Winter 2009/10 Is Watching most modern TV
Incompatible With Being a Christian?

IF YOU WISH TO CONTACT US PLEASE WRITE TO:-

CUT WAUN LLYDAN ST DAVID'S WELL LLANANNO POWYS LD1 6YP

 

 

CUT Newsletter Winter 2010, Issue 19
Good reasons for not having a TV

The avoidance of having blasphemy thrust at you
You never know when you may be subject to blasphemy on the TV.

More time to do things with your family
The average Britain spends 28 hours a week in front of the TV. This equates to 12 years of one’s life, what a waste of time.

More time to pray
People do not pray in their homes anymore, they sit and watch TV.

No need to pay a Licence Fee
Do not pay for pro-abortion, or anti-Christian propaganda.

It’s environmentally friendly not to have a TV
10% of household electricity is burnt when the TV and other related equipment on kept on standby, even more when this equipment is used.

No need to be dictated to by television producers aul equates homosexuality with paganism, people who worship the creature rather than the Creator. He states ‘men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error’ (Romans 1:27).

Avoid subjecting children to the TV for it is a source of ADHD
The American Academy of Paediatrics issued guidelines that young children should not watch TV at all, for it could impair their brain development and is a cause of ADHD.

Not having a TV enables children to have a real childhood
The TV destroys innocence and subjects children to wildly inappropriate programmes.

Christian teaching regarding Homosexuality

Likewise the teachings of the Church have always forbidden homosexual acts. In recent years Pope John-Paul II and his successor Pope Benedict XVI have had to address an increasingly homosexualised world. They have written much to caution against acceptance of homosexuality. Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI when he was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) published some very clear documents on the subject. In his Consideration on Unions between homosexual persons (2003) he writes ‘Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law ... They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved’ (Ratzinger 2003). In his The Pastoral Care Of Homosexual Persons (PCHP) Cardinal Ratzinger writes ‘In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion’ (PCHP paragraph 6). Referring to Romans 1: 24-27 a CDF document under Pope Paul VI equates homosexuality as the consequence of rejecting God. It states, ‘For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts, which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God’ (Persona Humana 1975).

Not content with labelling Christians homophobic there is now in place in some countries ‘anti-hate’ laws by which one is not allowed to criticise homosexuality. This situation has come about via the broadcast media with interventionist programming to change the law. Yet, if we believe that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and that the teachings of the Church are based on Sacred Scripture, and her traditions have been passed on from Jesus and His apostles, we have no choice other than to follow Him in all charity.

The above texts are quoted directly from the Bible and recent documents of the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality. The articles of this newsletter relate directly to these teachings, therefore, if anything within this newsletter can be erroneously construed as anything other than true Christian charity then ‘anti-hate’ laws will need to ban the Bible, the Catholic Church and Christianity in general.

Television programmes that changed society

The broadcasting media particularly the BBC have consistently produced programming favourable to socio-political change. Various genres of television programmes have been used in an interventionist way not only to change the law but to make issues like abortion and homosexuality acceptable to the general public. Drama genres like the single play, soap operas, and even science fiction series have shown homosexuality in a positive way and those who objected are generally depicted as bigoted, thugs or blackmailers. Documentaries, satire shows, current affairs programmes have generally treated homosexuality sympathetically.
Agitational contemporaneity – drama for abortion and homosexuality.

In order to see why homosexuality is so generally accepted today we need to look back to the sixties to films like ‘Victim’ and television plays such as Horror of Darkness. These dramas tackled the subject of homosexuality positively, using dramatised blackmail and suicide emotively. Victim was made in 1960 probably in support of the Wolfenden Report which recommended the legalisation of Homosexuality, after several trials of homosexuals in the privileged classes and subsequent defection of members of the Foreign Office including the homosexual Guy Burgess. However, the Macmillan Conservative government ignored the report. Victim was repeatedly shown on British television throughout the sixties. James Robertson described Victim as ‘a permanent monument to British film social propaganda at its best.’1

In our winter 2008/9 issue we described the Single Play’s role in the legalisation of abortion. It was through the head of BBC drama Sydney Newman’s use of what he termed ‘agitational contemporaneity’ (drama that motivates people to take action) that he made plays which intervened in socio-political debates. The Wednesday Play did this by its weekly slot of showing some plays that were just entertainment with other plays that carried a message. These plays included Horror of Darkness and Up the Junction. Many believe that they had a significant role in the subsequent legalisation of homosexuality and abortion.

