The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Joseph Ratzinger delivers an uncompromising message > Comments

Joseph Ratzinger delivers an uncompromising message : Comments

By Greg Barns, published 22/4/2005

Greg Barns argues Ratzinger and the hierarchy of the worldwide Catholic Church have blood on their hands

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All
Well said. I agree.
Posted by Jennifer, Friday, 22 April 2005 11:18:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Before the inevitable tide of holy rollers arrives, i must thank you for putting the issue so starkly. I've been mocking the hierarchy of the Catholic Church for years, for their ignorance, narrowness and insensitivity, but when you consider their insidious and growing influence in those parts of the world most vulnerable to their lies and distortions, we need to realise they're beyond a joke, we need to start talking about criminal liability. These people know what they're doing, they know the consequences of their shameful pronouncements, and so they should be brought to justice. They are merchants of death. Choose life.
Posted by Luigi, Friday, 22 April 2005 11:57:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interestingly, I was chatting this morning with a Catholic priest and nun, neither of whom is at all happy with the Conclave's choice of Ratzinger as the new Pope. Then again, these are people who are working at the coalface of social justice and therefore are very aware of the areas in which the Catholic church needs to change in order to retain its relevance in the 21st century.
Posted by garra, Friday, 22 April 2005 1:13:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'd imagine many of the clergy here don't want to see a further haemorrhaging of their congregations. And who can blame them? It must be depressing to deliver a sermon to a half empty audience.

Defenders of the Bishop of Rome would not doubt cast him as a principled man needed in these Godless times. Unfortunately having principles (and I'll ignore his Nazi past at this point - after all, he was young and it was early in his career as they say) is not always a good thing. His Holy Inquisition predecessors had principles. Such principles led to anti-semitism, mass murder and torture.

Besides, as we've seen with the issue of child molestation in the Catholic Church, the likes of Ratzinger are not very principled regardless of what their public relations machines say.
Posted by DavidJS, Friday, 22 April 2005 2:01:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A quick reality check: don't know if these figures are accurate but they seem ok to me. My point? I don't thing the world's moral community is completely reliant on Catholisism (33%)or waiting for it to become modernised.

Christianity: 2 billion

Islam: 1.4 billion

Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion

Hinduism: 900 million

Buddhism: 360 million

Chinese traditional religion: 225 million

primal-indigenous: 150 million

African Traditional & Diasporic: 95 million

Sikhism: 23 million

Juche: 19 million

Spiritism: 14 million

Judaism: 14 million

Baha'i: 5 million

Jainism: 4 million

Shinto: 4 million

Zoroastrianism: 3 million

Cao Dai: 3 million

Tenrikyo: 2.4 million

Neo-Paganism: 1 million

Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand

Rastafarianism: 600 thousand

Scientology: 500 thousand

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
Posted by Rainier, Friday, 22 April 2005 4:20:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What's the big deal here? Surely the passing of one Pope and the arrival of a new one is, in world terms, a wholly underwhelming event. So he was a nice guy, travelled a lot and made a lot of people feel good about themselves. But his contribution to anything of any worth is highly questionable.

In what way did John Paul II contribute to the alleviation of suffering, anywhere in the world, in any real sense? Or make any attempt to improve the lot of even one of his "flock"? I guess the answer is that neither of these is in the papal job description, but if so, why waste so many tons of newsprint on his passing?

And the expressions of vague disappointment with the likely policies of Herr Ratzinger are simply astounding. The whole point of the Pope is to defend his church from any form of modernization, not to engage with anything remotely "modern" or "useful".

The day I see a Pope exhibit one tenth of the humanity and fellow-feeling of the local branch of the Salvos, I might start to take him seriously. Until then he and his cohorts remain just a bunch of self-righteous authoritarians exercising mind-control over people who prefer not to do their own thinking.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 22 April 2005 7:18:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Before condemning the catholic position on contraception, how about checking the AIDS facts with the catholic countries in Africa. the countries with the lowest AIDS rates are the ones that use the ABC method advocating abstinence before marriage and faithfulness after.
These countries have high percentage of catholics and low rates of AIDS. The highest AIDS countries are the ones with low catholic numbers and high condom use (condoms aren't 100 per cent effective).
I am not a catholic (or christian of any denomination) and happily use condoms but for people who are and live in Africa - abstinence and monogamy are obvously the safest option.

t.u.s.
Posted by the usual suspect, Friday, 22 April 2005 7:54:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well the holy rollers have arrived.

While most of the "enlightened and informed" world hoped for a low church Anglican as pope, the caridinals thought otherwise and elected a catholic. Although the pr machine is trying to soften his image, I think that the panzerKardinal is an appropriate name for this fellow. While he may have old world manners and charm he isn't going to budge if he feels that Catholic dogma is going to be diluted. I think he has this rather outdated notion that if you profess a certain faith you actually try to live up to it. Novell idea.

Atheists grossly overestimate the importance of the popes utterances in the Lives of most practicing Catholics.

I must be a bit simpleminded but why the hell would a African rooting around give a brass razoo about what the pope thinks about contraception. The man/woman who has premarital sex, commits adultery, has multiple sexual partners is not suddenly going to say I have broken most of the Catholic sexual commandments but I will keep the one about not putting a rubber on. Its this type of thinking that gives atheists a bad name. Sharpen up.

I actually think that it is more likely for Ratzinger to approve of contraception than for the Secular Bigots to argue for monogomy and chastity before marriage as a 100% effective method for stopping AIDS.

The modern wold has not taken much heed of Christianity over the past 150 years. Indeed the 20th Century has been the great testing ground of post Christian ideas. Communism, Fascism, nationalism divorce, sexual promiscuity, destruction of the family, the elevation of human rights in theory and their debasement in practice, the death of religion and hedonism. Keep slagging of Christianity and Catholicsm. The world you built is so much better than the one Ratzinger is offering.
Posted by slumlord, Friday, 22 April 2005 11:45:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
slumlord, sarcasm is a blunt weapon on these forums, it rarely comes off and mostly looks clumsy. Just trying to help.

I know it is fun for you guys to point out how the world has gone to hell in a handbasket because we ar all such sinners, but I'm not sure it is wise to advocate turning back the clock quite so enthusiastically. Reminding people of the days when their ancestors lived in grinding poverty while the church hierarchy swanned around in luxury is probably not the greatest recruitment poster.

The loss of "faith" in recent might be as much the result of resentment against the centuries of moral blackmail that kept the church in gold and purple while their flock needed new shoes, as any moral degeneration on the part of ordinary folk.

The new Pope will be just as superfluous and irrelevant to the world, Catholics and sinners alike, as have been his predecessors.

By the way, you aren't one of those "AIDS is God's punishment" people, are you? Just checking.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 23 April 2005 10:13:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarcasm is a blunt weapon but one is forced to use it when intelligent reasoning fails.

I dont want to intimate that everything with the Catholic church was right in the past oe present or that many of its ministers failed to live up to its ideals(they were quite frequently the worst hypocrites). Many of its saints had to endure abuse and censure by the Church leaders initially.

Where the Church and the modern world differ is,

a)The church (Ratzinger in particularly) believes that while we may fail these ideals, the ideals themselves are worth keeping. This is the whole idea behind forgiveness in the Catholic tradition. That once you are forgiven its a clean slate and you can start again.

b)The modern world feels that if you cant keep the ideals then lower the ideals. The problem is that with that system the ideals get moved depedent on circumstances of the situation. In the end anything is justified. "The tyranny of relativism".

I don't want you to think that I think all atheists are evil. I think it is far easier for an honest atheist to get through the front door upstairs than a mediocre Catholic.

What bugs me about atheists is their own blind spot when it comes to their set of values(religion by another name?) . Even with the worst excesses of the Inquistion, etc the deaths of non believers would have amounted to several hundred thousand.( A terrible figure I agree)
But lets look at the enlightened world of communism, fascism and modern relativism. Their death toll is over the 100 million mark. Which of the two is a lesser evil?

The church has blood on its hands. The atheists are drenched in it.
Posted by slumlord, Sunday, 24 April 2005 12:09:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Figures about the number of people dying of AIDS in particular African countries, those countries' level of Catholicism, the effectiveness of the Catholic message there etc etc, these figures are difficult to obtain, measure and analyse, and I'd be sceptical of their accuracy, but it's clear that the AIDS problem in Africa is massive and tragic, and that the Catholic hierarchy's irresponsible attitude has contributed. Daleep Mukarji, director of Christian Aid, said upon the death of John Paul 11, 'We were disappointed that he did not realise the Roman Catholic policy on condoms actually contributed to many deaths in the fight to control HIV/AIDS'.
Slumlord writes about abstinence. Of course a century of abstinence would solve all the human problems on the African continent, but let's be a bit more realistic. Given the sexual attitude of many African men to their women, expecting abstinence would be like waiting for Godot. And have you not noticed that AIDS is under control in Australia and Europe, without any great diminution of pre-marital or extra-marital sex? As Alduous Huxley wrote long ago, 'Chastity is the most unnatural of the sexual perversions'. Central to solving the AIDS problem in Africa are education, empowerment (particularly of women), political will, improved medication and the development of a culture of safe sex. These are what brought the situation under control in other parts of the world, and they'll eventually bring the situation under control in Africa, though there's a hard road to hoe. Another key to success is to sideline the Catholic Church as effectively as it's been sidelined in Australia and Europe.
Posted by Luigi, Sunday, 24 April 2005 12:44:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Any of you heard about the drowning Atheist who asked God for help?
Posted by Youssef, Sunday, 24 April 2005 2:18:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Sarcasm is a blunt weapon but one is forced to use it when intelligent reasoning fails.<<

Perhaps, slumlord, your "intelligent reasoning" failed because it lacked merit? or persuasiveness? or logic?

