A one-sided piece needlessly levelled against the Catholic Church.

There was an OLO article yesterday by Dr Renate Klein: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9112

It had facts and logical arguments, unlike Nina's article.

Nina, the Catholic Church is not stopping anyone from having an injection. It promotes behaviour that is physically and spiritually healthy. If people follow it, there is no need for somewhat risky medical treatments to guard against diseases such as HPV. For an organisation that has billions of people worldwide belonging to it, it does well to advise against such a treatment. It is simply being consistent.

You may think it impossible for people to live up to Church teachings, especially re sexual morality. I will argue that you are naive and you will argue the same back. However, there are many people that follow Catholic teaching to warrant the Church to send out this message to them: as faithful followers of Christ's teachings, there is no need to undergo this risk.

For people who don't wish to follow the Church's proposed way of living, it is not stopping them from taking those medical steps. You make it out that the Church is harming people in much the same way that anti-Catholic people argue the Church's stance on contraception is harming people in Africa. The Church's proposal of abstinence and faithfulness is increasingly used as the tried-and-tested advice as it is the best method. Many secular publications argue the same. Your line of argument would propose that promiscuous Africans, thus ignoring fundamental Church teachings, are influenced by its stance against contraception. This is illogical.

It would have little effect in its task of promoting sexual morality if the Church said: "Don't be promiscuous, but if you do, make sure you take these safety precautions."

Do you honestly think that a man who has oral sex with other men is listening closely to the teachings of the Catholic Church and won't go and have the injection?

There is enough advice out there for promiscuous people. The Church is simply advising its faithful people and promoting healthy living - both physical and spiritual.

Hmmmm! It seems that this rather shallow essay is somewhat mis-titled... as it has little to do with "jeopardising" the health of those that may be interested in Gardisil, but rather a thinly- veiled attack on the Catholic Church.

If Nina is genuinely interested in the health issues surrounding this intervention, she should read carefully this piece by Renate Klein that appeared in On-line Opinion a few days ago.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7786

At least Klein's article does point out the possible dangers that Gardisil may represent to the unsuspecting! Better to be medically forewarned than rush into something that may possibly prove to be physiologically dangerous. Caveat emptor!

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7786

If Nina wants to raise her risk of cervical cancer let her. She has a great hide in criticizing any group that are promoting some godly values. It is the godless values that has led to perversion and the very diseases she so fears. The promotion of homosexuality has led to many more hospital beds being taken up than anyone will admit to. Now we are suffering due to other perversions and all Nina can do is blame the Catholic church. I for one am not a fan of the Catholic church but Nina's naive view that all you need is condoms and vaccinations in order to reduce disease is morally bankrupt.

There. Do you see, Nina? You and I are not capable of deciding what is moral or appropriate. It must be forced on us from above, preferably by a celibate man in a skirt who will protect child rapists while ensuring that ever more children are born to people who are unable to care for them.

How dare a feminazi like you try to suggest that the world has moved on from the Dark Ages.

'There. Do you see, Nina? You and I are not capable of deciding what is moral or appropriate. It must be forced on us from above,'

Well it is better than the amoral views that are being promoted from below (straight from the pit of hell). By the way Sancho, very few of those who were inspired by God to write the holy Scriptures were celibate. It is the recruiting of homosexual priests and banning legitimate sex that has led to so much child abuse in the Catholic church. Even you should be smart enough to see that. Maybe more discrimination is needed in selecting priests, teachers, doctors etc.

Sancho, you could have contributed to this debate by providing some reasoned arguments in favour of Nina's position. But it was too easy to throw out emotive phrases of unfounded and unfair claims.

No one is forcing anyone to decide what is moral and appropriate. The Church has a role to offer sound advice to its followers, who, if they follow the advice, are guaranteed a physical and spiritual health of far higher likelihood than from following any other advice.

In fact, there is a moral obligation of the Church to offer this advice, particularly when the great majority of voices in the media and in public debate promote moral choices that create health risks, such as open promiscuity. Due to our vested interests (pharmaceutical companies, ideological bias, personal moral decisions), as a society, we tend to turn a blind eye to these health risks and offer band-aid solutions. It seems too hard to advise against promiscuity. But all the facts show that it causes all sorts of moral and physical problems. Sometimes the truth is hard to bear, but you would have your head in the sand if you denied that unnatural sexual behaviour, coupled with multiple sexual partners, leads people to contract diseases. And as I said, that's just the physical trauma.

It is agreed that these band-aid solutions, such as the cervical cancer immunisation, are all some people have, if they find themselves compromised by health risks. There's no arguing against that. But don't complain when some people don't need those band-aid solutions because they have made a greater and wiser choice.