Pope: distributing condoms "increases the problem" of the AIDS epidemic.
 

The NY Times article quotes him as saying "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

He's right that a change in attitudes about sex will help Africa, but they need more of a modern scientific approach that discourages promiscuous and unprotected sex and raping virgins to cure yourself rather than some religious kook telling them that condoms will make the problem worse.

Catholics need to make their voices heard if they don't want their church spreading this kind of bullshit that kills people.

Just another example of religious nutballs spreading their misinformation. Like Mother Teresa saying, "the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion" in her Nobel Peace Prize speech.

Rather than Catholics making their voices heard, I'd like to see less religion trying to influence public policy. Moderate religious believers are giving credence to the activist religious fringe. This is true for radical Islam and fundamentalist Christians.

In related news, the Pope also said Kevlar vests increase the odds of being shot and killed in the chest, and drinking water increases the odds of dying of dehydration.

I honestly agree with what the Pope has said here.
I believe the AIDS epidemic is a dangerous enough issue that it should be addressed by every means possible. If some people listen to the Pope's reasoning, that's wonderful. If some people listen to other reasoning, GREAT! The end goal is the same: to educate. Either from a religious/spiritual perspective or another - at least people will be informed that raping virgins will not help.

As morally unpalatable as it sounds, raping virgins while wearing a condom would help.

Humans are sexual. Telling people to refrain from having sex because your religion says that they should is completely ridiculous.

Pure theology. The problem isn't a lack of "soul" whatever that means.

[pre]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8[/pre]

EDIT: Link turned into a video window, figured I'd change it to plain text so it wouldn't take up space needlessly..

OT:

From an epidemiological perspective knowledge is the key factor that will turn the tide in the spread of HIV. Though distributing condoms is a good short term way to stem the tide, we still need a lot of money and effort to spread the knowledge in the afflicted countries.

I'm saddened to see religious leaders clinging to old dogmas that does nothing but needlessly put people in danger.

I'm not sure why anyone gives any credence to what the pope says

I give the pope the benefit of the doubt as to what the message he was trying to give out was

there are further comments I might make, regrettably most would not be helpful

He's only the leader of the largest Christian church in the world, representing about one sixth of the world's population. It's not like he's a big deal or anything.

:lol:

That's definitely a silly statement. It's a very large detroyer, but it's more of a mass love innoculation and the massacre is done relatively peacefully. It's been a while since the Nobel Prizes have had any credibility, though, so wouldn't be all that irked about that part.

I'll have to disagree with the pope, too, at least as phrased. Condoms would make a massive dent in the problem if acceptance became widespread. It'd strictly be a start, but a very good start.

Now giving condoms to minors without the permission of parents... that's a whole nother really hard-to-defend matter.

There are a billion Catholics in the world? Really?

True, but there's a healthy tradition in Catholicism of ignoring the pope :P Unfortunately, that tradition is less popular in the areas where it is most needed.

---------- Post added at 07:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:16 PM ----------

Yup. South America and Africa are the fastest growing regions for Catholicism. Setting aside the bullshit like this condom issue, a big part of the Catholic church's popularity in those areas is its commitment to social justice. Relative to other Christianities, the Catholic church is much better in that regard.

Catholicism's social justice efforts in Africa are kind of like Wal-Mart's low prices, if you ask me.

Catholicism is not the problem in Africa.....

A few years ago, I say a statistic that stated that there were roughly a billion Christians worldwide. How many are Catholics? I'm not sure.

Uuugh. This is enraging.

Just because some dude in a funny hat says something, does not make it true. I mean, really, has anybody in that little Vatican country done any research on this at all?

Honestly, if the Pope tells you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?

"Truth is not determined by a majority vote."
-Cardinal Ratzinger (now known as Pope Benedict XVI)

But seriously, the Pope will have to wake up to reason eventually. I understand the moral issue he takes with condoms, but it's about the disease here.... I mean, come on.

How long did it take the Vatican to wake up to Galileo?