You say that you were not advocating a return to the Dark Ages, but then say "Where the Church and the modern world differ is...". Clearly, to you the Church and the modern world are two separate - possibly even opposing - concepts. It is little wonder that you find us confusing.

What bugs me about you holy rollers is when you say stuff like:

"What bugs me about atheists is their own blind spot when it comes to their set of values(religion by another name?)"

Are you suggesting that all atheists have a blind spot? Some atheists have a blind spot? An atheist you once knew had a blind spot? And that all atheists share a set of values?

Because it is Christianity's blind spot to believe that they have the one and only answer to all life's problems and challenges. And the holy roller's blind spot to believe that constant repetition of this absurd argument will make it somehow more true. Back when the peasants tilled the fields and the priests lived in luxury, life was simpler, and you might have got away with it, but it gets progressively less simple as the years go by. And also more difficult to wind back the clock.

Not many people would disagree that the concepts of caring, forgiveness and tolerance as important to society in their struggle to live peacably together. What Christianity has done is to gather these together - quietly adding a few other strictures that aren't quite so harmless - and giving them a label. This is undoubtedly a smart piece of marketing, roughly equivalent to "do you believe in motherhood", but it doesn't make you the sole repository of goodness, just because you have called yourselves Christians.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 24 April 2005 2:57:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok.. Luigi, u better tune out because "its me" :) but this time I tend to agree with you *shock horror*
Pericles, welcome back.
Slumlord, valuable in spite of Pericles assessment.

The very nature of the huge 'beurocracy' of the Catholic and Anglican churches and the rather stark contrast with the vibrant living fresh spontaneous and Spirit filled New Testament Church is precisely the reason I never committed to any of them.

Luigi, I must introduce you to the Rev Ian Paisly, you 2 would get along well about the Catholic church.

When the Church ceases to be about 'Christ' crucified/resurrected and glorified, and the forgiveness and new life He offers us, it ceases to be relevant. I found the presense of the 'M' on the coffin of John Paul pretty close to idolatry, or more accurately "Maryology"

When a church deifies a human being, to almost a cosmic granny of our big family in the sky level, which was the 'tone' of many comments made by John Paul "I hope to be received by.....who ? The Father ? nope, Christ the Son, ? nope.. by MARY yes ! and then, almost as 'also rans' by Jesus and the Father.

Am I being Critical ? yes, but biblically so.

TOPIC

I find that when so much could be said about the Historical side of the Church, both good and bad, that Greg has just 'politicized' it in terms of a few current issues of his lefist agenda.

"Aids is rampant in Africa" -- blame the church, African men have strong sex drives, but 'The Church is to blame for Aids spreading'

C'mon Greg. reality check time. Not all Africa is Catholic u know.
When statements like that are alluded to, I'd prefer to see them backed up by a country by country analysis with infection rates associated with religious traditions to see if there is a correlation.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 24 April 2005 6:21:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles.

You accuse me of tarring all atheists with the same brush but then proceed to tar all "holy rollers".
Lucky you don't have a blind spot.

Firstly. Catholics believe that death is not the worst thing that can happen to a man. Ending up in the hot place is.

On the basis of this, the following;

Ratzinger believes that it is Gods will that contraception is evil. Ratzinger believes that men should not do evil whatever the price because if they do evil, God will send them to hell.
Ratzinger then refuses to sanction evil. That is logic.

compared to;

Ratzinger belives that it is Gods will that contraception is evil
Ratzinger believes that men should not do evil whatever the price because if they do evil God will send them to hell.
Ratzinger sanctions evil because theres a good enough reason. That is relativism.

Ratzinger is not a big fan of relatavism.

Look. No reptetition.

Now as for my blind spot with respect to Atheists. To an atheist who does not believe in an Afterlife or hell, Ratzingers statements are totally ridiculous and cruel. A socially positive atheist bases his moral compass on the preservation of life and furtherance of human happiness A moral calculation is made of the situation and best course of action taken. If contraceptives can help decrease the spread of aids then they should be sanctioned anything which hampers this is evil. I understand this argument and Ratzinger understands it as well.

What disgusts me about this current thread is that the vitriol spewed at Ratzinger is essentially about his religous beliefs. It is an attack on Catholicism under the guise of compassion.

If only those Catholics were gotten rid of, then there would be no more AIDS.
If only those capitalists in Russia could be destroyed, then the workers would enjoy paradise.
If only those Jews could be eliminated from Germany, Germany again would prosper.

No lines in the sand. No limit to the terror.

Its this line of thinking that leads you to the hot place.

Cheerio

Slumlord.

It's secular bigotry.
Posted by slumlord, Sunday, 24 April 2005 9:18:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1. How do good Catholics get Aids?

2. If we're going to judge Catholics, what standard of morality are we going to apply? An objective, absolute standard of morality or a subjective, relative standard of morality?
Posted by Brazuca, Monday, 25 April 2005 8:01:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not sure I entirely follow your reasoning here, slumlord.

Are you suggesting that only atheists believe that contraception is OK? That is what your "Ratzinger logic vs Ratzinger relativism" argument seems to say. To tar all non-Roman Catholics with the brush of atheism seems just a little strong. The you go on to put words in this imaginary atheist's mouth:

"If only those Catholics were gotten rid of, then there would be no more AIDS."

Nobody, as far as I am aware, has suggested that the Catholic injunction against contraception is the only reason AIDS is still with us. What they - and Greg's article - do say is that your church's opposition is prolonging the misery by causing unnecessary deaths. That was the "blood on their hands" bit, in case you missed it.

You appear to both accept this, and think it is a "good thing", on behalf of yourself and your Pope:

"[Atheists say that if] contraceptives can help decrease the spread of aids then they should be sanctioned anything which hampers this is evil. I understand this argument and Ratzinger understands it as well."

Presumably then, you and Ratzinger both approve of this course of inaction, and are totally unmoved by the deaths you cause. How do you reconcile this with loving your neighbour? Or is that an entirely different religion I am thinking of? We atheists do tend to tar you all with the same brush I'm afraid.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 25 April 2005 9:57:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Like many 'debates' in these forums, this one has quickly polarised to extreme positions on either side, with Catholic/Christian hardliners in one camp, secular humanists in the other, and very few other contributors game to say anything for fear of being shouted down by zealots of one persuasion or another.

As I suggested above, the thing that interests me when I speak with currently serving Catholic clergy who live and work in my small country town, is that they are universally disappointed in the Conclave's choice of Ratzinger as the new Pope, over other potential choices that might have allowed the Church to increase its relevance and efficacy. The clergy who express this view work on a daily basis with the sick, the poor and the disadvantaged, and I have never heard them express the extreme and intolerant positions that some of the 'holy rollers' here assert is the true Christian perspective.

I have a feeling that these extreme positions enunciated here by the regular 'godbotherers' marginalise them even within their own churches, so that OLO is the most convenient 'pulpit' available to them. And of course, preaching is the antithesis of debate.
Posted by garra, Monday, 25 April 2005 10:13:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I must say I'm disappointed at the woefully inept 'arguments' put by the pro-Catholics in this forum, many of whom are straying wildly from the issue at hand.

I myself am not a moral relativist. I believe that in order to develop an effective and accurate moral regime, we must investigate what we are as human beings, and the best conditions for our flourishing. This is an Aristotelian approach, which long predates Christianity. In this sense, to achieve an objective moral system is always an ideal project, as there is always more to uncover about individual and social behaviour and capacity, which in any case constantly evolve, so that laws need to be continually reviewed and updated.

The Catholic Church on the other hand has taken some of the writings of members of a semitic tribe of the Eastern Mediterranean, and a handful of later theologians, asserted (with no evidence) that they were inspired by a deity, and assured themselves and everyone else that they will never deviate from them until the end of time. This is objective morality? I have long since learned that when the Catholic hierarchy speak about Truth, they mean "our dogma".

As I've said before, it would be impossible to quantify the damage done in Africa by the Catholic church's pronouncements. In some parts they hold great sway, in other parts very little, and individuals base their judgements on a multitude of factors, including, or not, the attitude of that church's hierarchy. It is clear though that on balance they've been a hindrance, and they need to be pushed aside like the meddling and ignorant old farts they are, so that good people can get on with the job of saving lives and empowering potential victims.
Posted by Luigi, Monday, 25 April 2005 10:14:39 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And Luigi, have a look at the individual countries in Africa.

Not all African nations are largely Catholic.

The countries which have advocated abstinence (like Uganda)have cut their AIDs rate by up to 500 per cent, while those where there are millions of condoms distributed have seen their rate's increase.

I think the Catholic Church has done some pretty horrible things in the past but they have also done good.

Just because they haven't been strong enough on issues like child abuse with the priests does not mean that everything they do is poison.

