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.

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.

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.

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!

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".

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?