From the same folks that gave the world the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition (didn't expect that... nudge, nudge, wink, wink)...

How can he seriously claim that giving out condoms makes the HIV situation worse? Educating the populace as to the cause and methods of prevention make things worse? "Abstinence only" is the answer? Ask Sarah Palin's bastard grandbaby how that's working out!

Because in his mind, condoms allow people to keep having sex. It's pretty simple when you're coming from his perspective.

Problem is, his perspective comes from an old man who has lived in the Catholic hierarchy for the greater part of his life...not a person left to deal with, oh I don't know, poverty and the burden of finding a little relief where you can find it.

Until the Catholic church can find it in themselves to embrace the reality of living today then I will have to rely on the 95.3% of the Catholic church who doesn't listen to what they have they have to say anyway. Yeah, that's right - the Vatican is obsolete...even if it will take another 200 years for anyone to acknowledge it.

He won't. He's a shitty pope, and he represents the more conservative side of the Catholic church. Believe it or not, there are plenty more liberal, reasonable thinkers in Catholicism, but Pope John Paul II's lengthy term allowed him to stack the college of cardinals with conservatives and those conservatives then elected Ratzinger - who was literally the person I declared as the worst option when this was all going down. All of the potential for a more progressive Catholicism that was laid down during Vatican II (intentionally or not, and it's debatable, but the foundation was there) has been almost completely undone by the likes of JPII and Benedict.

It's nice and all that the Catholic church does a lot of work dealing with poverty, and does not demand religious allegiance in order to receive that aid in the way many fundamentalist protestant groups do, but when you've got such a backwards view of the AIDS issue, it's really terrible and works to undo any good that has gone on.

Silly Nazi needs to get laid.

Exactly. And the thing is the Vatican doesn't have to be obsolete. Catholicism has benefited from not being strictly tied to a book the way fundamental Christianity has been. It's easy to bring up Galileo, but while the Catholic church is far from perfect it has nonetheless been the scientific leader of Christianity for pretty much all of its existence. As an atheist, I nonetheless value that the Catholic church has now supported evolution and the plausibility of the Big Bang for, quite literally, decades, even if conservative Christians - and even conservative Catholics - are unwilling to listen.

Unfortunately, the Catholic church's attachment to tradition is now becoming as much of a liability as being strictly attached to the bible has been for fundamentalist Christianity. The pope is the leader of the church, but almost nothing the pope says is ever infallible. There are very specific conditions which must be met for papal infallibility, and they have only been met on a handful of occasions. It's a stupid concept, yes, but my point is that it's irrelevant here. There is no reason why the current pope must be tied to the tradition of his predecessors when it comes to condoms, or most anything else. And there is certainly no reason why the current pope, or JPII before him, should reject even discussing the idea of priestly marriage or female priesthood.

And that's really what's so terrible about the conservative brand of Catholicism that Ratzinger and, to a somewhat lesser degree, JPII represent. It's one thing to have a very strong bias against breaking tradition, but it's another to deny even the serious discussion of why tradition should be rethought.

As someone who takes an interest in world religion - after all, most people are biologically predisposed for it to some degree - I find it sad to see serious potential for Catholicism as a positive force in the world only to be squandered by closed-minded assholes like Pope Benedict.

I thought God picked the Pope and the Pope spoke for god and going against the pope was going against god and going against god will get you sent straight to hell. What good is catholicism if everyone ignores the crazy old man in charge of it?

I guess it's time for me to step up as an apologist.

Here's the full transcript of what your previous news article quoted.

Now let's see some true analysis of what the Pope really said. Pick out phrases from his own words and critique them. Let me know exactly where you differ in philosophy, rather than short simple quips.

I have the same problem with this statement as anything else he has said.

