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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.