Guardian: Pope claims condoms could make African Aids crisis worse (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids)
QuotePontiff's remarks on first visit to continent outrage health agencies trying to halt spread of HIV and Aids
The Pope today reignited the controversy over the Catholic church's stance on condom use as he made his first trip to Africa.
The pontiff said condoms were not the answer to the continent's fight against HIV and Aids and could make the problem worse.
Benedict XVI made his comments as he flew to Cameroon for the first leg of a six-day trip that will also see him travelling to Angola.
The timing of his remarks outraged health agencies trying to halt the spread of HIV and Aids in sub-Saharan Africa, where an estimated 22 million people are infected.
The Roman Catholic church encourages sexual abstinence and fidelity to prevent the disease from spreading, but it is a policy that has divided some clergy working with Aids patients.
The pontiff, speaking to journalists on his flight, said the condition was "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".
Rebecca Hodes, of the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa, said that if the Pope was serious about preventing new HIV infections he would focus on promoting wider access to condoms and spreading information about how best to use them.
Hodes, the director of policy, communication and research for the campaign group, added: "Instead, his opposition to condoms conveys that religious dogma is more important to him than the lives of Africans."
It is not the first time the Pope has made public remarks on the HIV/Aids outbreak ravaging the continent.
Shortly after becoming pontiff in 2005, he told senior Catholic clergy from Africa that, while the disease was a "cruel epidemic", it could not be cured through using condoms.
Addressing bishops from South Africa, Botswana, Swaziland, Namibia and Lesotho who had travelled to the Vatican for papal audience, he said: "The traditional teaching of the church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids."
He also warned them that African life was under threat from a number of factors, including condoms.
"It is of great concern that the fabric of African life, its very source of hope and stability, is threatened by divorce, abortion, prostitution, human trafficking and a contraception mentality," he added.
More than two-thirds – 67% – of the global total of 32.9 million people with HIV live in sub-Saharan Africa.
Three-quarters of all Aids deaths in 2007 happened there.
Africa is the fastest-growing region for the Roman Catholic church, which competes with Islam and evangelical churches.
The Pope also said today that he intended to make an appeal for "international solidarity" for Africa in the face of the global economic downturn.
He said that, while the church did not propose specific economic solutions, it could give "spiritual and moral" suggestions.
Describing the current crisis as the consequence of "a deficit of ethics in economic structures", he added: "It is here that the church can make a contribution."
Benedict dismissed claims that he was facing increasing opposition and isolation within the church, particularly after an outreach to ultra-conservatives led to him lifting the excommunication of a Holocaust-denying bishop.
"The myth of my solitude makes me laugh," he said, adding that he could count on the network of friends and aides he saw every day.
In a letter to Catholic bishops, released last week, he made an unusual public acknowledgment of Vatican mistakes over the rehabilitation of Bishop Richard Williamson.
While acknowledging that errors had been made in handling the affair, Benedict said he was saddened that he was criticised "with open hostility" even by those who "should have known better".
I was also kind of flabbergasted to learn that there's a Vatican commission trying to determine whether it's ok to use condoms for married couples with one partner HIV positive.
Excellent news. Over the long run, religious nutters who actually listen to the Pope on the use of condoms will decrease in number relative to the general population.
This is fucking criminal. The motherfucking asshole must be bitter that during the last Holocaust he was only an extra, and it ended too soon anyway, so now he wants to have another but with him as the major star.
Quote from: Martinus on March 18, 2009, 07:28:20 PM
This is fucking criminal. The motherfucking asshole must be bitter that during the last Holocaust he was only an extra, and it ended too soon anyway, so now he wants to have another but with him as the major star.
You're fucking criminal. The pope is horribly wrong, but he's still a better person than you are.
But don't worry, there's no force on Earth that will prevent you from getting the AIDS that you so rightly deserve.
Quote from: Fate on March 18, 2009, 03:59:39 PM
Excellent news. Over the long run, religious nutters who actually listen to the Pope on the use of condoms will decrease in number relative to the general population.
I wouldn't be that hopeful. The main effect of the no-condoms policy by devout Catholics is the much higher birth rate, which more than counter-acts the mere tens of million that AIDS claims. There is also a bonus effect of his AIDS policies spilling over and affecting non-Catholics as well. I think the Pope is coming out well ahead.
Really, we think the solution to AIDS is condoms?
Pope hates sex? Really. Shocker.
He has gone on to say that abortion remains a non-option, even if the life of the mother or child are in danger. Incest, rape etc. are also no valid reasons for having an abortion.