The mediated Culture of Hate

The Soap Opera of the 1980s and 1990s took up the pro-abortion pro-homosexual agitprop mantle with relish. One episode of East Enders showed a baying mob of ‘homophobes’ taunting a nice homosexual couple as they made plans to attend a ‘Gay Pride’ march. Here the viewer is being bullied into accepting homosexuality by association; there’s no other way, you’re either a Gay Basher or a human being. A recent BBC radio 5 talk show which discussed the implications for free speech of possible legislation to stop criticism of homosexuals is a typical example of the nature of the debate. A homosexual man was allowed by the presenter unchallenged to describe the Pope as a bigoted member of the Hitler Youth. If this is not hate-speech then what is?

Who are the real victims?

Make no mistake if you are an orthodox Catholic who takes the teachings of the Church and Bible seriously, if it is there you look for rules on sexual morality and not to the television or celebrities you can expect a difficult time in modern society. Therefore, who are the real victims of this new politically correct legislation? We believe they are family values, Christian morality, and the right to free speech. Therefore, it is the duty and right of every Christian to point out in all charity the truths of Sacred Scripture no matter how difficult they may be or how much one many be victimised for ones faith.

Reference: 1, J C Robertson in The Hidden Cinema: British Film Censorship in Action1913-72 London, Routledge, 1989.

Powerful television genres No. 3 – The Science Fiction Series

Allegory in the science fiction series
as a social and cultural device

It is perhaps easy to see the single play as interventionist regarding the socio-political issues of the sixties and seventies. And even though the producers may not have stood up in parliament and argued for the legalisation of abortion and homosexual acts, the TV dramas they produced influenced not only the MPs but many of their constituents, who in turn wrote to their MPs to change the law so that pressure was exerted from all angles. Likewise the Soap Operas may not have been so interventionist regarding legislation. They did however engage in social engineering and through sympathetic and innovative storylines made acceptable a whole range of contentious issues – juxta-positioning abortion, homosexuality, feminism, against male chauvinism, domestic violence, gay bashing etc but how did the science fiction series as a social relevance of the day work? How could far-fetched tales of outer space involving Daleks and Klingons be part of the cultural (or sexual) revolution?

Star Trek – Enterprise destroys the Berlin Wall

Recent work by social scientists have argued that although Star Trek storylines dealt with the futuristic and the fantastic they were in fact firmly rooted in the ideological concerns of the day. Star Trek was more than just fantastic storylines in outer space it was really an outlet for contemporary issues and social comment. It was an innovative vehicle for exploring race and gender, nationhood and the international politics of the day. It was in fact closer to the single play or the soup opera than one might at first consider. There were perhaps some benign aspects to this form of mild social engineering having featured the first interracial kiss shown of American television – between Kirk and Uhura and the series has been much-vaunted for its multiculturalism lead of course by a white WASP, Captain Kirk. However, this type of social engineering in drama can also be taken further as per the homosexual kiss in today’s soap operas and agonizing storylines leading to an abortion.

In Star Trek, like most innovative dramas there are many metaphors running parallel for example the Enterprise represents America, the enemy aliens her foes i.e. the Klingons represent the Russians, the unreadable oriental-looking Romulans the Chinese/Viet Kong. Some representations were multi-layered, the Klingons were also dark skinned for Americans still did not know how to integrate the Afro-Americans into the American dream. It took many years to solve that problem. However, by the time Star Trek – The Next Generation used its warp-drive, the Klingons had joined the Federation which at the same time anticipated the end of the Cold War. By this time the script writers were getting all liberal and invented a new enemy, the Borg, a race of cyborgs who are virtually unstoppable and assimilating all other races into their collective – referring to Globalisation and the assimilation of other cultures into the American dream.

There are other spin-off series that have further explored gender and racial politics; Deep Space Nine which had a black captain and Star Trek – Voyager a woman captain. Deep Space Nine with its mission to keep warring regional power blocks at peace can also be seen as a metaphor for the peace-keeping missions of the United States and UN.
Star Trek like most TV has many subliminal storylines is an allegorical cultural device. Assimilating TV, to go where no culture has gone before, into a liberal politically correct dream. I shall resist the temptation to discuss the Borg Broadcasting Corporation.

Dr Who – Intergalactic camp vs. the Nazis

Britain in the early nineteen-sixties was experiencing great cultural uncertainty. Her empire had all but crumbled. She had abandoned all attempts to stay in the space race and her days of superpower glory had long faded. Only the Americans and Russians got to send their pets into space. However, we could go one better, by the use of television we could lead the world. Our space craft was a 1926 police box (no need for special effects) which could travel through time as well as space. At crucial moments in the 1960s Cultural Revolution we could revisit the past and show how Britain saved the world. For example when the debates raged about the legalisation of abortion and homosexuality, Dr Who in The Massacre (1966) visited Paris. Here we find that the Doctor was a survivor of St Bartholomew’s Eve Massacre. Of this Nicholas Cull writes ‘Historically, British-ness was always constructed in opposition to Roman Catholicism.’1 There would be no possibility of the Doctor being part of the Western Rising or the Pilgrimage of Grace which saw Britain’s Catholic populations rise up against Henry VIII only to be brutally massacred. When the scriptwriters redefined the Doctor as a dissident Time Lord we see the other Time Lords as a declining ancient race wearing skull caps and flowing robes like cosmic Cardinals in an intergalactic Vatican.

The Doctor was always portrayed as an eccentric English gentleman, individualistic, self-reliant the opposite of the Catholic notion of obedience to authority and community. There are a number of key elements that run throughout the various series which would make any empathy with Catholicism impossible. It would draw on many facets of the British historical experience, like repelling invasions and spreading the Protestant Reformation, we find out that the Doctor had attended the coronation of Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria. The arch enemy of the Doctor, the Master, was also a Time Lord who looked like an amalgamation of a Jesuit and Spanish villain, with his dark eyes and pointed dark beard and was played initially by Roger Delgado who was indeed part Spanish. Dr Who’s greatest enemy were of course the Daleks, at first they represented Cold War fears of post nuclear war mutants. Soon they acquired the resonance of the Nazis and the second Daleks series The Dalek Invasion of Earth which saw them in London. Again British history is being played out with the Doctor as an intergalactic Churchill figure. The Daleks chant of ‘Exterminate’ echoed the holocaust reminded everyone of Britain’s finest hour in defeating the Nazis.

The camp facet is most surprising in Dr Who. Camp, is from the French verb se camper means to posture or flaunt. Signs of deviance and the hidden meaning behind the mask are quite prevalent in Dr Who. Cull writes, ‘The shifting tone of Dr Who also tell a story as the programme drifted away from its part in the BBC mission to educate and became a mischievously subversive expression of camp in British popular culture.’2

At the start of the sixties Britain was about to embark on her own mission to lead the world through the final cultural frontier. Using the television to lead public opinion and in turn legislation British culture would be transformed. Dr Who, Britain’s own innovative science fiction series would not only reflect these changes, it would indorse them. The problem is Dr Who like much of British television of the last forty years or more muddied the waters for Catholics. On one side we had the Doctor as Churchill, eccentric English gentleman, camp scientist, even a Christ like figure with his self-sacrifice and resurrection as a new Doctor; on the other side we have the Nazis, a whole host of weird monsters, a Spanish Jesuit and even sometimes Catholicism in general.

Referances: 1 and 2, Cull, N. ‘Bigger on the inside’ The Historian, Television and Television history. Luton University. 2001.

Here we start another new series of articles in which we explore forms of the media other than the TV. In his new book The Reporter’s Tale by ex-Fleet Street reporter Tom Davies, of whom the Catholic Herald said (16/10/09) that he ‘argues persuasively that the media in all its forms is now a serious force for evil in the world’. We are not suggesting that you give up every form of media and bury your head in the sand which is of course impossible; rather, that you question what is being thrown at you by the media. Ask yourself, is there an agenda behind any particular article, news item, film etc?