He is fulfilling his role as the head of his church and that's fine, but discouraging the distribution of condoms because the people of Africa need a spiritual transformation is...irresponsible? Immoral? Arrogant? Ignorant? Insane? It could say many things. I differ in philosophy on the same principle as before.

this seems to me the central sentence...in a way, it's code because the logic informing his position follows directly from his opposition to birth control, which violates two ultra-conservative catholic (ratzinger is ultra-conservative/reactionary, as was jp2) tenants: sex is about procreation and nothing else (whence the notion of "humanization" which i don't think means what you imagine it does--making new humans more like) and that birth control tampers with god's will within the procreative act. sex abstracted from procreation falls under the category of the "bestial" or "animal"---so "humanization" loops back onto it that way as well.

so this sentence basically means: if everyone would follow the teachings of the far right of the catholic church, everything would be closer to hunky dory.

but there's a twist to it: if you accept that the logic which informs opposition to birth control also informs this position, it follows that the subtext here is that aids is god's will...punishment for sin probably...whence the second main sentence concerning "true friendship".

i find this position to be utterly repellent.

at the same time, though, if you don't try to decode it, the message is vague enough to appear reasonable---kinda---until you try to figure out what he's referring to as missing in africa--at which point you have to wonder what the hell he's talking about.

either way, this is classical ratzinger, wrapping a pronouncement which, were it taken seriously, would result in brutal consequences except for those who functionally submitted to the "moral authority" of the catholic church. inside you're cool--outside you burn. classic.

thing with ratzinger is agree with him or disagree with him, the guy's not a fool by any means.
one of the interesting things about that is that you have to take what he says seriously if you're going to disagree with it, by which i mean you have to read what he says. he's internally consistent, very logical in a theologian kinda way. it doesn't typically do to rely on factoid versions.
were that more conservatives were worth the effort.
and i detest the guy.

as for the "witty" one-liners above about catholicism--and this despite my own non-relation to the church---i find them objectionable both in their deep ignorance of the subject they purport to address and in their repetition of some of the stupidest american elementary school memes that substitute for history. so for example--smeth is right above about the splits within catholicism between and often quite reactionary official hierarchy that typically supports WHATEVER the status quo is because they benefit materially from that status quo, and more grassroots oriented activity, which is often quite radical politically and which has repeatedly set "the church" against itself because the official hierarchy sees itself threatened as it sees the status quo threatened.

this is more the case in southern hemisphere churches than it is in the united states, for example---the oppositions are more open, the conflicts sharper, the actions on both sides more extreme.
the most recent expression of this kind of split was liberation theology, which jp2 and his ideological hatchetman ratzinger "silenced" and which was violently suppressed in places like nicaragua (those lovely fellows the reagan administration called "the contras" murdered alot of priests and nuns associated with liberation theology by throwing them out of helicopters--usa! usa!)..but which was among the most important left social movements of the past 40 years and which is still well ahead of most progressive secular politics, particularly in the states.

but this sort of thing is not new.
get a clue.


i gotta go.

Please say many things. Help me to understand your perspective. I honestly would like to see where you're coming from.

I wholeheartedly admit that I could be thinking about things from the "wrong" perspective.

Here are some rambling thoughts on the topic, so you can better understand my mindset:

The Pope and many other Catholics are not trying to encourage people to be abstinent for life, but rather to be careful and responsible about their sexuality. This includes a respect for life and respect for the ability to create or destroy life. I view the distribution of condoms as an unnecessary waste of funds and an imposition of a certain set of morals with which I cannot agree. I view free AIDS testing and free AIDS medication as a higher priority. Purchasing and distributing condoms is fine for other organizations. A religious body that is against the concept of contraception should not be encouraged to work against their morals and "help" the AIDS epidemic by offering condoms. Because they are not offering condoms, they are instead spending their energy on other important solutions. They are caring for children who have AIDS and whose parents died due to AIDS. They are providing medical care for those who have AIDS. They are sending hundreds of abstinent individuals to help, who will not themselves unintentionally continue the spread of the disease.

Condoms for the AIDS epidemic are like applying a bandaid to a gunshot wound. It's simply not enough.