From NationalReview (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTNlNDc1MmMwNDM0OTEzMjQ4NDc0ZGUyOWYxNmEzN2E=)
QuoteFrom Saint Peter's Square to Harvard Square
Media coverage of papal comments on AIDS in Africa is March madness.
By Kathryn Jean Lopez
'We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates, which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working."
So notes Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, in response to papal press comments en route to Africa this week.
Benedict XVI said, in response to a French reporter's question asking him to defend the Church's position on fighting the spread of AIDS, characterized by the reporter as "frequently considered unrealistic and ineffective":
I would say that this problem of AIDS cannot be overcome with advertising slogans. If the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem. The solution can only come through a twofold commitment: firstly, the humanization of sexuality, in other words a spiritual and human renewal bringing a new way of behaving towards one another; and secondly, true friendship, above all with those who are suffering, a readiness — even through personal sacrifice — to be present with those who suffer. And these are the factors that help and bring visible progress.
"The pope is correct," Green told National Review Online Wednesday, "or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope's comments. He stresses that "condoms have been proven to not be effective at the 'level of population.'"
"There is," Green adds, "a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded 'Demographic Health Surveys,' between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates. This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction 'technology' such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by 'compensating' or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology."
Green added: "I also noticed that the pope said 'monogamy' was the best single answer to African AIDS, rather than 'abstinence.' The best and latest empirical evidence indeed shows that reduction in multiple and concurrent sexual partners is the most important single behavior change associated with reduction in HIV-infection rates (the other major factor is male circumcision)."
And while, as Travis Kavulla writes from Kenya today, the international media will ignore all sorts of fascinating new stories about church and civilizational growth in favor of a sexier, albeit way-too-familiar storyline, Green has some encouraging news: The pope is not alone. "More and more AIDS experts are coming to accept the above. The two countries with the worst HIV epidemics, Swaziland and Botswana, have both launched campaigns to discourage multiple and concurrent partners, and to encourage fidelity."
The pope added during that Q&A, "I would say that our double effort is to renew the human person internally, to give spiritual and human strength to a way of behaving that is just towards our own body and the other person's body; and this capacity of suffering with those who suffer, to remain present in trying situations."
We need to, in other words, treat people as people. Reason with them and show them there is a better way to live, respectful of themselves and others. It's a common-sense message that isn't madness whether you're in Africa or dealing with hormonal American teenagers. It's a hard message to hear over the same-old silly debates, parodies, and dismissals. But it's one that is based on real life—and acknowledged not just in Saint Peter's Square but in Harvard Square.
The Pope was right. No surprise, of course... 8)
Yes, monogamy is a solution that sub-Saharan Africa is embracing with a passion.
LOL Alexandru H. posts some partial, biased article to prove the Pope was correct. How laughable. How about posting something from a reputable source? Like, this article from BBC which has all Western governments and scientific organizations cutting the Pope a new one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7950671.stm
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 05:14:21 AM
LOL Alexandru H. posts some partial, biased article to prove the Pope was correct. How laughable. How about posting something from a reputable source? Like, this article from BBC which has all Western governments and scientific organizations cutting the Pope a new one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7950671.stm
So Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies is not a reputable source but a western politician is? I don't get my AIDS news from confirmed gays, it's like learning about communism from Lenin...
National Review is a conservative rag that is not a credible source.
Here's a joint statement by WHO, UNAIDS and UNFPA, according to which condom use remains the primary and best available HIV infection prevention method:
http://www.unaids.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/Resources/FeatureStories/archive/2009/20090319_preventionposition.asp
Quote from: HVC on March 20, 2009, 04:46:44 PM
Pope hates sex? Really. Shocker.
He ain't playing the game. He ain't making the rules.
Condoms? I dunno...the man who is line to be the next president of South Africa claims that taking a shower after sex can prevent HIV.
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 05:28:23 AM
Here's a joint statement by WHO, UNAIDS and UNFPA, according to which condom use remains the primary and best available HIV infection prevention method:
http://www.unaids.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/Resources/FeatureStories/archive/2009/20090319_preventionposition.asp
I think that "not fucking" comes ahead of condoms in preventing AIDS, pregnancy, and other STDS.
Quote from: Scipio on March 21, 2009, 07:31:06 AM
I think that "not fucking" comes ahead of condoms in preventing AIDS, pregnancy, and other STDS.
If that is the case, you are perfectly safe. :P
Quote from: Scipio on March 21, 2009, 07:31:06 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 05:28:23 AM
Here's a joint statement by WHO, UNAIDS and UNFPA, according to which condom use remains the primary and best available HIV infection prevention method:
http://www.unaids.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/Resources/FeatureStories/archive/2009/20090319_preventionposition.asp
I think that "not fucking" comes ahead of condoms in preventing AIDS, pregnancy, and other STDS.
Unfortunately, that's not a workable strategy.
Quote from: Scipio on March 21, 2009, 07:31:06 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 05:28:23 AM
Here's a joint statement by WHO, UNAIDS and UNFPA, according to which condom use remains the primary and best available HIV infection prevention method:
http://www.unaids.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/Resources/FeatureStories/archive/2009/20090319_preventionposition.asp
I think that "not fucking" comes ahead of condoms in preventing AIDS, pregnancy, and other STDS.
Unfortunately, not everyone can count on their obesity and ugliness to be unfuckable. :(
Condoms not effective on epidemic scale? Fine. Condoms banned for members of a religious organization? Not fine.
Can't we just fight media with media, and link the bastard directly to aggravation of overpopulation?
*pops in Monty Python and listens to "Every Sperm is Sacred."
Quote from: DGuller on March 19, 2009, 01:29:20 AM
Quote from: Fate on March 18, 2009, 03:59:39 PM
Excellent news. Over the long run, religious nutters who actually listen to the Pope on the use of condoms will decrease in number relative to the general population.
I wouldn't be that hopeful. The main effect of the no-condoms policy by devout Catholics is the much higher birth rate, which more than counter-acts the mere tens of million that AIDS claims. There is also a bonus effect of his AIDS policies spilling over and affecting non-Catholics as well. I think the Pope is coming out well ahead.
I don't think very many people listen to the pope on this stuff. I don't know of many catholic families with a half dozen kids.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 21, 2009, 08:53:47 AMI don't think very many people listen to the pope on this stuff. I don't know of many catholic families with a half dozen kids.
Could be a red herring. Catholics have no problem with getting tubes tied/vasectomies after a kid or two. Actually, it's the flaw in the argument, as if the zygotes are sacred, then those surgeries are akin to genocide.
Quote from: Neil on March 21, 2009, 08:02:24 AM
Quote from: Scipio on March 21, 2009, 07:31:06 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 05:28:23 AM
Here's a joint statement by WHO, UNAIDS and UNFPA, according to which condom use remains the primary and best available HIV infection prevention method:
http://www.unaids.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/Resources/FeatureStories/archive/2009/20090319_preventionposition.asp
I think that "not fucking" comes ahead of condoms in preventing AIDS, pregnancy, and other STDS.
Unfortunately, that's not a workable strategy.
My space pope doesn't forbid prophylactics. Just amateurphylactics.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 21, 2009, 09:13:29 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 21, 2009, 08:53:47 AMI don't think very many people listen to the pope on this stuff. I don't know of many catholic families with a half dozen kids.
Could be a red herring. Catholics have no problem with getting tubes tied/vasectomies after a kid or two. Actually, it's the flaw in the argument, as if the zygotes are sacred, then those surgeries are akin to genocide.
I had no idea what the rules are, but apparently those are against the rules to, at least according to this site I found. I'm going to post the Q&A with a priest here because of how ridiculous this all sounds:
http://www.canfp.org/artman/publish/article_732.shtml
QuoteShould We Reverse Vasectomy?
Answered by: Fr. Ed Horning
Sep 24, 2007, 13:13
Email this article
Printer friendly page
Question
My husband and I have been struggling in our marriage since having a vasectomy about four years ago. I was not a Catholic at the time. We had three small children and then I lost both of my parents within a few months. I was overwhelmed and grief stricken. My husband, who was concerned for my sanity, decided to have a vasectomy (at my suggestion) even though we both felt that it was wrong in terms of natural law. The vasectomy actually failed and I felt like it was a miracle and a blessing. My husband did not see it that way and having already gone so far decided to have it redone despite my pleading that he wouldn't.
I have since become a Catholic and see the wisdom and beauty of the Truth. When dealing with the issue in confession the priest advised that having three children is enough, we have done our part and that I should just love my husband. I trust in Christ's mercy but I struggle with how to handle our reality in our marriage and in our area there seems to be no priests who actually see what we have done as wrong.
I am trying to discern how exactly we should ammend our lives given a reversal is not likely possible due to the two previous surgeries. I know that one possibility is to practice NFP and abstain from fertile times, however I am praying and hoping for a miracle and want to be open to life at these times.
Because of my sadness, my husband is willing to look into a reversal but I feel like I am being selfish in asking him to do this and wonder if our resources would be better spent in supporting children in need or possibly seeking adoption. I long to put things right but I don't want to assume that they can be. I am open to the possibility that this will be a sorrow I must live with but can offer up but also feel afraid. I would appreciate any advice you could offer.
