Well then, I am going to assume that even though you directed the comment at me that you were not referring to just my contributions on this thread. If not and someone took such great offense to what I have said here that they felt I crushed the conversation, then I attribute that to their sensibilities more than to the weight of my comments.

If this conversation were about the Pope's stance on most other issues, it's likely that I wouldn't even get involved. But it happens to be a trigger issue for me for several reasons. I realize my mistake now and I apologize for misdirecting the conversation by making my comment about the Vatican being obsolete. I should have stayed on topic and maybe folks who support the Pope's views would have actually told us why they support them.

I think I addressed your last paragraph in my response to Smeth above.

I'd rather not take my sexual advice from a 70+ year old virgin.

...kinda the exact opposite of what girly was asking for, but that's really kind of you to bolster Cyn's point.

(Note that this is coming from someone who was raised Catholic and went to a Catholic school for 10 years.)

I could write up a long post that reaches the max character limit, but I felt that I could convey the message in a more succinct manner in a single line.

True or false: The pope is a virgin?

If my car breaks down, my mechanic better have at least driven a car once in his life, otherwise he really isn't qualified to be telling me anything about my car.

The point I'm trying to make here is that if he's talking about spiritual matters, fine, he's got that down pat and is an authority there. If he's talking about sex, then he's taking shots in the dark.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I have always been under the impression that the "no contraceptives" rule was designed as a way to increase the number of members of a particular religion, assuming that children will be raised under the same religion as their parents.

Poor analogy, though, because the mechanic with a funny hat is really discussing transportation with you. And cars are not the only viable option.

Unless his route happens to be a potentially correct route for some. It's silly to suggest that Hugh Hefner automatically has the better advice to offer. You're not eschewing the pope's sex advice because it's bad, but because it's not the kind of sex advice you're looking for. For a nun, priest, or other practicing single Catholic, you'd be hard-pressed to get better sex advice than that the pope is offering.

It's when we get to married Catholics that we might find some relevant critiques.

And that's the problem. Why go to someone who has never had sex for sex advice?

Honestly, I wouldn't go to Hugh Hefner for sex advice either, but he would probably be a better choice as he actually knows what it's like to have sex.

If I were going to climb Mount Everest, would I ask an experienced mountaineer or someone in a fancy hat off the street?

Is that analogy better?

All I'm saying is that the pope has not and will not have sex, so making him some sort of authority on it is a really bad idea.

yes, it is a more general direction than specifically at you.

I can't say that I can tell you why someone would speak in support. There's a good amount of vitriol against speaking with the pope that it's easier to just not say anything.

No... it's not any better because you're not comparing it in a similar frame. Ask the Dali Lama, or ask a rabbi. Ask them how sex affects spiritualism and you'll be in the same ballpark. Thinking that you can go to them for sex advice is just like going to Dr. Ruth or Dr. Drew for spiritual advice.

Yes, that's definitely a better example given the context. Thank you. :)

I see it as a feeble disengenous attempt from an educated man,
trying to puff on the dying or dead embers of colonialism.

Of course there are many other facts and factoids, surrounding.


Women At Burkina Faso Conference Lash Out At African Men

If you're a single Catholic, because he's likely to have the most relevant sex advice to offer you.

He's only a better choice if he appeals to you as a better model for sexuality.

No, just as poor. You're still including the unspoken assumption that advice will only be sound if it doesn't advise against climbing the mountain in the first place.

You're still too general here. It's a really good idea if you're interested in Catholic sex. A really, really good idea. He's your go-to guy there. He's not very reliable for information on safe casual sex or technique, but that was likely never his aim and it doesn't negate his value for a particular kind of sex advice.

Then you're missing my point. Even Catholic sex involves... (*drumroll please*)... SEX. And since it involves SEX, then maybe someone who's actually had it before (or at least kissed a girl) would be a better judge.

I'm still seeing the same unspoken assumption in this analogy. Catholics are going to get better sex advice from the pope than from Dr. Drew because the advice of the latter is going to be largely irrelevant when it isn't something that the pope/Bible/dogma is fully capable of addressing.

---------- Post added at 11:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 AM ----------

When it comes to technique and intimacy tips, sure, I doubt he's of much use. I already said that.

You're missing my point: that's not the whole of sex advice. It's still incorrect to say that he's categorically a poor choice for sex advice. He's a poor choice for your purposes. There's certain aspects of sex that don't require firsthand experience, most notably but not limited to successful abstinence and moral guidelines.