If one knows they have AIDS, and is educated on how they could spread the disease, they should be less likely to spread it.

I do not have a thorough understanding of the culture in the regions of Africa where AIDS is a growing epidemic. Perhaps someone would like to educate me on this matter.

I'm not sure why you chose to edit my words the way you did there, genuinegirly, but I won't make a big deal out of it. Although I could if I wanted to. Actually, I'm more curious as to why you did it than anything.

My response is more than captured in roachboy's words above. To sit in judgment on Africans and their 'respect for life" and their 'lacking souls" and then discourage the use of resources that could save real, actual lives everyday is appalling.

Despite the scenarios of 'raping virgins' mentioned above, AIDS in Africa is spread largely through prostitution. This is my understanding.

I'm all for people becoming better citizens on the planet and I know that Africa is plagued with more than its fair share of troubles and tragedies, but whether people are fucking or not is not at the heart of the problem. Give them the fucking condoms so fewer people have to suffer.

If you notice other posts of mine, I typically edit quotes. I do it to save space. I also do it to let the reader know what exactly I'm responding to with my next statement. I did not respond to the rest of your words at that time. Also at this time, I am not responding to the rest of what you recently wrote.

MM I don't find the Vatican obsolete, maybe in my life and your life, but there are many who follow their teachings and rulings. I find it oddly strange that people who don't follow or care for their dogmas to call them obsolete where there are many who care for the Pope and the Vatican's position, this coming especially from free thinking website members. We're not going to get much dissenting positions from people since they are already driven away in smaller contests of discussions, ala Rev. Tim from a few years ago.

rb, that may be very true, but again, the idea is that if some are educated via the marketing process either by a corporate model or a religious model, what difference does it make that it is education of people? how is this much different that if it saves some lives that's the benefit? Becuase you or many of you believe that organized religion is bad?

I distribute AIDS information and condoms at concerts for Lifebeat. I can tell you that kids will grab condoms by the armful. Adults? Not so much, some seem to snicker at the idea, and these are adults that are at least 30+ so it's not like AIDS education is lack of awareness. But here's what was missing from the Lifebeat condoms, actual education. We handed out condoms, but what good is it if we didn't explain WHY the condoms were a better deterrent to AIDS? I'm chock full of knowledge as trained by Lifebeat.

Eventually Lifebeat took the condoms and wrapped them in educational materials. There's additional cost of printing and attaching them to the condoms without damaging the condoms. We have stick and stuff parties each month to create the materials for distribution. It's all volunteer and condoms are donations.

So I agree with the Pope's statement. There needs to be education of sorts, without it, it's just a condom.

cyn--i merely ran an interpretation of the pope's statement that lined it up with what i take to be the relevant contexts for understanding it---and i did it for a specific reason, which is that the conclusion of the statement is an opposition to the distribution of condoms and the claim that doing so makes the spread of aids more likely. if his position had been closer to the one you outline above, i wouldn't have taken the tack i did because it would not be a particularly objectionable position--of course education is important--i don't think anyone in their right mind thinks the contrary. but that's not the main argument in ratzinger's statement.

i happen to think the logic is perverse in the statement.
and i don't like ratzinger...

I'm going to ask some of the Lifebeat staff if there are any stats on their previous impacts with and without education. While it would be completely anecdotal, I recall something about the education being almost more important than the distribution of condoms. The condoms are the free bonus.

The other thought that came to mind, this being from an American mindset, just because I have a gym membership doesn't mean I'm instantly healthy and getting excercise, but many people equate it in their minds to some degree. A condom sitting in your wallet (one of the worst places to keep them) doesn't help stave off AIDS but it seems to follow the gym thought process.

Well, you edited them very curiously.

Why do you not want to respond? What is so objectionable about what I said?

And cyn, I think you know me well enough to know that I don't toss off statements like this lightly. But it doesn't take much observation to notice that very many and I will even go so far as to say most Catholics do not believe or adhere to the policies and restrictions handed down by the Vatican. Therefore, I don't understand the continuing hegemony that the Vatican holds over the church. I didn't set out to offend anyone, but sometimes offense is unavoidable.

And the issue is not black and white, so let's not pretend that roachboy and I are trying to make it that way. Of course education is important. But so is keeping people safe today. What is black and white is the Vatican's stance on sex and birth control.

I've been thinking about this a little more this afternoon and it confuses me...what is it exactly about saying that the Vatican is obsolete that is so threatening to conversation on this issue? Do you mean to imply that it intimidates Catholics from standing up for the Pope? Why?

And, you know, at first I felt a little bad about what you said, because I certainly don't want to drive away conversation or silence people. But then I got to thinking about how much stuff is posted on this site that I object to according to the principles that mean the most to me - morally, ethically, intellectually, 'spiritually' (this conversation being one of them) - meaning that my beliefs and the ideas that I hold dear, that I have faith in, are bashed and battered all the time on TFP threads. But I don't want or expect anyone to step in and tell folks to back off because they might offend my beliefs. When I see something that bothers me sufficiently I step in and talk about it - defend my principles. I don't see why someone needs to be given special treatment here just because their beliefs are sanctioned by a church.

The simple answer is: no. Fact is, there's so much misinformation that a lot of Catholics don't even realize what the pope does and does not represent.

The pope is elected by the college of cardinals, and while he is considered to be the spiritual descendant of the apostle Peter and therefore the leader of the Catholic church, he is not synonymous with god in any way whatsoever. The only time the pope is infallible is when speaking ex cathedra, and there are only 7 instances of that in the entire history of the Catholic church.

That's not to say that it's considered acceptable to ignore the pope's teachings - he's still the leader of the church after all - but it's important to understand when the pope is and is not considered infallible, especially since the Catholic church also holds personal conscience in high regard.
Very many I can agree with, but I don't think it's most by any means. Again, the fastest growing regions for Catholicism are Africa and then South America. Granted there is the whole issue of liberation theology in South America (thanks for pointing that out roachboy - it's a big part of that "potential" I spoke about in my first post), but for the most part Catholics in those regions take church leadership rather seriously. And then there are still plenty of people in America and Europe who take it seriously. I've always found it interesting, as someone who was raised Catholic, but rather liberally, how often I have come across conservative Catholics, or people who have experienced more conservative Catholicism and have formed their opinions of the church based on that. And I think it's a big reason why, while I no longer consider myself a believer of any sort, I still see positive social potential within the Catholic church, even with the Vatican present. I don't think it's moving in that direction at all, and so I agree that the Vatican is outdated, but it is not even close to being irrelevant. There are still a LOT of Catholics who listen to it.

That's about all I have to add at this point, because I agree pretty much 100% with roachboy here. There's no doubt that less sex would also help the AIDS issue, but that's no reason to oppose distribution of condoms, and the proper context is necessary for the pope's statements, which includes why he reaches such a conclusion.

I could personally care less what the pope or any other religious figureheads says about AIDS. Unless his name is followed by, MD or some other designation that shows they've been to medical school, then their answers are as meaningful as me speaking to a group of pilots about aerodynamics simply because I like to look at airplanes.

Giving authoritative credence to religious leaders on any topic outside of quoting the bible is ridiculous and fodder for ridicule by rational thought. We are, after all, referring to the same group of nitwits who thought that the earth didn't start revolving around the sun until they decided it could.

I'd much prefer to leave the talk of how to combat a medical problem to doctors.

Well let me be clear. I do not mean to say that the Catholic religion is becoming obsolete. I mean to say that the Vatican's conditions for being a 'good Catholic' are ignored left and right, even by people who love the Pope and what he represents. Any Catholic woman who uses anything other than 'natural' methods of birth control, for instance. Catholics who get divorced without annulment by the church, are another group. And I'm sure if I didn't feel fluish and need lay back down a bit I could go on and name some others...but those two are huge. I hope that makes my comments clearer.