Thank you.
Answer
On receiving your e-mail, we at CANFP began praying for you and your husband. You mention you and your husband's struggle to do the right thing. We who are affiliated with CANFP want to support you in following the Truth. Congratulations on coming into the Catholic Church! Welcome home!
First, it is against the natural law to get a vasectomy. It is also contrary to Divine Law. Your consciences were right. You mention that there "seems to be no priest who actually sees what you did as wrong." There are priests who would say what you did was wrong because the Church teaches that it is unacceptable. However, the forgiveness you received through the priest was real as you mention you trust in Jesus' mercy. In regards to your situation, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches in paragraph 2999: "Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception)." You and your husband want to discern now exactly how to amend your lives. Where do you go from here? This is good. Going to Confession was the good first step.
You were not pleased with what my brother priest told you when he said that you "have had already had three children and to just love your husband." The Church will not force your husband to get a reversal, but would recommend it to you as a means of amending your life for the better and living your marriage vows. Reparation for sin involves repairing what has been damaged. There are doctors associated with CANFP who are capable of doing a vasectomy reversal. You mention that your husband is open to it. It sounds like you have your answer. You are not being selfish when you consider asking your husband to get the reversal. Many of us would be thrilled if your husband got the reversal. I would be particularly proud of you guys.
If the reversal is successful, then yes, perhaps employing a method of NFP, you can begin anew to live the third marriage vow, and be open to God's gift of children. If the reversal is unsuccessful, then many of us who respect the Church's teaching and respect marriage and sexuality, would recommend practicing NFP as if you both were fertile as a means of respecting God's gift of fertility and sexuality. Abstaining during fertile times would be a good way to make reparation. Also if the reversal does not work, then perhaps explore too, the possibility of adoption or helping children in need.
I am concerned about the sadness that you mention at least twice in your request. It is common for a son or daughter to mourn the loss of one or more parents. With prayer, grace, faith, and time, your hope should normally increase. Give yourself time. In my experience there is a sadness or disconnect among spouses who sterilize themselves, but add to that as well the loss of both your parents. It's no wonder that you experienced a deep sadness. Keep a strong prayer life, participating at the least in the Sunday Eucharist. Pray with your husband and with your three children. Be open to a bereavement group or even counseling. The Lord will help you.
Finally, you can call CANFP too for more questions. We are here to support you. Thank you for wanting to do the right thing. I hope and pray that this helps. God bless you and keep you.
In Jesus and Mary,
Fr. Ed
QuoteFirst, it is against the natural law to get a vasectomy. It is also contrary to Divine Law. Your consciences were right
Damn right it is.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 21, 2009, 03:10:55 PM
QuoteFirst, it is against the natural law to get a vasectomy. It is also contrary to Divine Law. Your consciences were right
Damn right it is.
I've always felt somewhat uncomfortable with the idea, but against the natural law? That's silly.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 21, 2009, 03:10:55 PM
QuoteFirst, it is against the natural law to get a vasectomy. It is also contrary to Divine Law. Your consciences were right
Damn right it is.
Agree. Anyone (like Fahdiz) who has had their nuts cut off is insane.
General Ripper said it best:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg6.imageshack.us%2Fimg6%2F7269%2Fessence.jpg&hash=1f64a133703d8cc97f48b4d01d5d68b09c45296d)
vasectomy is a communist plot.
How does one define the natural law?
Quote from: Neil on March 21, 2009, 03:40:21 PM
How does one define the natural law?
I think it is defined in the negative, ie "If the darkies do this, it must be against natural law."
This is again a hysterical retarded argument.
The church opposes premarital sex, sex outside of marriage and use of contraceptives. So when somebody violates the first two and follows the pope on the third how is that the church's fault?
Has there really in the history of mankind somebody who said "I'm going to heat on my wife with a hooker but I'm not going to use a condom because it would violate my faith?"
Really? Is this the best argument the retarded left can come up with?
I can tell you, with all honesty, I would never heat on my wife.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 21, 2009, 04:35:15 PM
The church opposes premarital sex, sex outside of marriage and use of contraceptives. So when somebody violates the first two and follows the pope on the third how is that the church's fault?
One could blame the church for having unreasonable expectations.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 21, 2009, 04:35:15 PM
This is again a hysterical retarded argument.
The church opposes premarital sex, sex outside of marriage and use of contraceptives. So when somebody violates the first two and follows the pope on the third how is that the church's fault?