Abstinence before marriage and faithfulness in it is the most effective way to reduce AIDS in those countries and it has worked. ABC even promotes the use of condoms as a last resort but many people are willing to abstain. Muslim leaders are also heavily promoting abstinence because they say condom use only promotes promiscuity and they are not 100 per cent safe.

There is an article in last December's Lancet medical journal showing the benefits of the ABC approach - I hope it is a prestigous enough publication for you to not immediately dismiss.

t.u.s.
Posted by the usual suspect, Monday, 25 April 2005 12:11:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles.

Let me try to be as simple as possible.

You have a humanistic view which sees death as the ultimate evil. Ratzinger has the view that ending up in hell is the ultimate evil.
Death is not.

Ultimately this whole thread is about the clash of individual value systems. i.e religions.

It is a debate between the traditional religions and modern secular religion. Respecting differences of opinion is what tolerance is about. Throwing vitriol about is simply bigotry. (blood on their hands). Greg Barns article was bigotry disguised as compassion.

And as the comments

"are you one of those people who think that AIDs was Gods punishmet"
and the bit about Ratzinger and I thinking its a good thing about people dying from AIDs
well those comments are worthy of an Ultster unionist.

A rose is a rose by any other name and so is bigotry.
Posted by slumlord, Monday, 25 April 2005 11:01:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whilst I'm not a Catholic, I don't see any problem with Pope Benedict XVI's views on the world or how people should live. I disagree entirely with Barns when he considers the views of the new Pope to be "out of step" with current social trends.

Heaven forbid we might actually have a Church leader willing to stand up for Biblical truths and decent standards.

Long live the Pope!
Posted by Dinhaan, Tuesday, 26 April 2005 12:48:50 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, I hope Slumlord remembers his/her condemnation of bigotry when the Catholic Church and its representatives attack the gay community. I don't take kindly to terms such as "evil", "objective disorder" and "culture of death" when they are hurled at people such as myself. Not too many gays do.

Given the Catholic Church's long but less than morally upstanding history, I may well be within my rights to condemn its record as a "culture of death".
Posted by DavidJS, Tuesday, 26 April 2005 9:24:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
slumlord, you are still 'way off target.

"You have a humanistic view which sees death as the ultimate evil."

You see, this another example of how you make broad assumptions about anyone who disagrees with you, and how in your mind there is a little box marked "Roman Catholics: Right" and another marked "Atheists: Wrong". And there are only two boxes.

The clearest example of this was where you said "...lets look at the enlightened world of communism, fascism and modern relativism". To you, they are all of a piece, indistinguishable from each other. From what you have written here (as opposed to anything I might choose to imagine you to have thought) you are totally unable to grasp that many people lead good and charitable lives outside the narrow confines of the Pope's mindset. It is these people that you are calling bigots, because they disagree with his objections - on "moral" grounds - to help save lives in Africa.

I originally posed the question "[b]y the way, you aren't one of those "AIDS is God's punishment" people, are you?" so that you could refute it. I thought it would be a good opening for you to explain how it is that it only appears to be the case, and that you really feel sad for these people. I'm sure you will let me know when Herr Ratzinger informs us how he too reconciles the two positions - on the one hand turning his back on suffering, and on the other....

What?
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 26 April 2005 9:34:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not being a Roman Catholic the Popes view of the world has no significance to me. Doubtless he would probably consider me a heretic and have me excommunicated if he wanted – and I would not give a hoot. The sad bit in all this is he does presume to direct intelligent individuals in matters of their family planning practices and contraception and their right to exercise abortion - matters which concern them but for which he has no practical responsibility (other than it diminishes the opportunity for market penetration and the power base of RCism).

What Pope B XVI says and wants is irrelevant to me. That, supposedly, a billion Roman Catholics snap to attention at his 'beck and call' amazes me, if they do I have, obviously, seriously overestimated their reasoning capabilities.
We will all believe what we want, just remember, the Pope and all his cardinals are not omnipotent and I am happy to live and let live. Just don't expect me to Kow-Tow to any Papist declarations or demands, the middle digit of my right hand is all that is required for the salute to anyone who does.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 26 April 2005 9:40:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dinhaan, are you suggesting opposition to the use of contraception which does not involve abortion is supporting biblical truth?

I've always assumed that catholic leadership opposition to that was their invention rather than a biblical issue (please note I have distinguished from morning after pills etc which may act after conception and raise a different set of issues).

Some one else talked about people involved in sex outside of marriage being unlikely to then pay attention to the teaching on contraception. I am aware of at least one case recently publicised in Australia where a catholic was involved in prematital sex but choose to play vatican roulete as well, just maybe others have made similar choices.

People do make choices which contradict their overall belief structure, they may not choose increase the list of "sins". Likewise I expect that access to condoms is made more difficult in countries where the use of them is discouraged (it is bad enough in our country having the teenage checkout girl process them at the supermarket). There are a lot of reasons why social or religious views on the use of condoms impact on a person's access to them or choice to use them. The sooner we remove those restrictions the better.

Use ABC as plan "A" if you want but allow for the fact that some people who believe in christian teachings about sexual behaviour still find themselves horizontal folk dancing and have a plan "B".

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 26 April 2005 1:08:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have recently been introduced to OLO. And I am loving the discussions. It's great to see so many people interested in having a say - and for the most part intelligently (in my humble opinion anyway!).

So, onto the new pope...

Having been born Catholic, lost faith/interest and become what I call a reformed Deist, I have a simple view of all this. There will always be opportunity for people to choose to follow a religion, doing so out of faith and after some self determination. That is what religion is about. Some may say that the Catholic church is the great indoctrinator. I would tend to agree except I was not indoctrinated - even with a family full of devotees. Perhaps education has something to do with it. Perhaps it's more what an individual needs to remain mentally 'tough enough' to survive this world. Who really knows?

What I have seen though, in these discussions, is those who blame 'the church' for the woes of parts of the world and those who defend it unquestioningly. How about the middle ground? Where a church does good (within the confines of their faith, which is an obvious expectation!) and where the church has fallen down (it is made of humans after all!). Perhaps an immovable faith would be good to 'find the better world again' or perhaps the immovable is simply archaic and hindering progress? It is not within my wisdom to answer such a question.

What I do know is this. That if people have differing views, the only safe way forward is to accept that others won't always agree and to listen and discuss. Ultimately, through community self-determination, those that choose to follow will and those that don't will look elsewhere. Any other way will eventually lead to events such as WWI and II, The Crusades, most instances of colonisation in history or Sept 11. And I don't think that anyone would agree any of them turned out for the best for all concerned.

Thankyou for allowing me to be a small part of this forum...

JustDan
Posted by JustDan, Tuesday, 26 April 2005 1:35:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AIDS is a medical problem and only secondarily a moral problem. Of course the immorality comes in when someone knowingly exposes others to risks. If on the other hand people are infecting others unknowingly, the responsibility falls on those whose duty it is to inform the population fully of those risks. It’s about providing full information about prevention (and the ABC approach sounds fine, as long as it saves lives), the best possible treatment, and if necessary, the enacting of laws to punish anyone deliberately putting others at risk.

This article, though, deals with the culpability of the Catholic hierarchy and its pope in being willing to sacrifice lives by thundering against the use of 'abortifacient' condoms and the 'holocaust' they've created.

The philosopher A C Grayling puts Ratzinger's moral equivalence into perspective:
.. the prospect of alleviating suffering is too intrinsically good to be sacrificed to the mistaken view that a cluster of cells... is the moral equivalent of a baby in a crib. The argument that the two are equivalent because the former could in the right circumstances become the latter fails on the grounds that this makes any arbitrarily chosen pair of a single sperm (say in a testicle in Toronto) and ovum (say in a pelvis in Prague) morally equivalent to a baby, for they too in the right circumstances could become one.
Of course, a line has to be drawn. But to draw it at the moment a zygote is formed rather than at the point where a fetus becomes independently viable – from where something really can be ‘become a baby’ – is to ignore the fact that nature itself is profligate with the zygote, the morula, the blastocyst, the embryo, the fetus, voiding itself of any it is not satisfied with, in numbers unimaginable to the moral sentimentalist for whom the mere existence of life rather than its value – its quantity, not quality – is what matters most.

From New Scientist, April 9, p17.

Even many Christians working on the ground in Africa agree - this pope has blood on his hands.
Posted by Luigi, Tuesday, 26 April 2005 3:27:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loved your piece, Greg.
The most interesting post, in my view, is Luigi's first post. He points out that Western countries which have promoted condom use (and, in Australia's case, needle exchange) have managed to control the spread of AIDS very effectively. This objective evidence has been ignored by the Catholic hierachy. The position of women in Africa, as he also points out, has had a huge effect on the rate of young women with AIDS, many of them virgins until their first experience of sex with their HIV+ husbands. What is the Catholic churches view on that? Particularly given their emphasis on a woman's obligation to obey her husband. How has virtuous abstinence helped them? And, pardon my scepticism, but I reckon we could wait until the hot place freezes over if we think men are going to suddenly slap themselves on the forehead, realise the error of their ways, and practice abstinence and fidelity in any great numbers.
And telling those AIDS infected, virtuous young women that they and their HIV+ kids will get to heaven, while their promiscuous and irresponsible husbands will go to hell, seems to this secular humanist to be very cold comfort, indeed.
Posted by enaj, Tuesday, 26 April 2005 5:44:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles,

I am afraid this argument is going nowhere, as fundamentally the argument is about different peoples religious beliefs. Ratzinger's believes are that contraception is wrong. Fixing up a bad situation by doing wrong is not permitted by a moral absolutist. You judge Ratzinger by your own morality and by that standard Ratzinger is evil. But you never Judge Ratzinger by his morality. Is he true to his principles? Is he as Satre would say "authentic". No, the blood on his hand bit is about you disagreeing with the doctrine of the Catholic church and proceeding to sledge it. Thats why its bigotry.
I dont think that AIDs is gods punishment.

I also know that the Catholic church has hospitals throughout africa caring for people with AIDs. It despises the sin but loves the sinner.
As we only get 350 words to reply sometimes it is necessary to be broad in order to get an idea across. By nature I'm not a pedant.

Religion is not a neat two box variety which you think I obviously operate with. There are shades of grey in most peoples beliefs but people either tend to believe in some diety or not. The characteristics of those who believe in a diety varies from a strict disciplinarian to something like an indulgent grandparent who lets anything go for the right reason.

Oh "obviously" I cant see the differnece between communism, facism and moral relativism. Any moron can see the differences but you may have a problem in recognising the similarity of their value system. Their common thread is the rejection of any form of concrete and absolutist morality. Rather they are systems which relied on secular values to guide them. The god botherers are not allowed.

Once again. No line in the sand no limit to the terror.
Posted by slumlord, Tuesday, 26 April 2005 7:07:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brazuca,

What would you describe as an objective standard? One based on a person's life I hope.
Posted by RobertG, Tuesday, 26 April 2005 7:37:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Pope dies and, naturally, goes to heaven. He's met by the reception committee and, after a whirlwind tour is told that he can enjoy any of the myriad recreations available.

He decides that he wants to read all of the ancient original text of the Holy Scriptures, and spends the next eon or so learning the languages. After becoming a linguistics master, he sits down in the library and begins to pore over every version of the Bible, working back from the most recent "Easy Reading" to the original script.

All of a sudden there is a scream in the library. The angels come running to him, only to find the Pope huddled in a chair, crying to himself, and muttering, "An 'R'! They left out the 'R'”.

God takes him aside, offering comfort and asks him what the problem is. After collecting his wits, the Pope sobs again, "It's the letter 'R'... the word was supposed to be CELEBRATE."
Posted by Rainier, Tuesday, 26 April 2005 7:50:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On the contrary, slumlord, I think this discussion is moving along quite nicely.

You say that "Ratzinger's believes [sic] are that contraception is wrong. Fixing up a bad situation by doing wrong is not permitted by a moral absolutist."

This is the nub of the "should we have a more caring Pope?" argument. The hardliners say - as you yourself did - "While most of the 'enlightened and informed' world hoped for a low church Anglican as pope, the caridinals [sic] thought otherwise and elected a catholic."

But policy, it would appear, is at the whim of whoever happens to be sitting in the chair at the time.

So it is quite possible that a future Pope might think that the moral absolute of causing death by neglect outweighs the moral absolute of wearing a condom. And everyone will say, how wise, God has guided him truly. Because he is Pope.

Just for the sake of my education, which Pope was it who decided that wearing a condom is a mortal sin?
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 26 April 2005 10:36:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
jesus, what a reaction Greg. This is a timely and refreshing piece of writing from greg barns. it is not often that i find myself in agreeance with barns, though i have always admired his humanitarian activism. The papalcy has become increasingly irrelevant and all too often a stumbling block to good works. well done greg
rick pilkington
Posted by Rick Pilkington, Tuesday, 26 April 2005 11:20:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles,
The ban on contraception has existed since ancient times and all Christian faiths until modern times supported it. It's all based on a bit of scripture about "Onan spilling his seed and the Lord slew him" or something to that effect. The early Church fathers repeatedly condemmed contraception, though its condemnation has been less emphasised throughout the centuries. In the 1930's, Pius X(I could be wrong) issued an encyclical against contraception in response to the Anglicans allowing its use at their Lambeth conference.

The Anglicans were the first Christian denomination to approve of it, in "grave circumstances" only.

Its most famous condemnation was by Paul VI in Humanae Vitae in 1968.
Is it an infallible dogma? Well some say it is and some say it isn't. In my reading of the matter it would be pretty close to being infallible teaching.

According to surveys 97% of Catholics in the west honour the teaching in its breach. Personally I'm not a big fan of the teaching. My personal belief is with that of the majority opinion which advised Paul VI of allowing non abortofacient contraception within the confines of marriage.
In the west according to surveys 97% of Catholics honour the teaching in its breach.
I reckon Ratzinger may make some more statements on the matter. I would not be suprised if his view on the matter may be more liberal than most people think.
By the way this is not a theoretical discussion for me as I work at the "coalface" of the contraceptive debate. Prior to my work in the Health care profession I though contraceptive premarital sex harmless to all involved, however all contraceptives fail. Unfortunately rather frequently usually through user error, stupidity, apathy and culpable ignorance.
Posted by slumlord, Tuesday, 26 April 2005 11:35:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pope John Paul the 2nd asked for OUR forgiveness for terrible wrongs committed by the Colonising Catholic Church in the past. this took many years to come . we have seen some positive and good changes of late.

He wisely told Aboriginal people to value and keep their culture and language in 1986 at alice springs . [john howard please take note .!]

However, alas we will see much more avoidable pain and suffering in the world under this new Pope . At sometime in the future there will be another sincere apology for it,s inaction on AIDS and other reversible social problems that blight us .

Rest assured Greg that the ALMIGHTY wll sort us ALL out at the slip-rails , but i agree in the meantime we must keep pressure on our church and government leaders to make them change their insensitive and often apathetic, archaic mindsets .
Posted by kartiya, Wednesday, 27 April 2005 12:59:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Slumlord, fascism and communism are not the same as moral relativism. Hitler and Stalin had very absolutist (I can't call them morals) ideologies. Perhaps if they were moral relativists the world would be a better place. Hitler believed the Jews, gays, "inferior" races were always evil. Stalin held all "enemies of the people" to be absolutely wrong and worthy of extermination. Interestingly, Hitler also had pretty firm ideas when it came to religion:

"Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.... We need believing people."
-- Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of 1933.

Perhaps moral relativism isn't so bad after all.
Posted by DavidJS, Wednesday, 27 April 2005 8:30:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
slumlord - I told you we were making progress here. Thanks for the history, and I sense that your position is easing somewhat from your earlier blanket condemnation.

The difference seems to be that individual choice - guided of course by circumstances - is starting to appear in your arguments. Your reference to Onan intrigued me, so I took a quick look around, and found that some fascinating discussions have taken place, and are still taking place, on the topic. My searches even took me into discussions on what constitutes a mortal sin, somewhere I never thought I would find myself.

Apparently there are three requirements for a sin to be mortal, gravity (of the sin), knowledge (by the perpetrator, of what he/she was doing) and intent.

I guess the bit we are discussing here is the "gravity", and here's where it starts getting a little muddy. Pius XI in "Casti Connubii" in 1930 was specific, that we are talking here about "a grave sin", but apparently these words were not used in Paul VI's 1968 Encyclical "Humanae Vitae", an omission that has been debated, I have discovered, ever since.

Then there's our friend Onan, whose circumstances were that he had married his brother's widow, and objected to the fact that if she had offspring, tradition dictated that they would count as belonging to his dead brother, not to him. Hence the seed spilling bit. Somehow, this act of rebellion against a really stupid law got him killed, and the act itself condemned forever after.

Now this is my first taste of how your traditions have unfolded, so I am obviously speaking out of turn. But is this really a justification for turning your back on the opportunity to help the unfortunate in Africa?
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 27 April 2005 10:22:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Pope as Pol Pot? I do not think so. Catholic influence within the context of prostitution and homosexuality is slight.

Condoms will do very little unless men are prepared to use them and generally (in Africa) they are not prepared to do so.

The highest incidence of HIV in Africa relate to geography which has a dearth of Catholics.

The pro-prostitution, public sex, and anti-abstinence zealots are more to blame for the HIV crisis than the Vatican.

The HIV debate has been hijacked by extremists who use it to promote prostitution and indiscriminate sexual practices.
Posted by Cadiz, Wednesday, 27 April 2005 12:28:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"1. How do good Catholics get Aids? 2. If we're going to judge Catholics, what standard of morality are we going to apply? An objective, absolute standard of morality or a subjective, relative standard of morality?"

It is barely possible to attend a HIV conference without pro-prostitution people taking control of the proceedings.

The condom marketing issue is about the pro-prostitution movement wanting absolute sovereignty over a health issue.

The behaviour of the pro-prostitution faction at the global AIDS conference in Bangkok in July 2004 was scandalous.
Posted by Cadiz, Wednesday, 27 April 2005 12:45:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, Cadiz, I am pro-gay and anti-prostitution. I don't know how that sits with your view of the world but I am concerned that you may be conflating the human rights of gays with prostitution. Correct me if I am wrong.

The Vatican and its supporters often regard gays and gay sexual practices as being part of the problem re: AIDS. Actually, AIDS is spread only through particular sexual practices which both gays and heterosexuals engage in. Gays and heterosexuals who engage in non-penetrative sexual practices have little to worry about in terms of AIDS. There is no need for abstinence (and at any rate abstinence is not an issue for women in many countries where they are expected to be of service to men). But the Vatican is unlikely to publish a manual of sexual practices that don't spread STDs.

Prostitution, in my opinion, is a violation of the rights of women. In Thailand, for example, where prostitution is widespread, what do we see? Huge numbers of women infected with HIV. And life is little better for women not in prostitution in Thailand or other Third World countries.

If the Vatican was serious about stemming the spread of HIV it should rigorously oppose the subordination of women. But of course, that might upset Catholic, neanderthal males in the Third World who make up a large percentage of its support base.
Posted by DavidJS, Wednesday, 27 April 2005 1:29:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear DavidJS
Selectively quoting Hitler to prove your point is just like some Bible basher selectively quoting bits of scripture to prove their case.
If Hitler was a man who lived up to his word he wouldn’t of said,
“I have no more territorial demands” Just before invading Poland.
“I seek peace with Britain”, Before attacking Britain
“we have to rid our land of this Jewish and Romish influence” when speaking to his generals about the Catholic church in Germany
Using Hitler as an intellectual support is a bit naïve.
Posted by slumlord, Wednesday, 27 April 2005 11:50:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With regard to Pericles.

I'm delighted that you bothered to chase up the contraception history. I didn’t really want to get into the evaluation of mortal sin but I am quite glad you found it. Personally I don’t think God is going to send anyone to hell for putting on a Rubber to prevent AIDS spreading. I don’t think it will earn them a place upstairs either. Catholic theologians would say that while the act is wrong, the intention is good and the circumstances pressing. Therefore the guilt is mitigated but a wrong has still been committed
What upset me about this thread is that Ratzinger was being pilloried for his religion and for being true to it. I would have also been upset if an Anglican or Hindu was pilloried for theirs.
Imagine the outcry that would have happened if Greg has written a piece “Jews have blood on their hands for the death of Christ”. I think it would of smacked of racial vilification. There would have been a call for blood.
I believe Ratzinger may mitigate the teaching somewhat. But I don't think that that there are going to be big changes. Ratzinger doesn't hate contraceptors or homosexuals or racists. He hates the sin not the sinner. No, the catholic church is not going to apporve what it considers an evil act even if some good is going to come out of it. No matter what the cost.
I think it was St Thomas Aquinas who said,
lying is still wrong, even to save chastity.
Abortion will not be approved even if a life is saved.
Stealing will not be approved even to feed the hungry.
and contraception wont be approved to stop aids.
In case your interested I found an interesting article about the panzer cardinal and his thoughts on conscience.
I think you will find it an intersting read.
http://www.ratzingerreport.com/speeches/conscience_and_truth.html

Cheerio
Slumlord.
Posted by slumlord, Wednesday, 27 April 2005 11:54:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whilst being no fan of the Roman Dictator or his Church, I can see their point.

Their main reason for being is to spread the word of God and the teachings of Jesus, everything they do stems from this. They are not in the business of saving lives, as much as saving souls. If the word of God (or their interpretation of the word of God) is held by them as an objective truth, then it would be a gross betrayal of principle, (and probably a terrible blasphemy), to act contrary to these truths. They would then indeed be the hypocrites they are often accused of being.

I'm not saying that I agree with them because I generally don't. Alot of what they say seems to be the word of man much more than the word of God.

Greg Barnes, as usual, goes right over the top with irrational statements of prejudice and hate thinly disguised as enlightened and compassionate reasoning. Putting aside human nature etc, what do you really think would be more effective in stemming the tide of AIDS: sex only taking place within marriage (gay or straight) or the wholesale handing out of condoms? Only an idiot would go the condom line. I realise that you can't remove human nature from the equation, but this is beside the point I am trying to make. Greg, if the Vatican suddenly endorsed the use of condoms and the AIDS epidemic dramatically increased, would the Church still have blood on its hands?
Posted by bozzie, Thursday, 28 April 2005 12:08:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But Bozzie, the facts simply don't support you. Condoms and needle exchange have controlled the spread of AIDS in western countries. The rates of abstinence from pre-marital sex haven't changed a bit in those countries, yet AIDS infection rates are under control.
I suspect abstinence from pre-marital sex has never, ever worked, however God fearing and pious a society likes to present itself. Victorian England, for example, had extremely high rates of prostitution (including child prostitution), while pretending that sex didn't exist. Higher rates than exist today, I believe. If you ever watch those fascinating SBS programs where they discover medieval skeletons and trace down their origin and life, you'll find the men are almost always riddled with syphilis (it effects the bones), yes, even the priests. Did you see the doco recently on the two young prostitutes in Iran? No society has managed to live up to abstinence, that's the problem, by seeing that as the only solution you are virtually condemning people to death, particularly, as has been pointed out a number of times, but never responded to by the Pope's defenders, women. Worse, women who have obeyed the rules, remained virgins and are infected by their husbands in their first ever sexual experience. I still ask, what is the Catholic church's answer to those women? That the wages of virtue are death?
Posted by enaj, Thursday, 28 April 2005 10:07:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
enaj we are not talking about western countries. we are talking about africa where the facts show the highest incidences of aids are in countries with low rates of catholicism and vice versa.
check out the Lancet article I mentioned before.
condoms are not saving lives in africa.

t.u.s.
Posted by the usual suspect, Thursday, 28 April 2005 11:57:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RobertG, I would describe as an objective standard a standard that is not subjective or relative. In other words, an objective standard is one that is by necessity of a transcendent source, thus making it absolute and universal in its application. If the source of the standard is not transcendent, then it is arbitrary, subjective and relative, and therefore obviously not objective.
Posted by Brazuca, Thursday, 28 April 2005 12:08:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More moral absolutist 'onanism' from Brazuca, who claims objectivity for standards supposedly derived from his/her god. The trouble with this argument is that these purportedly 'objective standards' are invariably recorded and interpreted by humans, which therefore places them in exactly the same subjective moral status as any other figment of the human imagination.
Posted by garra, Thursday, 28 April 2005 1:40:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bozzie, the usual suspect - does this have to be an either or?
It seems to me that the main argument is that Catholic opposition to condoms is adding to the problem. If encouraging people to keep sex within marriage works then keep encouraging people to do so but what is the problem with supporting a "plan B".

Certainly plenty of evidence throughout history (including in the Bible) that people will not always follow "plan A".

Pretty much the same as saying "Don't do drugs but if you do then use a clean needle and don't share it."

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 28 April 2005 2:05:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"t.u.s.": I've looked and I can't find any articles in December's 'Lancet' that supports your claims, nor in any other edition. Could you provide the volume, edition, and article title please?

I did find several articles in The Lancet that seem to contradict your claims, however. A couple of quotes:

"Uganda is widely regarded as an HIV/AIDS success story, but the reality of this claim has rarely been critically investigated. Although evidence-based medicine is increasingly important, analysis of the Ugandan epidemiological situation shows that the so-called proof accepted for policy recommendations can be subject to creative interpretation." (Parkhurst, J. 'The Uganda Success Story?', Lancet 360(9326) 6/07/02).

"Regrettably, the verdict on the present Pope's legacy will be that he allowed a mistakenly applied principle to destroy the possibility of a common human front against AIDS. His successor must replace this ecclesiastical error with clerical compassion." (The Lancet Editorial 'The Pope's Grievous Errors' 365(9463) 12/3/05).

One hopes that "t.u.s." displays better research skills when engaged in journalism than when posting to these forums.
Posted by garra, Thursday, 28 April 2005 3:02:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Garra, sorry my mistake, it was November 27 not December, out by a few days. Still though you managed to find two articles (one before and one after) that apparently disproved my claim (are you one of those who only reads things which confirm your opinion).

Okay, here is one of the quotes from the Lancet

Second, the ABC (Abstain, Be faithful/reduce partners, use Condoms) approach can play an important role in reducing the prevalence of HIV in a generalised epidemic, as occurred in Uganda.[8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13] All three elements of this approach are essential to reducing HIV incidence, although the emphasis placed on individual elements needs to vary according to the target population. Although the overall programmatic mix should include an appropriate balance of A, B, and C interventions, it is not essential that every organisation promote all three elements: each can focus on the part(s) they are most comfortable supporting. However, all people should have accurate and complete information about different prevention options, including all three elements of the ABC approach.

Robert the ABC program which i mentioned in previous posts is a kind of middle ground. Abstinence, be faithful and use condoms as a last resort.

The article goes on to say how the balance of these elements should be based on the culture it is being applied to.

But in Uganda, which has a high catholic population, the A and B have been very useful in reducing AIDS.

Like I have said previously, I am not a catholic or christian of any denomination and I happily use condoms, but the blood of AIDS victims in Africa is not exactly on this or the previous Pope's hands.

t.u.s.
Posted by the usual suspect, Thursday, 28 April 2005 3:44:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the usual suspect, good post. I had missed the meaning of the C part of ABC in earlier posts.

Do you have any knowledge on the practical impacts of Catholic opposition to condoms in countries with significant catholic populations? Are they harder to get for those who want them than they might otherwise be?

If the approach is to tell catholics not to use them but not to intefer with the supply chain then I would tend to side with the view that people make their own choice about obeying the injunction. If they are harder to get because of catholic opposition then I agree with the blood theory.
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 28 April 2005 4:17:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One theory I heard re: the reduction of AIDS cases in Uganda was that there was nobody left to infect so consequently the figures had to go down.

Condoms may not be 100 percent effective but completely unprotected sex is virtually 100 percent effective - in contracting any form of STD. And that's why safe proponents such as myself find the official Catholic Church dangerously irresponsible when they criticise condoms. Now certainly faithfulness in any relationship will reduce your chances of getting HIV. But how do you really know your partner's sexual history? By mind reading?

And still very few people want to do sexual activities which have minimum risk of HIV. And so HIV will spread.
Posted by DavidJS, Thursday, 28 April 2005 4:18:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow, kinda knew this forum would be captured by hte likes of you but it all makes for interesting outlooks. I find it amazing for the people in this forum that would look toward a pope for moral guidance about a country, people and culture they don't even know and he was just on a flying visit. But if the pope says's that's what should happen, they"re happy with it be it contraception/ guided by the big guy. Meanwhile we still have this big problem about one of the most poverty driven, poorest country on the planet with the highest population rate. All tied up with the paradox of IVF in countries that can afford to walk that path. It seems a nonsence to me that in impoverished nations (due to regimes, circumstances and the Church) and the demand that western world can supply (if adoption was made easier, would there be so many peolple doing the IVF dance). But why should the Church be involved. The stance that the Church has taken in the last century has been found wanting. No amount of nuns weilding guitar al'la Vatican II will make up for it!
Posted by Di, Thursday, 28 April 2005 9:19:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
garra, so there's no objective standard of morality?

But in a roomful of subjective opinions, which one's the right one?
Posted by Brazuca, Friday, 29 April 2005 11:18:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brazuca
"so there's no objective standard of morality?

But in a roomful of subjective opinions, which one's the right one?"

We've heard this from U ad nauseam, if U Rn't gonna contribute to the debate stop with the philosophic semantics - goes nowhere achieves nothing.

Di: as U say condoms aint perfect however they provide a considerable amount of protection compared to no protection at all.

To those who propose abstinence - U are denying the very basic nature of human behaviour. Fact is we like to bonk. Some people are celibate - that's their choice, but to impose that lifestyle on others is a denial of the humanity of others. Something religion is very good at. While there is a lot of aid done by the Catholic church it is always at a price and that price is about control - the words 'flock' and 'sheep' occur thruout religious speak for a reason
Posted by Ambo, Friday, 29 April 2005 5:05:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Totally irrelevant to the topic but I found it quite amusing to think of all those anti-gay cardinals sitting under the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and the work of the very gay artist Michaelangelo. LOL.
Posted by Mollydukes, Friday, 29 April 2005 8:36:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"t.u.s.": "condoms are not saving lives in africa"

"t.u.s.": "sorry my mistake, it was November 27 not December, out by a few days. Still though you managed to find two articles (one before and one after) that apparently disproved my claim (are you one of those who only reads things which confirm your opinion"

Actually, I did a search at the Lancet site on some obvious keywords & the article to which you very partially refer was deeply buried among the dozens of others - from the same authoritative journal -that proclaim the efficacy of condoms in the battle against HIV/AIDS in Africa. These include the editorial to which I refer above.

If "t.u.s." is a journalist, as he claims, then this is an indictment upon his training and a blight on his worldview. Clearly, the weight of evidence presented in the very authoritative journal to which he refers us is overwhelmingly in favour of the promotion of condom use to help reduce the spread of HIV in Africa and elsewhere. If he's actually read a few of these articles, I find it quite perverse that he makes the statements quoted above.

Check out http://www.thelancet.com/ and judge for yourselves who is reading selectively.

I suppose he writes this tripe here because it'd never get past his sub-editor. Just as well he likes sport :)
Posted by garra, Friday, 29 April 2005 11:31:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From what I've read the spread of AIDS in Africa is due mainly to unprotected sex. I stand to be corrected if this is not the case. If this is the case then there must be alot of sex taking place outside of marriage. The Vatican says that sex outside of marriage is a sin. It aggressively preaches against it. Using a condom is also a sin which is also aggressively preached against. So people listen to the Church when it says "say NO to condoms", but ignores it when it comes to pre-marital sex? What a load of crap.

The spread of AIDS in Africa has nothing whatsoever to do with the Pope. It's got to do with men not wanting to wear condoms. Go and do your own survey among males you know. The vast majority will say that they don't like using condoms. They do so mainly because they will get no sex if they don't, and males taking responsibility for contraception and their own health is now well and truly a part of our culture. But that doesn't mean that men like using condoms.

I am not defending the Church in any way. I just think that if the problem is to be solved then the real causes need to be addressed. If anyone thinks that the Vaticans blessing of condoms would solve the AIDS problem in Africa then they've got their head well and truly buried in the sand.
Posted by bozzie, Saturday, 30 April 2005 12:50:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ambo, the reason I keep repeating these questions is because nobody's game enough to provide an answer to them -- including you.

Whassamata -- too philosophically weak-kneed? Too profound and sophisticated for ya? Then stick to talking about sport, mate, rather than issues revolving around people's metaphysic, epistemology and ethics -- you know, philosophical stuff.

You also complain to Di that Catholic teaching regarding promiscuity denies "the very basic nature of human behaviour". So in other words, what you're admitting is that Catholic teaching will have no binding effect on those who do not submit to Catholic teaching.

Which begs the question why y'all are so incensed by the general teaching the obedience of which the overwhelming majority of people who get Aids obviously weren't observing. After all, if everyone limited sex to the confines of holy matrimony, as Catholic teaching prescribes, THEN AIDS WOULD EVENTUALLY DIE OUT!

The Catholic church can't be blamed for the results of promiscuity, because the Catholic church does not condone promiscuity.
Posted by Brazuca, Saturday, 30 April 2005 7:38:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brazuca, it is becoming aggravating that "Brazuca's Perpetual Conundrum" tends to appear whenever you haven't anything useful to say. It would be doing us all a favour if you either i) simply desisted, because it neither interesting nor clever, or ii) explained to us why the answer is at all important or relevant.

You define "an objective standard [as being] one that is by necessity of a transcendent source"

For this to work, you need to be very specific about the meaning of "transcendent", which has been torn this way and that since the time of Immanuel Kant. Where do you stand on this topic, and why is your interpretation the "right" one?

In the meantime, I'll stick with "objectivity is in the eye of the beholder".
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 1 May 2005 12:58:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Braz " the reason I keep repeating these questions is because nobody's game enough to provide an answer to them -- including you."

No the reason no one responds is because they want to discuss the issue at hand and no one gives a rats about your little bitty power game. If you want a philosphical debate - write an article - then we can all pitch in and tear shreds off you.

The catholic church is just as guilty of promiscuity as everybody else - just ask a few choir boys.
Posted by Ambo, Sunday, 1 May 2005 4:30:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, I'll see if I can spell it out for you.

If we don't have an objective standard of morality to appeal to when making our moral judgements, then all we'll be left doing is issuing our own subjective value-judgements. But in a roomful of subjective opinions, how do we know which one's the right one? We don't. Unless we have an objective standard to appeal to in determining this.

For a moral standard to be objective, it has to come from a transcendent source. If it's temporal in its provenance, then it is not only subjective but arbitrary and relative, since it is bound by space and time. In which case, it cannot be universal in its application or legitimate in its authority.

Clearly the Catholic church, believing in a transcendent source of morality as it does, is in a much better position to speak on the matter of morality than anybody who does not acknowledge the possibility of a transcendent source of morality and therefore of an objective standard of right and wrong.

Ambo, if the Catholic church is just as guilty of sexual promiscuity as anyone else, then why expect Catholics who haven't the slightest intent of remaining chaste to even worry about using a condom? And besides, without an objective standard of morality to apply, your condemnation of pedarasty is just a meaningless application of some subjective value-judgement that is relative and therefore not absolute in its truth. What, then, would give you the prerogative to shove your subjective value-judgements on somebody else?
Posted by Brazuca, Monday, 2 May 2005 10:48:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Braz, with the greatest respect, repetition - even constant repetition using exactly the same words - does not make your views any more valid.

You have an opinion, that's fine. We all do. What I find objectionable in your argument is your constant assumption that everything you say is backed up by some "objective truth". Unfortunately, the part that you haven't been able to grasp yet is that there is no such thing, only a sequence of claims by a particular body to have this magic powder, objectivity, conferred upon them by some indefinable transcendent force.

If I were to claim that I had this set of received wisdoms passed on to me from a source that I claimed to be "transcendent", you would - quite rightly - scoff. Yet you quite calmly assert that "...the Catholic church, believing in a transcendent source of morality as it does, is in a much better position to speak on the matter of morality than anybody who does not acknowledge the possibility of a transcendent source of morality"

If the key issue here is the belief itself, as you claim, then my transcendent source has the same value as yours. Which, by a simple process of reduction, is precisely none.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 2 May 2005 11:08:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, you don't seem to understand what you're saying.

Thankfully, I'm aware there are other people reading and following this.
Posted by Brazuca, Monday, 2 May 2005 11:32:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Indeed, Brazuca. And many of us agree with the perspective enunciated by Pericles, although we couldn't be bothered playing your little game with you.
Posted by garra, Monday, 2 May 2005 12:03:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, Ambo, Robert.

If the Catholic Church believes that there is a transcedent morality(I'm not asking you to accept the fact, just the proposition) then does it have a right to promulgate teachings which are contrary to it?
Posted by slumlord, Monday, 2 May 2005 12:38:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If the Catholic Church believes that there is a transcedent morality(I'm not asking you to accept the fact, just the proposition) then does it have a right to promulgate teachings which are contrary to it? "

No-one is asking the Catholic Church to "promulgate teachings" that are contrary to its belief systems, simply to suspend judgement for a while in order that a few "sinners", who would otherwise die, might live.

I still fail to see that this is too much to ask of a human being, whatever their rank, status or position.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 2 May 2005 5:54:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I could happily ignore the Catholic Church's belief systems if they didn't have such a devastating effect on people's lives.

The ban on condoms, the illusion of abstinence as contraceptive is hardly transcendant just horrifically ignorant and wilfully inhumane.

Am I being objective? No; unnecessary human anguish just makes me very angry indeed.

Those so insecure that they place principles above everything else and then sink to the depths of playing mind games in an open forum gain nothing but my complete contempt.
Posted by Ambo, Monday, 2 May 2005 6:19:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Pericles,

The whole point of Greg Barn's article was and I quote,

"The Catholic Church was then, and is today, responsible in a direct way for deaths caused by AIDS. By refusing to sanction the use of life protecting sexual protection devices such as condoms"

What Greg Barns wants is not a "suspencsion of judgement" to use condoms but a full blown sanction. Greg argues that the Catholic church is malicious in not sanctioning contraceptives. I think that you are begining to recognise what is being asked of the Catholic church with regard to the condom matter. It believes the evil of contraception a trancedent truth, but Greg judges it evil for preaching it. Greg is asking it to do something wrong and then pillories it for not doing it. By the way, the Catholic Church does not Judge you. God does. If you are going to argue about Catholicism then at least now a bit the basic theology.

As for Ambo enough of the rubbish.
Give us some figures. How may people have died as a result of listening to the Pope? Quote me an article. Where is the study?
I am sick of this line being bandied around as some basic truth when I see no evidence of it anywhere.
The Catholic church is in the business of saving souls not lives. It has always taught that suffering is an evil but not the worst evil. Ending up in the hot place is. It tries to keep people out of there no matter what the cost. The Catholic church gets pilloried when people do not take notice of its teachings(premarital sex, adultery,etc) and then it gets pilloried when people get in trouble doing what it said they shouldn't. According to you any principle can be changed in the presence of suffering. It is the love of comfort disguised as high principle.
Posted by slumlord, Monday, 2 May 2005 7:42:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
slumlord

"The Catholic church is in the business of saving souls not lives."

There's your proof. Religous nonsense
Posted by Ambo, Monday, 2 May 2005 8:22:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I gain nothing but complete contempt from Ambo? Bummer.

Much as the reasoning skills of many here may need some work, I'm sure that everyone here will at least be able to admit that were everyone to abide by Catholic teaching regarding sexual intercourse -- that is, exercise it only within the confines of holy matrimony -- then Aids (as well as other venereal diseases) would die out in time. Surely any person willing to exercise his reasoning will admit to the truthfulness of this.

Another bit of reasoning for y'all to engage in:

1. Do practising Catholics engage in sex outside of marriage? If so, can they be considered practicing Catholics?

2. What is the likelihood of a practicing Catholic passing on a venereal disease to his spouse? (See question 1.)

3. What is the percentage of Catholics who are converts and so able to pass on a venereal disease, acquired before conversion, to their spouses?

3. Are most Catholics in Africa practicing Catholics? If so, are they the types of Catholics who are likely to contract and spread venereal disease? (See question 1.) Or are they mostly recent converts (i.e. post-1983)? (See question 3.)

I'll leave these questions for y'all to mull over.
Posted by Brazuca, Tuesday, 3 May 2005 12:02:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If "t.u.s." is a journalist, as he claims, then this is an indictment upon his training and a blight on his worldview. Clearly, the weight of evidence presented in the very authoritative journal to which he refers us is overwhelmingly in favour of the promotion of condom use to help reduce the spread of HIV in Africa and elsewhere"

Thanks for the compliment Garra, but maybe you are more upset that I don't hold your worldview like a lot of other journalists in this country.

The argument here is whether the Catholic Church is responsible for millions of AIDS deaths in Africa.

I don't think it is, judging from the success of some of the ABC programs in places like Uganda.

I am not anti-condom, it is actually part of the ABC stuff.

But as someone said before - contraceptives AND promiscuity are both sins for people who Catholics. So why are so many people in Africa scared of using the condom but not scared of being promiscuous.

If the Church is so all powerful and has such an over-reaching command of its subjects - why are they having sex outside marriage.

Blaming The Pope and Catholic Church for AIDS deaths is saying that African people are so stupid that they follow aspects of their religion which leads to death but not others which won't.

I don't think these people are are stupid but the condescending church haters obviously do.

t.u.s
Posted by the usual suspect, Tuesday, 3 May 2005 1:11:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I'm sure that everyone here will at least be able to admit that were everyone to abide by Catholic teaching regarding sexual intercourse..."
Sure, because AIDS isn't always passed from a mother to her children. But getting back to reality, not everyone can or will, nor is it reasonable to expect them to do so.

I'll answer question one, but I don't have any statistics for answering the others.

"1. Do practising Catholics engage in sex outside of marriage? If so, can they be considered practicing Catholics?"
Yes, otherwise when applied generally, there would be no practicing Catholics (See: John 8:7).

Here's a few more questions:
Are all Catholics able to follow all Catholic teachings?
No.

Do Catholics that engage in sex outside of marriage still follow other Catholic teachings while they do so? (Or, "[S]o stupid that they follow aspects of their religion which leads to death but not others which won't." as t.u.s puts it)
Yes. (See: Tony Abbott)

Are non-Catholics also affected by Catholic teachings?
Yes.

Two wrongs don't make a right but you have to look at *why* contraceptives are prohibited. Is it because sex not within a marriage and not for procreation is a sin? Well, that's happening anyway so it isn't a valid reason. Because it prevents the possibility of creating a new life? No, because condoms fail. Because it reduces the probablility of creating a new life? OK, but with this it becomes a matter of degree, since there are many things one can do that might reduce that probability. (Is it a sin for a man to wear briefs instead of boxers?) And then any potential reduction must be weighed against the lives that may be ruined.
Posted by Deuc, Tuesday, 3 May 2005 1:54:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
tus

"Blaming The Pope and Catholic Church for AIDS deaths is saying that African people are so stupid that they follow aspects of their religion which leads to death but not others which won't."

"I don't think these people are are stupid but the condescending church haters obviously do."

No more stupid than the rest of the human race when the blood supply is being used to maintain an erection rather than think about consequences.

Most of us now wear seatbelts whereas 30 years ago that was rare. Were people more stupid then or is it that seatbelts are more readily available and we are more used to wearing them than people were 30 years ago? This is not about the intelligence of african people, it is about accepted norms and availability of condoms.

Wearing a seatbelt does not make me more likely to speed but if I was speeding a seatbelt would be even more important than going quietly down my street. Maybe a seatbelt makes it harder for God to take you when your time is up as condoms make it harder for God to start a new life and should be opposed for similar reasons.
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 3 May 2005 2:35:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have to hand it to you slumlord, you have a nicely devious way of arguing your corner.

"...the Catholic Church does not Judge you. God does. If you are going to argue about Catholicism then at least now a bit the basic theology"

I was using the phrase "suspension of judgement" in a totally secular sense. I use it quite frequently with my non-Catholic brethren to indicate that, just for a while, they might withhold their own considerations on a particular issue, and do what is right. It never occurred to me that I should "now a bit the basic theology" before employing such a simple piece of English.

How can I put this more clearly? Greg is not asking you guys to wear the damn things yourself, just that you don't impose your own personal morality on someone who might then go on and die as a result. It is pure cant to introduce your own pain... "I think that you are begining to recognise what is being asked of the Catholic church with regard to the condom matter" as a reason for denying a fellow human being the opportunity to live, however "sinful" you might perceive that life to be.

It is also pure sophistry to hide behind "[t]he Catholic church is in the business of saving souls not lives". If that is the case, then you should print a big sign on the foreheads of all your missionaries. "Following our religious instruction could be hazardous to your health, yea even unto death. But if you are free from sin you'll go to heaven, so that's ok then innit?"
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 3 May 2005 11:41:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert, I appreciate your attempt at analogy using seatbelts but 30 years ago in Australia up to 30 per cent of the population was not dying from car crashes where a seatbelt would have saved their life.

Consider this - if back in the seventies 30 per cent of people were dying in car crashes but wearing a seatbelt could reduce this rate by 10 per cent.

There is still a very high risk you will die in a car crash even if you are wearing a seatbelt.

The sensible thing to do would probably be to not drive a car. Fortunately the death rate from cars has never been as high as the AIDS epidemic in Africa.

I am not saying that condoms are useless just that they should not be the only method of preventing AIDS in Africa because they are not foolproof. There is evidence to suggest that encouraging people to abstain and be be faithful can also have a positive effect on reducing the rate.
And there are millions of condoms in Africa and some of the countries with the most active condom distribution networks have high rates of AIDS and are not predominantly Catholic.

Pouring energy into developing comprehensive programs to reduce AIDS, not just dropping condoms, is more productive than slagging off at the Pope.

t.u.s
Posted by the usual suspect, Wednesday, 4 May 2005 10:40:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For those who like nothing more than to wade thru facts and figures this link provides a bunch of stats on contraception methods used by Catholics throughout the world. Pretty much fits with what I have observed in my Catholic friends and with many patients I assist.

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/pubs/worldviewLong.asp

Cheers
Posted by Ambo, Wednesday, 4 May 2005 11:20:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tus your efforts to think outside the square and present an original perspicacious viewpoint are commendable. However, you are focusing on one item of evidence to the exclusion of the bigger picture.

Evidence that is inconsistent with a larger body of evidence is not indicative that the received wisdom is in error or a misunderstanding of the 'truth’. Idiosyncratic results do not always offer a new and effective way to view the problem.

It is more likely that they are due to an artefact of the analysis or way the data was collected, or a faulty understanding of the underlying relationships between the variables.

It seems a trifle obsessive and/or disingenuous of you to continue to insist that the evidence for the success of abstinence in Uganda is significant and provides a novel and useful way of understanding the issue.

The evidence that abstinence does not work is quite overwhelming and irrefutable
Posted by Mollydukes, Thursday, 5 May 2005 7:50:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Really Molly, how many people get sexually transmitted diseases by not having sex?

If you do a quick search on the internet you will see that the sub saharan african countries with the highest catholic populations tend to have the lowest rates of AIDS and vice versa.

This begs the question whether the church has the most blood on its hands regards the AIDS pandemic in Africa and whether a reversal of the contraceptive ban by Benedict 16 will make much difference to the problem.

t.u.s
Posted by the usual suspect, Sunday, 8 May 2005 1:51:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TUS

I'll say this veerry sloowly, abstinence doesn't work because most people want to have sex. Get it? Not too complex for you?

Check out Ambo's link - seems alot of catholics like to have sex too and don't pay too much attention to the vatican.

Lots of Love to absolutely everyone whether you like it or not.
Posted by Xena, Sunday, 8 May 2005 2:27:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Xena, if Catholics "don't pay too much attention to the vatican", why worry about what the Vatican says regarding condoms when nary a Catholic will (apparently) listen to them?

But let me reiterate. Uganda is the ONLY African country to decrease its incidence of Aids. It's done so by following an approach that advises Abstinence, Fidelity and, failing any of these, Condoms for high-risk groups who are not going to be abstinent or faithful anyway, like prostitutes, soldiers and truckies (hardly practicing Catholics). And Uganda's approach has been in THAT order.

Countries like Botswana, on the hand, have followed the approach of emphasising condoms over other things like abstinence and marital fidelity -- with disastrous consequences. Whereas the less-developed country of Uganda has dramatically reduced its incidence of Aids from a whopping 35% of the population in the 1980s to a current low of 6%, the better-developed but condom-emphasising Botswana has only seen the incidence of Aids in its population grow -- now at a staggering 36% of the population in Botswana.
Posted by Brazuca, Monday, 9 May 2005 8:52:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A fascinating point of view, Braz, and most illuminating.

"...failing any of these, Condoms for high-risk groups who are not going to be abstinent or faithful anyway, like prostitutes, soldiers and truckies (hardly practicing Catholics)."

Help me out here, are you saying that you do condone the use of condoms for non- (or non-practising) Catholics? So it is only your own people that you leave to rot?

Do your evangelists hand out warning notices? "Conformance to our religious convictions can damage your health"
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 9 May 2005 9:23:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, I don't condone condoms, I think they are useful, but for Cathloics it might be more of a problem.
My only point is that the Catholic Church does not look like the big culprit in the AIDS epidemic. Where the rate of Catholics is high, generally the rate of AIDS is lower in sub-saharan Africa and vice versa. not exactly a smoking gun.

And Xena, I love sex and enjoy it on a regular basis and did so before I was married too.

The good thing is, in Australia, we don't have an AIDS rate approaching 30 per cent.

t.u.s
Posted by the usual suspect, Monday, 9 May 2005 1:17:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello people here is a link to an article in the NYT's by Nicholas D Kristoff on the very topic we are mass-debating.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/08/opinion/08kristof.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fNicholas%20D%20Kristof

TUS - whew, wot a relief - U get off just like the rest of us.

Cheers dears
Posted by Xena, Monday, 9 May 2005 4:11:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's a whole lot of "not listening, not listening" going on here, with or without hands held tightly over ears.

"My only point is that the Catholic Church does not look like the big culprit in the AIDS epidemic"

If that is your only point t.u.s., it is not one that is in dispute. What the original article said (I know, it was a long time ago) was that by withholding an important weapon in the war against AIDS, the Catholic church is standing to one side as people die.

Nobody has said the Catholic church is to blame for the epidemic, merely that it is, by omission, allowing people to die who otherwise might live. Is this too subtle a point to understand?

One contributor - was it you? - made the point that the Catholic church is in the business of saving souls, not lives, which despite being a horrendously inhumane comment, at least has the merit of honesty.

Once again, no-one is blaming you for the problem, nor even for not being part of the solution, but for actively preventing the potential life-saving use of condoms.

What is it about this scenario that escapes you?
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 10 May 2005 1:08:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

Why is it that Greg Barns has particularly singled out the Catholic Church

"The Catholic Church was then, and is today, responsible in a direct way for deaths caused by AIDS"

Why not blame Australia or any other country for not providing more aid for medicine for HIV victims. Or pharmaceutical companies who do not allow generic medicines to be used. or the justice and cultural systems in these countries which allow the rape of women to happen with little to know punishment.

AIDS is a big problem in Africa and the Catholic Church is not the biggest culprit in the puzzle. There are lots of other things other organisations and people can do.

It is not a Catholic problem, it is an African problem

Have a look at these stats about percentage of Catholics against per cent of population with AIDS for subsaharan africa

Country / AIDS rate (%) / Catholic population (%)

Tanzania / 8.8 / 25.5
Kenya / 6.7 / 22.8
Malawi / 14.2 / 23.6
Mozambique / 12.2 / 22.1
Angola / 3.9 / 38.2
Madagascar / 1.7 / 25.0
Congo (Zaire) / 4.9 / 25.0
Congo / 4.2 / 47.2
Zambia / 16.5 / 27.3
Botswana / 37.0 / 7.0
South Africa / 21.5 / 7.0
Lesotho / 28.9 / 50.0
Zimbabwe / 24.6 / 8.5
Uganda / 4.1 / 39.5

If there is any trend it is that the more Cathloics in the population the less chance of a high AIDS rate (with the exception of Lesotho).

I still don't understand why African Catholics are so afraid of the church they won't use condoms but will commit other so-called sins such as sex before marriage.

It is a problem for everyone and singling out the catholic church is not the solution.

there are other issues to be critical of the church, but blaming them for millions of AIDS deaths in Africa is not one of them.

t.u.s
Posted by the usual suspect, Tuesday, 10 May 2005 2:01:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Why not blame Australia or any other country for not.....etc.<<

It is a neat sidestep t.u.s., but it is no defence to say "everyone else is guilty too".

>>Why is it that Greg Barns has particularly singled out the Catholic Church<<

I can't speak for Greg of course, but any organization that sets itself up as having standards of morality higher than the populace at large has to accept that when you callously walk away from helping your fellow man, criticism will inevitably follow.

We are continually excoriated in this forum by Catholics who profess to hold "absolute truths", but surely, what we have here is a conflict of truths. You rely on the "absolute" of contraception as opposed to the "absolute" of holding human life sacred, for reasons that completely escape me, and which no-one here has satisfactorily explained.

>>... it is an African problem<<

Of course AIDS is an African problem. No-one suggests that is is not.

>>It is not a Catholic problem...<<

AIDS is not a Catholic problem. Turning your back on helping save the lives of fellow human beings is, it would appear, a Catholic problem.

Perhaps if I put it to music, it might help.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 10 May 2005 7:19:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

I am not a Catholic or Christian of any kind and in fact have spent time criticising certain aspects of Catholicism in the past.

But playing the blame game of AIDS regards Joseph Ratzinger is not based on evidence but more on the hatred certain people have towards the Church.

I hoped you actually looked at the stats I gave you, where is the big link between Catholicism and AIDS in Africa.

If there was a huge backflip by the new pope on the use of condoms it would make very little difference to the AIDS epidemic because Catholics aren't the ones getting it in the highest proportions, can't you see that.

You still haven't answered the problem of the power of the church regards using condoms but not in regards to pre-marital sex or faithfulness.

The argument that the doctrine of the church spreading AIDS is not based on rational thought.

t.u.s
Posted by the usual suspect, Wednesday, 11 May 2005 6:00:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HIV AIDS is just a myth - a fiction to hide the fact that the homosexual lifestyle with its emphasis on drug abuse is unhealthy - immune suppressive and the Myth of HIV AIDS is also been turned round and used as a stick to beat the Church with. But one is not forced to be a Catholic. If you want to be a practicing homosexual there are plently of Gay churches etc that will have you, but of course that would never do. Gays cannot bear to see normal people living satisfied lives. Keith
Posted by kthrex, Wednesday, 18 May 2005 5:32:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy