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.

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?

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.

"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.

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.

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.