Has there really in the history of mankind somebody who said "I'm going to heat on my wife with a hooker but I'm not going to use a condom because it would violate my faith?"
Really? Is this the best argument the retarded left can come up with?
Well, to be fair, it is a retarded argument put forth against an even more retarded argument about invisible superfriends. The only place where the Pope can even turn for support for his absurd concepts is a source even less credible than Wikipedia.
Quote from: PDH on March 21, 2009, 04:55:56 PM
I can tell you, with all honesty, I would never heat on my wife.
You'd never give her the old dutch oven?
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 21, 2009, 04:35:15 PM
This is again a hysterical retarded argument.
The church opposes premarital sex, sex outside of marriage and use of contraceptives. So when somebody violates the first two and follows the pope on the third how is that the church's fault?
Has there really in the history of mankind somebody who said "I'm going to heat on my wife with a hooker but I'm not going to use a condom because it would violate my faith?"
Really? Is this the best argument the retarded left can come up with?
I think the problem is more along the lines that since virtually no modern couple is going to die with each only having one sex partner as the Church would want, condoms have a place in HIV prevention. But the Church is trying to prevent condom access through misinformation in places rife with promiscuity and HIV.
So yes, if everyone did what the Church said, HIV wouldn't be a problem. But in the real world, people in Africa are having sex with each other and are not going to stop doing so. The only plausible way to stop the spread of HIV there is through encouraging the use of condoms. It must be infuriating for AIDS activists in Africa having their work undermined by a popular western institution such as the Catholic Church that has to know better.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 21, 2009, 07:09:09 PM
But in the real world, people in Africa are having sex with each other and are not going to stop doing so. The only plausible way to stop the spread of HIV there is through encouraging the use of condoms. It must be infuriating for AIDS activists in Africa having their work undermined by a popular western institution such as the Catholic Church that has to know better.
Yep.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 21, 2009, 07:01:15 PM
Quote from: PDH on March 21, 2009, 04:55:56 PM
I can tell you, with all honesty, I would never heat on my wife.
You'd never give her the old dutch oven?
I prefer giving the Cleveland Steamer.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 21, 2009, 08:53:47 AM
I don't think very many people listen to the pope on this stuff. I don't know of many catholic families with a half dozen kids.
If you're talking about American Catholics, then you're not talking about real Catholics. The real Catholics are in countries like Mexico, for example.
Quote from: DGuller on March 21, 2009, 08:42:20 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 21, 2009, 08:53:47 AM
I don't think very many people listen to the pope on this stuff. I don't know of many catholic families with a half dozen kids.
If you're talking about American Catholics, then you're not talking about real Catholics. The real Catholics are in countries like Mexico, for example.
Ah, the good old "No True Scotsman" fallacy! ::)
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2009, 08:46:33 PM
Ah, the good old "No True Scotsman" fallacy! ::)
I think he was talking about Americans and not Americans who call themselves Scots. ::)
I don't keep very careful tabs on the doings of the Vatican (as microstates go, they have a shortage of hedge fund registrations), but it seems like there has been a real drop off from JP II to Benedict.
The Cathlic Church has places people can go to get the Catholic version of family planning:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yardwear.net%2Fblog%2Fcontent%2Fbinary%2Ffamily_planning-advice.jpg&hash=754314ed4f9fc4bdf82aaa9fc9751deffcccd6ac)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2009, 12:11:19 AM
I don't keep very careful tabs on the doings of the Vatican (as microstates go, they have a shortage of hedge fund registrations), but it seems like there has been a real drop off from JP II to Benedict.
I have mixed views on Benedict so far. I think a lot of his social teachings, such as this, are broadly very much a continuation of JP2's legacy.
On certain internal Church governance issues though I'm not so keen.
Although one positive step would be if he appointed Bernard Longley Archbishop of Westminster, as has been predicted. There's been a lot of concern from some of his appointments that Benedict is trying to make conservative the traditionally liberal episcopates. If he appoints Longley he won't have done that in England at least. Longley agrees with the Church on everything as you'd expect, but he's most famous for having established a service for LGBT (I hate that acronym) Catholics in Soho, and for integrating it with local Anglican services. Though he was attacked by conservatives he argued that there's nothing that stops a gay person from being Catholic, there is no means test to receive the love of the Church and, like the great Cardinal Basil Hume (SANTO SUBITO!) that though the Church opposes homosexual acts it must always be careful to speak such opposition in a way that doesn't denigrate the human dignity of individuals.
