point of the BBC story was to point out that if the girl had access to condoms she would not have gotten pregnant.
Ah, but the girl in the BBC story admitted that she and her boyfriend used condoms. But she got pregnant anyway.
Lesson two: Condoms don't always work
Let's look at the real world.
Women using no form of family planning have a pregnancy rate of 80 percent per year.
Using a condom in a perfect world, her pregnancy rate would be 7%.
But population studies, in the real world, show the pregnancy rate is much higher: 30%.
But in Africa, where hot climate results in latex deteroration and breakage, and where poorly made/counterfeit condoms are common
, the percentage is even higher.
But problems one and two don't faze those who are promoting modern sexual ideas in the third world. They have another "answer" : allow "legal" abortion on demand to solve the "problem" of all those "unwanted" children.
So let's go back to our BBC poster child.
Her middle class parents arranged for her to have an abortion-- at a local private hospital.
But the standard of care and hygiene was poor, so she ended up infected, and infertile.
Problem three: lack of good medical clinics in third world countries.
The girl ended up with complications because the good private hospital was not clean enough, or maybe because the one doing the abortion might have been incompetent.
But if this is so for a middle class girl, what of a poor girl at a public hospital?
Or a girl who can't afford even a public hospital? The result is illegal abortions using herbs or by semitrained health care workers.
This is, of course, going on anyway. But with the promotion of "safe sex", i.e. that promiscuity is normal, you end up with a lot more pregnancies, a lot more abandoned women, and a lot more women injured emotionally and physically because they felt they had no other choice than to abort their child.
You can't promote the promotion of "safe sex" or "use a condom" without promoting promiscuity and destroying the link between sex and marriage and children. Even with condoms cheap and easily available all over the place, the toll on individuals and society is devestating.
Don't believe me? Well look at the US: Last week an article noted that 40% of all pregnancies were outside of wedlock, and that is despite two million legal abortions a year.
Fifty years ago, it was 5%, and there were a lot fewer abortions.
Similarly, the attack on the Pope is trying to destroy him for his prolife stance against abortion.
Right now, your tax money is going to NGO's who are busy promoting "legalized" abortion in a lot of third world countries.
But of course legalizing abortion in public hospitals would force Christian and Muslim nurses and physicians to perform abortion in these public hospitals, even though abortion is against their religious reliefs.
And in many rural areas, the only "public" hospitals and clinics are run by churches.
So if the religion of population control is going to succeed, you have to first destroy the Catholic church.
That is why you will see one attack after another that tries to destroy Pope Benedict.
He is, after all, not stopping them from placing "pill ladies" in every neighborhood and village to push contraception, nor is he preventing rich NGO's from offering cheap condoms in kiosks in every open market.
He is not even preventing non Catholic hospitals from promoting the "safe sex/population control" agenda. He doesn't have the power to do that.
But when the Pope insists on the dignity of marriage, and the holiness of sex inside a marital relationship, he is openly saying that the Emperor has no clothes.
And the Pope, by his strong stand, is inspiring others to follow their conscience to oppose the false dogmas taught by rich NGO's and the elites. His firm moral stance is strengthening Protestant pastors and Anglican bishops, nurses and doctors, local Muslims, and even those following their traditional tribal religions to reject the western ideas of sexuality that they know in their hearts is wrong.