Just for the hell of it, to continue the trend of bad analogies: far better than detailed advice on how to rob a bank is the advice to avoid such a felony. The career crook has more expertise, but some man in a fancy hat off the street likely has better advice.

right, read my post more clearly. I'm not stating they should be getting any sex advice from them. I'm stating getting spiritual advice.

Again, the people decrying that this is about sex, don't seem to understand that this is about spirituality and not about sex.

I would argue that they (pro-Pope) want to frame this as a spiritual debate, but it's actually about medicine (the AIDS epidemic) and I still hold that it's far more dangerous to let a man in a fancy hat guide medical policy based on religious beliefs than to let a man in a fancy hat tell his followers how to have sex.

I think the Catholics and pro-Catholic crowd wants this framed as a spiritual debate because it's the only basis from which they can claim authority.

No, it's about someone spiritual dictating attitudes about sex, and in this case, with an outcome that continues to prove to be extremely dangerous.

In their lives and their world he is the authority.

And that's the crux for them. It is about THEIR spirituality not yours nor mine.

---------- Post added at 02:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:47 PM ----------

this isn't much different than Halal/Kosher and nutrition. It doesn't make sense to those that aren't believers, and it isn't meant to be.

Cyn, it's about spirituality AND sex.

So? It's a basis with vital importance. Catholicism may not have it exactly right, but take the morality entirely out of discussions about sex and you're liable to end up a well-informed, well-experienced jackass.

I think the anti-Catholics want this framed solely as a medical debate because it's the only way to marginalize the Pope's thoughts as wholly irrelevant. Which they aren't.

---------- Post added at 11:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:53 AM ----------

There's nothing dangerous about abstinence.

True, but if their delusion costs lives because they won't accept science that counters their dogma, then it becomes the responsibility of the world community to stop that.

The Catholic Church has a well documented history of catching up with science centuries too late. When it comes to medicine having a "live and let live" philosophy about religion doesn't help.

We're talking about the same organization that molested children for years then systematically engaged in covering it up.

And I have no problem with people being spiritual. Hell, I applaud people for it, but people are dying directly because of it, and I find it ridiculous that the person at the center of it is someone who has never and will never engage in the activity he's dictating religious policy on.

---------- Post added at 02:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:59 PM ----------

Because we all know that abstinence only has proven to be very successful. :rolleyes:

Abstinence only as a policy doesn't work, condoms do.

It's about spirituality and sex for those outside of the catholic realm. I'm not apologizing for them, but having lived as a catholic and living within an orthodox community, it's not my responsibility to chastise someone's spiritual leader's decision.

---------- Post added at 03:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 PM ----------

Science was also the fore front of many religions not just Catholics.

Broad stroke there... since it wasn't the entire organization nor was it the entire organization covering it up.

---------- Post added at 03:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:12 PM ----------

not true.

When all my friends were busy fucking everything that moved, a few got STDs and some had children. I on the otherhand who was celibate for 3.5 years did not have any of that experience. Seems to have have worked for me.

So who on this thread believes they should stop distributing condoms in Africa? Why?

So you don't judge this man?
http://sacredearth.org/images/Marshall_H_Applewhite.jpg
I'm not trying to be a dick about this, but I posted Applewhite's pic to make a point, just because the person is a spiritual leader does not make them the absolute truth. They do the best that they can with the information that they have and they can be wrong. (Galileo?)
To paraphrase what was said earlier, "yes, that worked for YOU." That doesn't work for everyone, so why not give the option?

I see your point, but keep in mind, for a lot of people with no attachment to Catholicism, those cases have defined the Catholic church in recent years and still do.

I didn't mean to move in this direction with this, I just used it to illustrate a point that ceding responsibility to the Catholic Church to look out for the welfare of millions up on millions of people hasn't exactly historically been the wisest thing to do. I don't see how this issue is any different.

The way I see it, we'll allow thousands - if not millions - to die simply to avoid offending some old man in a fancy hat and everyone who else thinks he's the bees knees, but that's just me. Now, that is my own opinion and it's just as smelly as everyone else's, but it's still how I believe. I can't imagine my opinion being any less valid simply because others don't like it or agree with it.

Focus time.


Condoms are being used to cover the ends of rifles and food containers,
rather than their intended purpose.

That is my concern.

No, it's actually the unprotected sex that directly causes these deaths. And while celibate people have gotten AIDS, be it from drug use or bad transfusions, abstinence actually has a very low infection rate. Roughly, zero.

Good point. The pope really ought to step down as dictator of all Africa and allow others to provide their brands of AIDS prevention as well.

really? anyone who is abstinent has gotten an STD or pregnant?

The basics of the church is free will. Everyone has an option and a choice. To not follow the dogma in this case I believe is a venial sin or a minor one, with a major one being a mortal sin. Sins can be forgiven, so there's plenty of option and choice there.

As far as Applewhite's ability to being a spritual leader, it's not much different than Jim Jones or David Karesh. Is it really a good thing to lead your group towards destruction? It doesn't lend for more followers.

---------- Post added at 04:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:24 PM ----------

who's allowing it? There's still other groups out there who are advocating for a differing and dissenting opinion and method. They are working quite hard in quelling those issues in Africa.

Cyn?, you say you stepped away from the Catholic church?

It sounds to me me like the ghost echoes of it are still haunting,
maybe they always will.

I am singling out myself and you collectively.
We all have dogma issues from the past and present.

I would like it if you would all respond to mixedmedia's question please.

Yes. It doesn't diminish my understanding of how the RC church thinks and operates. I cannot say the same things about pentacostal, evangelical or any Christian based faith ministries. These aren't ghosts, they are understandings of how the teachings and mechanisms are within the RC churches. I was considering myself at one point in time for the seminary, and even after rejecting that considering being a deacon because of the more lax rules towards chastity and marriage.

It's not much different than understanding how the rabbis influence the lives of their followers in the Judaic faith. Sure I can decry that I love to eat bacon and pork, eating nonkosher items such as beef and chicken, but it has little to do with how they understand their own spirituality and access to God.

I don't believe that they should stop distributing condoms. I don't think that the Catholic church can say that condom distribution is within their accepted points of view either. They cannot say,"Sure distribute condoms..." It would go against the normal dogma that they currently have with regards to condoms as a means of stopping pregnancy.

I believe that is why I hear a desperate hollow tone in the pope's voice.
I cannot believe he believes in what he's preaching. For all his
super right wing stances, there is a sad undertone to it.

Noone likes to have their beliefs violently stripped away,
be it the flat earth believers...and so on.

Noone prospers under the hamfist of any doctrine.

If I came to you with food,
it would be because you are hungry.

No God strings attached.

Strings are tricky things, though, they grow,
and it gets complicated.

...I still love the idea and symbolism of breaking bread.
What it means to me is fellowship with all my humanoid brethren.

I'm hungry. We are all hungry.
Let's eat.

ring is getting at the point that has been rolling around in my head: iron-clad proclamations are really easy to profess and cling to when they are handed down in times that do not fiercely test them. Now I think you would find relatively few Catholics (especially in the West) who would suggest that Africans abide by Catholic dogma on this issue because they themselves don't abide by it. Imagine if the Pope had been talking about America? I think the outrage would be palpable in comparison. But the Catholic church has been attributed so much domain over Africa that when he says something like this the response is pretty much 'well, I don't agree with him, but it is Africa, after all.' The Pope doesn't speak for all Africans. He doesn't even speak for all Christians in Africa. So when I heard this statement coming from him I wasn't only outraged because, if given his druthers, he would stop the distribution of condoms in Africa, but also because this man who sits in absurd luxury in Rome has established such power over the people in Africa - and through some means of persuasion (not understood by me at the moment) the Vatican has pretty much situated themselves in this role in world opinion.

And, you know, I like to think that ring is right and that the pope really is hanging onto dogma because he has to, but I don't know if it's that simple. I think the Vatican's relationship with Africa is much more complicated than that. And, I believe that those who are attuned to extremely metaphysical worldviews about cause and effect and their place in 'the plan' are much more complicated than that. After all, just look at the real implications of what they are suggesting: the people who have died, who are dying, who will die in the interim before this 'spiritual transformation' are expendable. Of course, they don't come out and say that - they sugar coat what they do say with professions of friendship and compassion, but the implications that the people who have died and will die are meant to die because they don't 'get it' is still there. Saying that, I don't mean to say that I think the Pope and other officials at the Vatican are cruel or evil, I mean that they are coming at this problem from a very extreme religious viewpoint and are very adept at couching their words for public consumption.

You're right, abstinence only is 100% effective, when people actually bother to follow it, which is relatively few. What's the harm is giving the option of contraceptives? Why not, "abstinence is the best way, but if you're going to anyway, wear a condom"?

As we've seen repeatedly in the United States with abstinence only programs, they just don't work.

Can we not go down the drama road, please? :)


But how can you truly have free will if you're automatically condemned as a sinner if you don't rigidly stick to the dogma? One of the things that always got me, and one that the priests used to joke about quite a bit, was that it's damned near impossible to follow the rules rigidly, because some conflict with others, and some are downright horribly wrong (father's being allowed to sell their daughters into slavery, stubborn/rebellious children are to be put to death, if a woman grabs the genitals of a man attacking her husband, her hand should be cut off, etc).

They were all spiritual leaders, granted, they were all batshit insane, but they're ideals led to the deaths of far fewer than the number that will die because of the pope's decree, and that's the part that's really fucked up to me.

I believe you see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear, just like I do.

The hamfisted approach seems to work for Orthodox Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Fundamentalist Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists. A dogma is a dogma. You either accept it or you don't. The leaders make the decisions. This is why things like the Council of Nicea I & II, Vactican I & II came to being, to help create and guide the dogma.

It's not much different than Marin Luther and his doctrine changes and accessibility to theology. His split from the church is not much different than any of the other Christian sects that split off from the Roman Catholic church, notably the Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox. This is why many groups have different spiritual leaders instead of a single figure head.

---------- Post added at 07:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:14 PM ----------

You're already condemned as a sinner before you are born via Original Sin, the one that cast Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. By the dogma, you're salvation is in the belief in Christ and living a Christian life as written by the RC Church. We aren't talking about the rest of the fanatics out there. The RC Church has it's fucked up history, I'm not doubting that nor challenging that.

Understand that the RC Church cannot make a proclamation that condoms should be used. Like you said, it goes counter something else. No one at this time is prohibiting them from getting and using condoms. There's no Holy Army that is confiscating and destroying condoms.

People have choices, the pope makes his decree, and people think that that's the only choice that seems to exist.

That's the only choice that seems to exist for those that wish to follow the Roman Catholic dogma 100%.

I agree with having rock solid beliefs and all good for the pope to have those, BUT this is a time and place where people's lives are at stake for spreading this misinformation, that you need to be able to be humble and say yes you should refrain and that is what we prefer you to do, but if you are going to, stop killing each other with HIV and wear condoms, it is not our view but should you not choose to follow our/your beliefs than use protection. People's lives are in jeopardy and obviously they are not listening to his views of it because the problem is growing, his advice might even be making it worse if they honestly believe that condoms do not protect against disease and choose not to use them because of his advice.

What does all this splitting say to your gut?


The word 'seems' jumps out at me.

I am trying to remember the name of an author from a muslim place
who witnessed the sharp severe indoctrination of youth at the mosques,
and then wrote a very poignant expose about it.


I did not grow up Catholic.
My two ex-husbands did.
(They remember physical torture & mental.)

The radical difference between two generations in the US, (alone.),
is telling.

So you are suggesting that they aren't listening to him because they want to have sex, yet they are listening to him when it comes to the idea that condoms aren't effective in stopping HIV/AIDS?

That's absurd, totally absurd.
I don't understand why my opinion on the history of the Catholic church is relevant.

Try to imagine....close your eyes if you have to,
THEY, come.
They insistently command you you to change and adapt to something foreign beyond your comprehension...but they have food,
and other supplicants...

YOU,
are relevant, Cyn.

Not understanding is the most sacred place to be.

Anyone comes and gives something away it comes with strings. It doesn't matter if it is the Catholic Church, UN, or USAID.

I don't understand why you are pandering to my own ego of being relevant, because it doesn't explain why my "gut" or information on history of the Roman Catholic church makes me "feel" any different about this discussion.

A black and white statement.
Not all people who give things away attach strings.

Pandering:
Do you feel I have appealed to your lower tastes and or desires?,
and that I am attempting to exploit your weaknesses?

I wasn't pandering to your ego, unless you consider the whole of yourself your ego.
I was asking (you)an honest question about your feelings and thoughts on the matter.

You stated that you didn't understand why your opinion on the history of the Catholic
church was relevant.
Expound on that statement please, otherwise I sit here with a big, Huh?

I don't find it relevant as to how I feel about the splintering of the sects from the Catholic church to the Pope and Africa. It's irrelevant to this discussion.

People like to do things their way. If they don't like the way you're doing something they pick up their marbles and go play somewhere else. Its not much different than that. From the splintering of the beliefs going back to the total of Abrahamic religions to all the way to the giving of food and aid.