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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.