Dangers in other forms of media – part one

The Newspapers

By Gerard Matthews

Newspapers can be very deceptive. Some, such as the Daily Sport and Daily Star are blatantly frivolous, scandal- mongering and even pornographic, making very little effort to appear plausible to the reader seeking genuine news.

A bigger danger, in my opinion are the number of newspapers which come across as presenting an honest and informative version of the news. I have noticed that even newspapers such as The Times and The Telegraph have jumped on the liberal bandwagon. These papers are an even bigger danger than the well known Guardian and Independent, which make no effort to disguise their anti-Catholic and anti-Life views.

The Times recently carried a cartoon showing the Holy Father wearing a condom on his head in response to his visit to Africa. Just imagine if this had been Mohammad with a bomb. That to me was a sign of the wicked hypocrisy of our times. It is worse still when such venom appears in these ‘quality’ newspapers which at one time could be trusted to be conservative. It is symptomatic of the trends in society to be dismissive of the deeper facts and follow the narrow minded doctrines of ‘Gay’ rights, pro abortion and individualism.

Furthermore, and perhaps more disturbing, is the apparent lack of uniformity of values in newspapers. A glowing example of this is The Daily Mail. If one examines the front page one is likely to see a cry for justice or a condemnation of anti family government policies. But read on. I have noticed that toward the middle of the paper are often feature stories about the sexual antics of celebrities and biographic articles describing how well known personalities 'broke free' from their responsibilities in life. The Mail, along with other papers such as The Sun, tries to please everybody. It appeals to vice in direct opposition to its conservative stance.

Newspapers have no souls, do not be deceived. Whilst they often carry informative articles and have a role to play in defending our freedoms, the often serve an amoral desire to sell papers and disseminate an unknown agenda. Why is this? They are owned, in the most part, by rich businessmen. Most newspapers do not make much money and sometimes even run at a loss. Why do these people do it? They have a desire for influence and power, axes to grind against politicians and people who have wronged them: they want to make their mark.

Journalists and editors are given a degree of freedom by the owners of the papers, and there are of course decent people amongst them. This is why papers often expose government corruption and injustices against decent people, which definitely benefits society. We only have to look at the expenses scandal as an example of this. What we must realise, however, is that we do not know what the real agenda is behind the news we read. Sometimes true information can be used for the wrong reasons. I have a suspicion that the expenses scandal may have been an attempt to weaken the British government to make way for a European superstate governed from Brussels. We never know. [True, contrast how little was made of the BBC’s own expenses scandal - Ed]

To sum up: There is no 'Catholic' daily. All of the main newspapers found in shops have content which is in opposition to the Catechism. They often distort the world view of their readers because they carry a majority of negative information. This can lead to depression. They tell lies and distort information which has a terrible effect on their victims and is uncharitable. They serve political agendas which are not made expressly clear to the readers.
Whilst people tend to distrust newspapers more than the television their influence cannot be denied. You often find that people allow themselves to fall into a particular newspaper's readership based on their occupation. The Sun, Star, Sport and Mirror tend to be the choice of the blue collar workers whilst the Mail, Express, Times and Telegraph are the choice of conservative middle/upper class. The Guardian and Independent, which in my mind are the most poisonous of all newspapers are the choice of many professionals such as teachers, social workers and doctors- if you want to know why so many of these are anti life, pro Europe and neo liberal then look no further.

I would advise subscribing to one of Catholic Newspapers. If you do read a newspaper article try to use discernment. Look at it the same way as you would a historical source. Ask who wrote it and why they wrote it rather than just absorbing it. The disturbing fact is that from reading a newspaper you cannot find out the answer to either of those questions without doing your own research.

CUT Newsletter Summer 2009, Issue 18

Television’s seven deadly sins

Abortion services to be advertised on ITV, Sky, & Ch 4 & 5
Abortion service providers may soon be allowed to advertise on television. As well as the morning after (abortion) pill ads.