I agree that the church has potential and I am well aware that the church has done great and good works and for the most part I have no problem with the Catholic Church and I don't have a history of bashing the church, either.

But their stance on this issue I find to be reprehensible on several different levels. Not the least of which having to do with Catholic evangelism on the continent of Africa and its influence now on the populace that is dying of AIDS more quickly than in any other place in the world.

I didn't mean nor wish to imply that. It simply is fact that those with strong religious convictions can't or don't bring/discuss them here because there are more non-believers that "crush" the discussion. Pastor Tim was one that withstood some time here, but most devouts don't bring it up very often and there are a few here that I know who just don't get into this conversation too deeply. We don't cater to the religious folks and the core of the community at this point in time doesn't entertain that kind of conversation. It's dismissed quickly.

My point is simply that it's irrelevant to your life, it's irrelevant to my life. But apparently there are millions of Catholics that find relevance to it. It also doesn't mean that they subscribe 100% to the dogmas of the Catholic church. I know that I didn't for the last number of years before I just walked away from the church.

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.

Thus, abstinence only is dangerous when it isn't abstinence only, which in accordance with basic logic, is a relatively rare occurence. Let's illuminate this through a comparison: abstinence only is an infinite number of times safer than safe sex. (I refer you to the rule of dividing anything by zero.)

I don't take issue with the option of contraceptives, actually. I disagree with the pope here.

I do take issue with parents of public school students lacking veto power.

*Puts on sarcasm hat*
Hrmmm... this shocking stance from the church seems to be just the thing to counter Aids in Africa.

Ya know, because when the government there was trying to hide the facts about Aids and nobody used condoms there wasn't any problem with the virus. That's a new thing. Everyone knows that latex causes Aids.

*for my actual comment*

The church must realize that it does not have all the answers to life, especially in the matters of sex.

If I understand correctly, the church is against condoms as a cure because sex should be between a husband and wife. If husbands were only having sex with their wives then the condoms would not be needed. This view is not a popular world view. In light of current events and education levels this is an unrealistic approach to the proplem.

As a Christian, the Pope is called to set himself apart from our world view and preach the message of Christ. I have not found the New Testament to promote out of marriage sex. If this is a correct understanding of the text then the Pope is on track with the Christian mission.

My understanding is that the prohibition on condom use, even in marriage, is based on the parable of the sin of Onan. This passage can be interpreted in many ways, the most obvious of which is not to disobey a direct command from God. On the other hand, at least the past two popes have acknowledged that the creation story in Genesis is not literal and in no way conflicts with evolution - science and religious belief can coexist even if it requires a much-less-than-literal interpretation of the bible. There is a striking contrast between the strictest possible interpretation of a passage, which requires contradicting science and claiming that distributing condoms will make the problem worse, and accepting a scientific fact that requires a very vague interpretation of the story of creation.

Correct. What most theologians neglect to mention is that Onan spilled his seed because he didn't want to impregnate his dead brother's wife...after God killed him.

Strange the little quirks in the parables that the church has chosen to focus on...at the neglect of other little quirks...like, oh, I dunno...God killing people.

Despite my obvious lack of empathy for the Pope's beliefs--and to pop in rather than address the many large comments--I'd just like to note that I do like that the Church is trying to help with the AIDS epidemic. It puts plenty of money into helping to treat those with the disease while trying to prevent via what amounts to education.

Obviously, the missionaries and other Church workers doing all of this are going to try to convert their patients. I don't agree with that from a personal viewpoint, but this isn't about me, and my overall strategic mindset can't help but note that taking away any silly religious beliefs that could spread the disease (or just plain ruin lives) is actually a very good idea.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with what the Catholic Church is doing.

PS: Sorry for the stupid quip up there. I just can't resist sometimes.

EDIT: I totally skipped two pages of conversation by accident, and I don't feel like reading everything. Sorry if I'm just repeating other comments like a dullard.