This is what I mean by the Catholic Church being different in England than Poland, Marty ;)
Quote from: alfred russel on March 21, 2009, 07:09:09 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 21, 2009, 04:35:15 PM
This is again a hysterical retarded argument.
The church opposes premarital sex, sex outside of marriage and use of contraceptives. So when somebody violates the first two and follows the pope on the third how is that the church's fault?
Has there really in the history of mankind somebody who said "I'm going to heat on my wife with a hooker but I'm not going to use a condom because it would violate my faith?"
Really? Is this the best argument the retarded left can come up with?
I think the problem is more along the lines that since virtually no modern couple is going to die with each only having one sex partner as the Church would want, condoms have a place in HIV prevention. But the Church is trying to prevent condom access through misinformation in places rife with promiscuity and HIV.
That may be true in the West, but not in Africa, where a lot of people are born with HIV.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2009, 12:11:19 AM
I don't keep very careful tabs on the doings of the Vatican (as microstates go, they have a shortage of hedge fund registrations), but it seems like there has been a real drop off from JP II to Benedict.
I think on some issues Benedict just maintains the party line (like all the sex-related issues) so there is not much change there.
However, he has also abandoned a lot of relatively progressive policies of JP2 (such as, for example, virtually all attempts at dialogue with other cultures and religions) and also lacks a lot of JP2's charisma and reputation (change from a Pope who helped to dismantle communism to a Pope who used to be in Hitler Jugend illustrates this drop in reputation and non-religious authority the best) so the overall balance is negative.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 22, 2009, 08:48:12 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2009, 12:11:19 AM
I don't keep very careful tabs on the doings of the Vatican (as microstates go, they have a shortage of hedge fund registrations), but it seems like there has been a real drop off from JP II to Benedict.
I have mixed views on Benedict so far. I think a lot of his social teachings, such as this, are broadly very much a continuation of JP2's legacy.
On certain internal Church governance issues though I'm not so keen.
Although one positive step would be if he appointed Bernard Longley Archbishop of Westminster, as has been predicted. There's been a lot of concern from some of his appointments that Benedict is trying to make conservative the traditionally liberal episcopates. If he appoints Longley he won't have done that in England at least. Longley agrees with the Church on everything as you'd expect, but he's most famous for having established a service for LGBT (I hate that acronym) Catholics in Soho, and for integrating it with local Anglican services. Though he was attacked by conservatives he argued that there's nothing that stops a gay person from being Catholic, there is no means test to receive the love of the Church and, like the great Cardinal Basil Hume (SANTO SUBITO!) that though the Church opposes homosexual acts it must always be careful to speak such opposition in a way that doesn't denigrate the human dignity of individuals.
This is what I mean by the Catholic Church being different in England than Poland, Marty ;)
Well, while grumbler may call it a "no true Scotsman fallacy", I personally see catholicism in countries where it is dominant (e.g. Poland, Italy, South America, Ireland) much more representative of what it truly is than catholicism in countries where it is one of the competing religions (like the US or the UK).
By the same token, I would see the Soviet, Chinese or Cuban representations of communism much more telling of the true nature of communism than that exemplified by the communist parties or organisations in France or the US. :P
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2009, 10:46:55 AM
Well, while grumbler may call it a "no true Scotsman fallacy", I personally see catholicism in countries where it is dominant (e.g. Poland, Italy, South America, Ireland) much more representative of what it truly is than catholicism in countries where it is one of the competing religions (like the US or the UK).
Nope. This isn't a NTS fallacy because you are simply stating your opinions about the "Catholicity" of policies based on what country the church issuing them belongs to. An NTS fallacy exists when one argues that an action taken by a "Scotsman" cannot be admitted as evidence because "no true Scotsman" would ever take such an action (and thus the actor isn't a "Scotsman" at all). See DGuller's "If you're talking about American Catholics, then you're not talking about real Catholics" example: a
classic example of the NTS fallacy.
Quote from: grumbler on March 22, 2009, 11:55:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2009, 10:46:55 AM
Well, while grumbler may call it a "no true Scotsman fallacy", I personally see catholicism in countries where it is dominant (e.g. Poland, Italy, South America, Ireland) much more representative of what it truly is than catholicism in countries where it is one of the competing religions (like the US or the UK).
Nope. This isn't a NTS fallacy because you are simply stating your opinions about the "Catholicity" of policies based on what country the church issuing them belongs to. An NTS fallacy exists when one argues that an action taken by a "Scotsman" cannot be admitted as evidence because "no true Scotsman" would ever take such an action (and thus the actor isn't a "Scotsman" at all). See DGuller's "If you're talking about American Catholics, then you're not talking about real Catholics" example: a classic example of the NTS fallacy.