BBC drama depicts pro-lifers as murderers
That the BBC should stoop so low as to depict pro-lifers as murderers shows us how pro-abortion those at the Corporation really are.

BBC World Service has IPPF partnership
The BBC World Service which encompasses BBC Radio, Television and the internet has the IPPF as a partner and through the Sexwise project they provide ‘reproductive rights’ information to the world. The IPPF is world largest abortion providers.

Pope’s advice against condoms scorned
There is overwhelming evidence that condoms are not stopping the AIDS crisis in Africa or anywhere but actually have the opposite effect and make the situation worse. However, the broadcasting companies attacked the Holy Father for his wise advice against condoms. Perhaps they should look at the real evidence (see page 4).

Condom ads to be shown before watershed
24 hour Condom ads on TV to be allowed to target children as young as ten. We ask, should packets of condoms carry a government health warning, like cigarettes? After all they are only 85% safe.

Violent television programs link to violent behaviour
Research on violent television shows unequivocal evidence that media violence increases the likelihood of aggressive and violent behaviour.

Mother of 2 kills herself after pro-euthanasia TV drama
A recent pro-euthanasia television drama has caused a mother of two children to commit suicide after watching it, her family members have claimed at an inquest.

Editorial:

Pro-abortion, Euthanasia, and Condom Television

It is a sad fact that BBC is pro-abortion and euthanasia, and that by watching the television and therefore paying the licence fee one is funding pro-abortion propaganda. In fact Robin Aitken who spent 25 years working as a BBC reporter said being pro-abortion was a ‘core value’ of the Corporation. Likewise those watching commercial television are to be subjected to around the clock condom adverts that will also target children as young as ten. And in a move that could plummet to the depths in broadcast inhumanity, abortion adverts could be allowed on commercial television.

The BBC has consistently produced dramas and current affairs programmes from the mid-sixties to the present day that have come down heavily on the pro-abortion side. The Wednesday Play’s Up the Junction (1965) has been described as ‘heavily interventionist’ on the side of David Steel’s bill to legalise abortion. In the last few months the BBC has produced dramas that try to undermine pro-lifers themselves by depicting them as killers. They have also produced a play about euthanasia “A Short Stay In Switzerland”(2009) that caused a vulnerable mother to kill herself. Perhaps the real killers are television companies?

Within the last year the BBC’s pro-Culture of Death credentials have been reasserted with a vengeance. The overwhelmingly pro-Embryo research Bill coverage by the BBC was actually gratefully acknowledged by an Embryo research establishment spokesman. Embryo research will also involve animal/human hybrids. But God will not be mocked, for, ‘God created man in his own image, - male and female he created them’ (Gen 1:28). MPs ever mindful of the BBC’s dictates, voted in favour of this bill. Is it more than a coincidence that many MPs are being caught out regarding their false expense claims? The information below is reprinted by kind permission of Phyllis Bowman of Right to Life the parliamentary pro-life group. MPs that fight the pro-life cause are sadly a noble few, so please ask your MP to support pro-life early day motions.

British Broadcasting Corporation and Euthanasia and Abortion
Drew, David EDM 767 34 signatures

That this House regrets the British Broadcasting Corporation's (BBC's) practice of using drama to promote euthanasia and abortion; notes that the play, Hunter, presents those opposing abortion as violent activists prepared to kill to raise awareness of their views, contrary to the respect for human life which characterises the UK pro-life movement; further notes that the pro-life movement has frequently been the victim of violent attacks by pro-abortion activists, including violent assaults upon hon. Members of this House such as the late right hon. Bernard Braine, and forced entry to offices leaving premises so badly damaged as to be reported as a major item on BBC News; further notes that while pro-life groups demonstrating against abortion have always walked in silence they have often been physically attacked by pro-abortionists; further notes with regret that in the BBC film of Dr Ann Turner's assisted suicide the only reference to palliative care was utterly derogatory and completely ignored the fact that treatment could have prevented Dr Turner from choking or from suffering pain, contrary to the erroneous claims by the pro-euthanasia lobby; calls on the BBC Trust to ensure that the management of the BBC upholds the duty of impartiality and fairness enshrined in its codes; and suggests that if these principles are being abandoned then the BBC is undermining its case for continuing to enjoy the privileges of licence fee funding.