Well but in a sense I agree with his argument - US catholics are not good representatives of catholicism as a whole. They are much more liberal, I am led to understand, for one.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2009, 02:20:06 PM
Well but in a sense I agree with his argument - US catholics are not good representatives of catholicism as a whole. They are much more liberal, I am led to understand, for one.
Again, this is because you want to categorize people and I don't.
The issue was that DGuller claimed that devout Catholics had a higher birth rate than non-catholics, because the Pope was against contraception. alfred russel countered that he didn't know many Catholics with six kids.
Catholic countries have low birth rates (Italy, Austria, Poland, etc) and high birth rates (both Congos, Rwanda and Burundi, etc). Some non-catholic countries have a low birth rate (Japan, US, Brirain, etc) while some have a high birth rate (Niger, Mali, Afghanistan, etc). It seems clear to me that what distinguished birthrate isn't whether one is a "real Catholic" or not, but what societies one lives in, and in particular how well-educated the women there are.
So, while you may want to waste your time trying to define who is a "good catholic" to prove a point that is completely irrelevant, I really don't give a shit, because it is pretty clear to anyone whose has spent more than nanoseconds on the topic is that it isn't the Pope's position on birth control that drives birthrate, no matter how badly you and DGuller want to believe that it is.
Catholics are not catholic, anyway. Let's just call them the Roman heretics, and leave it at that.
Quote from: Scipio on March 22, 2009, 03:59:01 PM
Catholics are not catholic, anyway. Let's just call them the Roman heretics, and leave it at that.
How about we just call them Type 3 Believers in Invisible Superfriends, and leave it at
that. Most of them are not even Roman any more, so yor choice is out of date. 8)
Quote from: Scipio on March 22, 2009, 03:59:01 PM
Catholics are not catholic, anyway. Let's just call them the Roman heretics, and leave it at that.
I can disparage catholics, since I'm an atheist, but your ridicule, coming from a follower of orthodoxy (which is even more retarded and backward than catholicism) is rather silly.
Both orthodox and catholics are stupid, but orthodox are more FAIL.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2009, 04:46:39 PM
Quote from: Scipio on March 22, 2009, 03:59:01 PM
Catholics are not catholic, anyway. Let's just call them the Roman heretics, and leave it at that.
I can disparage catholics, since I'm an atheist, but your ridicule, coming from a follower of orthodoxy (which is even more retarded and backward than catholicism) is rather silly.
Both orthodox and catholics are stupid, but orthodox are more FAIL.
I defy you to prove your allegations. We don't proscribe birth control, for example. We also don't assert textually false interpolations as dogma. Nor do we pretend to religious infallibility, or subscribe to the immaculate conception (without a doubt the goofiest modern catholic belief).
I don't believe in atheists.
Quote from: Scipio on March 22, 2009, 04:59:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2009, 04:46:39 PM
Quote from: Scipio on March 22, 2009, 03:59:01 PM
Catholics are not catholic, anyway. Let's just call them the Roman heretics, and leave it at that.
I can disparage catholics, since I'm an atheist, but your ridicule, coming from a follower of orthodoxy (which is even more retarded and backward than catholicism) is rather silly.
Both orthodox and catholics are stupid, but orthodox are more FAIL.
I defy you to prove your allegations. We don't proscribe birth control, for example. We also don't assert textually false interpolations as dogma. Nor do we pretend to religious infallibility, or subscribe to the immaculate conception (without a doubt the goofiest modern catholic belief).
Orthodox: Religion of Russians.
Q.E.D.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2009, 05:02:35 PM
Quote from: Scipio on March 22, 2009, 04:59:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2009, 04:46:39 PM
Quote from: Scipio on March 22, 2009, 03:59:01 PM
Catholics are not catholic, anyway. Let's just call them the Roman heretics, and leave it at that.
I can disparage catholics, since I'm an atheist, but your ridicule, coming from a follower of orthodoxy (which is even more retarded and backward than catholicism) is rather silly.
Both orthodox and catholics are stupid, but orthodox are more FAIL.
I defy you to prove your allegations. We don't proscribe birth control, for example. We also don't assert textually false interpolations as dogma. Nor do we pretend to religious infallibility, or subscribe to the immaculate conception (without a doubt the goofiest modern catholic belief).
Orthodox: Religion of Russians.
Q.E.D.
Polish chauvinism from a self-loathing Pole. Let's face it, in a previous life, you were a Polish concentration camp guard.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 22, 2009, 05:00:54 PM
I don't believe in atheists.