BBC dramas that depict pro-lifers as killers;
and euthanasia play causes a mother’s death

“Hunter”: The BBC thriller ‘Hunter’ in which the pro-life movement is depicted in the form of two female medical professionals kidnapping two 7 year old children from women who have had abortions, and holding them hostage to force the BBC to show a film about abortion. One of the little boys is killed by the female doctor with a lethal injection – all shown in detail. The body is laid out, half naked, in a wood and covered with a white blanket embroidered with the word ‘sacred’. There is also a third person, who is disabled, who kidnaps a little girl with spinabifida, also destined to be killed if the demands are not satisfied. We are told that this thriller will now be firmly part of BBC’s ongoing marketing and will no doubt be sold overseas as well. Enclosed is a copy of EDM 767[printed on the page 2]. Please do all you can to draw it to the attention of your MPs and try to get them to sign.

“Casualty”: It is not the first occasion on which the BBC has presented pro-lifers in the UK as killers. Two or three years ago I had a call from a BBC research worker at “Casualty” who was asking for pro-life posters for the “soap”. I learned that they were planning an instalment in which pro-lifers set out to kill a doctor who did abortions. When I pointed out that no such event had ever occurred (or was likely to occur) in the UK and that in this country pro-lifers had always been the victims of violence (and not the other way around), I was treated with utter disdain. I also pointed out that in the USA where there had been attempts on the lives of abortion-doctors, those responsible for the crimes had not been involved in the pro-life movement – but had been mavericks who espoused violence. However, the only response was that I had the telephone slammed down on me – and they still went ahead with their more than usually silly story.

Dr Ann Turner: A play entitled “A Short Stay In Switzerland” told the story of Dr Ann Turner who chose to commit suicide in Switzerland rather than allow nature to take its course and die from progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) – although she had at least about five years to live and was still able to walk comfortably with a stick. It was a true “reality” programme at its most grisly. When Dr Turner decided to end her life she travelled with her three children (plus a BBC Television news crew) to Dignitas in Switzerland the day after the VES sought publicity for its change of name to ‘Dignity in Dying’. It is therefore hardly surprising that the BBC should launch the story as a play presented to the public at prime time! Above texts from Phyllis Bowman of Right to Life

The news item below of an inquest, highlights the dangers of TV dramas such as “A Short Stay In Switzerland” particularly if viewed by the sick and the vulnerable.

MS victim killed herself after Dignitas BBC drama Daily Mail 09/05/09

A multiple sclerosis sufferer killed herself after watching a BBC drama about euthanasia, her family told an inquest. [She] died after taking an overdose on the night that ‘A Short Stay in Switzerland’ was screened. CUT – This lady was only 44 and the mother of two sons, 11 and 13 years of age. She had MS for over 15 years and at the inquest her brother said she had been talking of the future only days before her death. She suffered from depression and said a long time ago she would take her own life but the ‘play spurred her on’. She took an overdose immediately after viewing this drama.

The broadcasters misinformation regarding condoms and HIV/AIDS prevention

During the Holy Father’s recent pastoral visit to Africa he was asked the question is the Church’s rejection of condoms as a means of preventing AIDS “unrealistic and ineffective”. The Pope’s reply, which set off media condemnation throughout the western world, was that “One cannot overcome the problem with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, they increase the problem”. In order to ascertain the truth we need to examine Catholic teaching and evidence regarding the effectiveness of condoms.

Catholic teaching regarding sexuality is that sex should only be between a man and a woman and only then after they are married and they must remain faithful to their spouse. You simply cannot catch or spread the AIDS virus by adhering to this teaching. Therefore, why should the Church down grade her teaching to a system which is not safe? Also it is very important to remember that fornication (sex between unmarried people) and adultery (sex by a married person outside marriage) are both very grave sins.

In parts of the world where condoms have been adopted as a means of AIDS protection has it actually been effective and how does it compare to the mainly Catholic countries that have rejected condoms? AIDS is present in nearly all the countries of the world . However it is a fact that it is lower in most Catholic countries than in the mainly secular countries. The Western countries have adopted the condom as a means of preventing AIDS, and through their aid agencies are distributing condoms as protection against AIDS in the third world. However, this is failing to prevent the ever increasing number of HIV/AIDS. Here we examine the evidence of Thailand and the Philippines.

In the early stages of world the AIDS crisis in 1984 the Philippines reported its first cases and by 1987 it had 134 people with HIV/AIDS. Thailand on the other hand had less with only 113 cases of AIDS in 1987. These two countries adopted very different policies to deal with AIDS. Thailand implemented the 100% Condom Use Program where as in the Philippines the Catholic government ministers came out strongly against the condom program and sexual promiscuity. If one were to listen to the BBC and to other western media one would expect Thailand would be the country with fewer cases of AIDS. In fact the opposite is true. By the end of 2003 Thailand had 750,000 cases of HIV/AIDS and 58,000 AIDS deaths whereas the Philippines had only 9,000 cases of HIV/AIDS and 500 deaths even though the Philippines has a 30% larger population1. This is conclusive evidence against condoms but will the BBC give the Catholic teaching any credit? The opposite is the case and in 2003 the BBC even produced a programme, Sex and the Holy City in which they attacked the Catholic teaching on condoms. This programme was also an attack on the Catholic teaching on contraception in general. For since Paul VI encyclical Humanae Vitae issued in 1968 at the height of the sexual revolution re-affirming the Church’s teaching against contraception and abortion etc she has been at odds with most of the western media. Sex and the Holy City was perhaps one of the most dishonest attempts to galvanise world opinion against Catholic teaching on contraception possible. Leaving aside the Philippines excellent record on AIDS the commentary went like this ‘the Catholic Church opposes contraception and wants to leave sex education largely to families. Here even the statues of Christ seem to jostle for space2’ From this script one not only gets the impression that the Philippines is the most overcrowded country in the world but that this is due the Catholic teaching. However, this would be incorrect for the Philippines do not have the greatest population density for that part of the world. In factmany non-Catholic countries have a greater population density, Japan for example has many more people per square mile. The Philippines only has the average population density for the Far East. Therefore, we can see how the BBC cynically manipulates the facts to undermine Catholic teaching on contraception, and also using the AIDS crisis to do this. Sex and the Holy City’s producer was ‘Gay’ rights activist Chris Woods who already had a long history of anti-Catholic activity. Woods a founder member of Out Rage had led an invasion of the Papal Nuncios home and disrupted a Mass by Cardinal Hume. If homosexual activists can change Catholic teaching on contraception they believe they can then claim sex for recreation and not just for its life giving purpose. However, it is condoms as a protection against AIDS that is the main thrust of the polemics against the Church. AIDS which originally became known among homosexuals is being used against the Church in an unjust inversion of the truth. Condoms are only 85% effective as a contraceptive and the AIDS virus is even smaller than the sperm3.

To illustrate how ineffective and dangerous relying on condoms is we need to turn to independent scientific studies, for ethical reasons only a few have actually been carried out. However, the results from those that have prove how poorly condoms perform in AIDS prevention. An American study showed that 3 out of 10 women whose HIV-infected husbands faithfully used condoms contracted AIDS-Related Complex (ARC) in an 18-month period. This equates to 21% per year rising to 91% in 10 years4. Those who advocate the use of condoms in fighting AIDS are in fact playing Russian roulette with people’s lives.

References:
1, Trujillo & Clowes, HLI, 2006. 3, Goldsmith,1987, Clowes, HLI, 2006,
2, Aitken, Continuum, 2007 4, Journal of American Medical Ass, 1987, Clowes, HLI, 2006,
Note: Please refer anyone who advocates AIDS prevention by condoms to Cardinal Trujillo and Brian Clowes seminal book on the subject The Case Against Condoms 2006, Human Life International.

A4 fact sheet regarding misinformation by the media regarding AIDS and Condoms is available contact CUT
w:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

© CUT 2004 All Rights Reserved