I tried not to believe in Tim, but he existed all the same :(
Quote from: PDH on March 22, 2009, 05:23:47 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 22, 2009, 05:00:54 PM
I don't believe in atheists.
I tried not to believe in Tim, but he existed all the same :(
You said his name three times. :-[
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2009, 10:46:55 AM
Well, while grumbler may call it a "no true Scotsman fallacy", I personally see catholicism in countries where it is dominant (e.g. Poland, Italy, South America, Ireland) much more representative of what it truly is than catholicism in countries where it is one of the competing religions (like the US or the UK).
But Catholicism's a hugely diverse faith. The religion in Poland, Italy, South America and Ireland are all very different.
In England the RCC is an establishment Church, though it didn't used to be. It's broadly speaking quite liberal and middle class. It's the Church of Newman rather than Manning. Though it's still activist on many subjects such as immigration rights and life issues. Now, thanks to the Poles, it's the largest faith in England.
The RCC in Scotland on the other hand is very different. It's still a bit of a dissident Church in a far less friendly country. It's not establishment and it's still not middle class. It tends to have a firebreathing heirarchy to fairly compete with the CofS, FCofS and HFCofS. The archetypal Scottish prelate is Cardinal Winning.
I think the success of the Catholic Church has largely been because it isn't Poland everywhere. It moulds itself very successfully to other countries' traditions and positions, while always remaining uniquely Catholic. So when you say South America do you mean the Church in Rio with a long-standing outreach program to the LGBT community (homophobic feeling in Rio is on the rise because of the emergence of Evangelical Christianity, not the RCC), or do you mean the Churches in Peru and Bolivia who bless llama fetuses before they're buried for good luck, or do you mean the Churches in Central America committed above all to their social mission and pushing for the canonisation of Romero?
And, of course, the Church's recent strength in the US is largely down to Mexican migrants (in a similar way to the Irish in the 19th century in the US and England) so is that Catholic enough a Church?
Free condoms ain't gonna do crap when the moral fiber of society is non-existent. As long as the people keep raping and killing each other amongst corrupt broken governments and economically destitute countries, HIV/AIDS will persist.
Heck, husbands think it is fine to have multiple partners, but he sure as hell is not going to dishonorably wear a condom for his wife. Meanwhile, 1 in 4 girls are raped by the time they are 16? (A guess, but probably some terrible figure.) African armies use rape as a weapon of war. Give the people some jobs, rights, education, government, and peace before bickering over condoms as "the solution".
Quote from: Phillip V on March 24, 2009, 11:38:21 PM
Free condoms ain't gonna do crap when the moral fiber of society is non-existent. As long as the people keep raping and killing each other amongst corrupt broken governments and economically destitute countries, HIV/AIDS will persist.
Heck, husbands think it is fine to have multiple partners, but he sure as hell is not going to dishonorably wear a condom for his wife. Meanwhile, 1 in 4 girls are raped by the time they are 16? (A guess, but probably some terrible figure.) African armies use rape as a weapon of war. Give the people some jobs, rights, education, government, and peace before bickering over condoms as "the solution".
Yeah, so naturally one should say that condoms would actually worsen the crisis.
Quote from: garbon on March 24, 2009, 11:52:35 PMYeah, so naturally one should say that condoms would actually worsen the crisis.
Beans. He does talk about the bigger issues, too, including treatment of women and tribal/ethnic rivalry.
Quote from: Phillip V on March 25, 2009, 08:56:07 AM
Beans. He does talk about the bigger issues, too, including treatment of women and tribal/ethnic rivalry.
Oh so if you say enough nice things you can spout ignorant bullshit?
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2009, 09:02:00 AM
Oh so if you say enough nice things you can spout ignorant bullshit?
Wassamatta? Afraid someone is gonna make you say some nice things before you resume your normal style of discourse? :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 22, 2009, 09:33:55 PM
Now, thanks to the Poles, it's the largest faith in England.
:nelson:
In your face Henry VIII
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2009, 09:25:55 AM
Wassamatta? Afraid someone is gonna make you say some nice things before you resume your normal style of discourse? :lol:
Hmm?
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2009, 09:02:00 AM
Oh so if you say enough nice things you can spout ignorant bullshit?
My mother says some bullshit from time to time, but I should not harp on the little things, for I love her. ;)
Such is the same with the Pope, our Father. :bowler:
Quote from: Phillip V on March 25, 2009, 03:05:54 PM
My mother says some bullshit from time to time, but I should not harp on the little things, for I love her. ;)
Such is the same with the Pope, our Father. :bowler:
My family would not exist if we didn't harp on one another. :mellow: