The Shame of the Pope's Africa Visit

[Guest]

At a time when 25 million in Africa have died of AIDS, and at least another 3 million are infected, I think it's reprehensible that Pope Benedict condemned the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS in Africa.

AIDS in Africa is virtually 100% heterosexually spread through intimate contact. No gays, no needles. It's spread by the milennium old sexual customs of millions of tribespeople. Women are helpless to stop becoming infected because even if they are monogamous and HIV negative, their husbands need not be so.

Other than prolonging a rigid, un-Godly ideology that until only recently advocated burning hundred of thousands at the stake, there is no compassionate or logical reason to condemn the use of condoms by a married couple in a monogamous relationship where one partner is infected.

Benedict could have been courageous and taken the Church where it should be- helping to heal the sick by preventing illness in the first place.

To make this ideology even more absurd, the Pope reiterated his stand against saving the life of a mother under any circumstances, even when the pregnancy directly threatens her life. You can tell that decision was made by a male!

The Church ought to adhere to an ethic of Life that is not trampled on by ideologues of high stature or rooted in medieval superstition, whose exercise of power now officially contributes to the death of millions. The pope's actions will result in more African deaths than all the blood diamond conflicts in Africa combined.

[Guest]

Religious beliefs are cast in stone by many more then the Pope. And many with a lot worse ideology then the non use of condoms. Think about how the Muslim belief in dieing in the service of Allah allows mothers (decision made by a women) to strap bombs to their children and send them into places to die. Not disagreeing with your position, just being conscious of the reality of religious beliefs.

[Guest]

Do you know the % of Catholics who choose to ignore some parts of the religion but still consider themselves Catholic? It's a high number. And the religion doesn't crumble just because of it.

The bigger question in Africa isn't the use of condoms it is the availability. If the pope's stance effects that then is an outright shame. If they are available to the people and then they decide to abide by the Pope then that is still their individual choice. I don't think 100% of the African catholics don't use them because the Pope said not to.

[Guest]

At a time when 25 million in Africa have died of AIDS, and at least another 3 million are infected, I think it's reprehensible that Pope Benedict condemned the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS in Africa.

AIDS in Africa is virtually 100% heterosexually spread through intimate contact. No gays, no needles. It's spread by the milennium old sexual customs of millions of tribespeople. Women are helpless to stop becoming infected because even if they are monogamous and HIV negative, their husbands need not be so.

Other than prolonging a rigid, un-Godly ideology that until only recently advocated burning hundred of thousands at the stake, there is no compassionate or logical reason to condemn the use of condoms by a married couple in a monogamous relationship where one partner is infected.

Benedict could have been courageous and taken the Church where it should be- helping to heal the sick by preventing illness in the first place.

To make this ideology even more absurd, the Pope reiterated his stand against saving the life of a mother under any circumstances, even when the pregnancy directly threatens her life. You can tell that decision was made by a male!

The Church ought to adhere to an ethic of Life that is not trampled on by ideologues of high stature or rooted in medieval superstition, whose exercise of power now officially contributes to the death of millions. The pope's actions will result in more African deaths than all the blood diamond conflicts in Africa combined.

I agree - in this day and age, that type of thing is just barbaric.

[Guest]

Criticism of a religious leader for upholding what has been a standing precept of the religion despite a popular - and self-serving - demand by those who want to live with a "no-responsibility" policy is misguided.

Those who don't want to be Catholic can do what they want. Those who claim to be Catholic, but do not want to follow the precepts of the religion, are hypocrites.

Laws are laws, whether they are part of Canon Law, U.S. Constitutional Law, or Islamic Law (as practiced in several countries). You are either law-abiding, or you are not. If you don't want to follow the laws, nothing ties you to the religion, the nation, or the region.

I commend Pope Benedict XVI for his courage to maintain principles where others would say, "Gee, I wanna have sex on my terms, so please go along with the modern view of things."

He's not trying to pander to the public with a "Change" campaign, only to spin a different song afterwards.

Hey, maybe if there was more self-control, fewer folk would find themselves with HIV/AIDS? Oh, but that would require discipline and education, and how could we expect that......?

[Guest]

I hear you Steve but I do think that the Catholic church needs to upgrade a little.

Let's consider their stance:

They approve birth control if done through natural means such as basil temp, withdrawal etc.

They, obviously, condone anything that would destroy the unborn fetus thus their ban on stem cell research and abortion etc.

What I don't get is why would they assume condoms are different than not having sex on ovulation days? Condoms are natural barriers to sperm meeting egg - the same as withdrawal would be. Either way you are stopping a life from being created which is their stated goal. It's not about having sex on your terms.

I just feel that they need to upgrade their position in this area. These cannons were conceived (no pun intended) and written long before the advent of condoms. I can see them saying no morning after pill (RU84) or no spermicide etc but condoms are just barriers not destroyers.

Then again maybe this is why I stopped being a catholic despite going to a seminary high school!

[Guest]

i.e. core values, permissiveness, watered down rules, the majority used to rule, etc....I agree with Steve...the rules are the rules...if you don't want to play by the rules there are other options.

I do not subscribe to the watering down of beliefs...whether for religion, politics, disciplining children....and I certainly do not support the needs real or other wise of special interest groups over riding the good or the will of the majority.

That is my $4.97 (2 cents adjusted for inflation and useless dollars!!!).

BTK

[Guest]

The lesson is supposed to be one of self-discipline, rather than the "have it your way" with artificial assistance.

The Catholic Church has never been a "slave to fashion." It's goal is to provide a stability in times of flux where morality becomes challenged by convenience enhanced with technology, even if that technology is a latex bag with or without a user's manual.

I'm encouraged that despite the "free love contingent," the "having a child is an inconvenience, so let's kill it now" attitude, and the "it's merciful to kill the infirmed and old" expanding trend, that the Popes in my lifetime have been constant in the hope that humankind will try to live as creatures of discipline, rather than as free spirits of no conscience or self control.

Once that moral discipline diminishes, we become less human in all matters.

[Guest]

Hey, maybe if there was more self-control, fewer folk would find themselves with HIV/AIDS? Oh, but that would require discipline and education, and how could we expect that......?


I have not posted in a few days and have stayed out of Political for a while...however this is a statement that I believe is very upsetting!

Most of these women are raped...not just once...but many, many times and are typically gang raped. Whether there was discipline or education....RAPE is a horrible thing and should not be blamed on either the discipline or education of the women and children suffering or the men (groups of) that are participating in the act!!!

I am surprised at this statement Steve. I agree with most of the post you wrote but this statement is disturbing. Look at the reality of the country we are speaking of....

[Guest]

I wouldn't call trying to save human lives "being a slave to fashion". Scientists, doctors and governments throughout the world have criticized his statements as being unrealistic, unscientific and dangerous. I read that the current Pontiff is the most extreme since Pius XII. Last week Catholics in Brazil were told they could be excommunicated if they had helped perform an abortion on a nine-year-old who had been raped, but, strangely, not if they had been involved in the rape that impregnated her. Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs, but for me, a leader of the Church who promotes dogma over saving lives, is not my idea of a good Christian. At the very least it shows just how out of touch he is. Any fool can see that condoms work - what is the problem with that?

[Guest]

I wouldn't call trying to save human lives "being a slave to fashion". Scientists, doctors and governments throughout the world have criticized his statements as being unrealistic, unscientific and dangerous. I read that the current Pontiff is the most extreme since Pius XII. Last week Catholics in Brazil were told they could be excommunicated if they had helped perform an abortion on a nine-year-old who had been raped, but, strangely, not if they had been involved in the rape that impregnated her. Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs, but for me, a leader of the Church who promotes dogma over saving lives, is not my idea of a good Christian. At the very least it shows just how out of touch he is. Any fool can see that condoms work - what is the problem with that?

Not that any rapist would stop and thnk to use one(a condom that is)....but I agree with you! I miss John Paul...

[Guest]

based on the issues with minority groups (not race).
Religions, laws, rules are made for the good of the majority. Of course there are always going to be special, emotional issues like rape, et al. But that does not justify changing the entire structure, nor should one be chastised for upholding what has always been an unpopular issue even way back when we had more values than people want to be held to today.

As the saying goes when one tries to make everybody happy one can ONLY fail!!!! Majority rules....always has....but steadily losing ground....along with our core values.

BTK

BTK

[Guest]

I have not posted in a few days and have stayed out of Political for a while...however this is a statement that I believe is very upsetting!

Most of these women are raped...not just once...but many, many times and are typically gang raped. Whether there was discipline or education....RAPE is a horrible thing and should not be blamed on either the discipline or education of the women and children suffering or the men (groups of) that are participating in the act!!!

I am surprised at this statement Steve. I agree with most of the post you wrote but this statement is disturbing. Look at the reality of the country we are speaking of....

We're not talking about a single country - but several countries on the African continent. And the anarchy and other political problems there are legion. And again, the problem is discipline and education. Paramilitary rapists there don't carry condoms, and probably wouldn't know what to do with one or would consider it unmanly to use one - they carry ammunition and machetes instead.

I wouldn't call trying to save human lives "being a slave to fashion". Scientists, doctors and governments throughout the world have criticized his statements as being unrealistic, unscientific and dangerous. I read that the current Pontiff is the most extreme since Pius XII. Last week Catholics in Brazil were told they could be excommunicated if they had helped perform an abortion on a nine-year-old who had been raped, but, strangely, not if they had been involved in the rape that impregnated her. Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs, but for me, a leader of the Church who promotes dogma over saving lives, is not my idea of a good Christian. At the very least it shows just how out of touch he is. Any fool can see that condoms work - what is the problem with that?

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2009/march/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20090317_africa-interview_en.html - Interview of Benedict XVI during the flight to Africa, 17 March 2009.

Rather than the journalistic snippets presented by the press, suggest those who condemn or ridicule the Pope on this matter take the time and effort to read the actual interview, complete with the logic for the position taken. You might be surprised with what you hadn't heard or read via the commercial press. This Pope is far from being a fool, and is an educated, pragmatic academic who doesn't make idle statements. You may disagree with his logic, but his arguments are solid.

There's nothing wrong with dogma, especially when that dogma recognizes the frailty of the human nature and the inherent cultural impediments to understanding that nature. More importantly, that dogma recognizes that you just can't replace human behavior and responsibility with a piece of latex.

[Guest]

..... I miss John Paul...

Pope John Paul II was a unique personality, having a charisma rarely seen in history for a Pontiff. However, from a theological standpoint, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are identical. Their writings corroborate this.

[Guest]

Criticism of a religious leader for upholding what has been a standing precept of the religion despite a popular - and self-serving - demand by those who want to live with a "no-responsibility" policy is misguided.

Those who don't want to be Catholic can do what they want. Those who claim to be Catholic, but do not want to follow the precepts of the religion, are hypocrites.

Laws are laws, whether they are part of Canon Law, U.S. Constitutional Law, or Islamic Law (as practiced in several countries). You are either law-abiding, or you are not. If you don't want to follow the laws, nothing ties you to the religion, the nation, or the region.

I commend Pope Benedict XVI for his courage to maintain principles where others would say, "Gee, I wanna have sex on my terms, so please go along with the modern view of things."

He's not trying to pander to the public with a "Change" campaign, only to spin a different song afterwards.

Hey, maybe if there was more self-control, fewer folk would find themselves with HIV/AIDS? Oh, but that would require discipline and education, and how could we expect that......? Man, you're just a little right of Attila the Hun, aren't you?

[Guest]

Pope John Paul II was a unique personality, having a charisma rarely seen in history for a Pontiff. However, from a theological standpoint, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are identical. Their writings corroborate this.

Actions speak louder than words.

[Guest]

Man, you're just a little right of Attila the Hun, aren't you?
Attila the Hun had no moral values whatsoever, was highly narcissistic, killed for pleasure and his own convenience, and ruled in a dictatorial manner.

He sounds very much like the left wingers of today, and so anywhere "right" of him sounds good to me. Thanks for the compliment!

[Guest]

Actions speak louder than words.

Please explain. So far, I've seen no difference in their interpretation, positions and actions.

[Guest]

Attila the Hun had no moral values whatsoever, was highly narcissistic, killed for pleasure and his own convenience, and ruled in a dictatorial manner.

He sounds very much like the left wingers of today, and so anywhere "right" of him sounds good to me. Thanks for the compliment!You are very welcome for the comment, spin doctor.

[Guest]

You are very welcome for the comment, spin doctor.

You may disagree with what I have presented. That is your choice. It is a pity that one finds it easier to take potshots at the author rather than to debate the matter at hand.

This board is titled "political talk," and the goal is to exchange points of view. It's really good when that happens. It's not as good when it gets snippy.

I've got a pretty thick skin, so fire away with your best. I'll still respond with facts - you can still take personal potshots.

[Guest]

You may disagree with what I have presented. That is your choice. It is a pity that one finds it easier to take potshots at the author rather than to debate the matter at hand.

This board is titled "political talk," and the goal is to exchange points of view. It's really good when that happens. It's not as good when it gets snippy.

I've got a pretty thick skin, so fire away with your best. I'll still respond with facts - you can still take personal potshots. Me thinks you doth protest too much. How is that for a fact?

[Guest]

Please explain. So far, I've seen no difference in their interpretation, positions and actions.

Keep in mind that this is MY personal opinion.


I may not have agreed with everything that John Paul taught but his demeaner was much softer and much more loving. He taught more like I would have expected Jesus himself to teach...

Benedict does not show affection, emotion or seem to be a loving person. I am not in any way saying he is not these things...I am saying that I do not see it. (except he allowed his secretary to write a book about his life from the view point of a cat)

I agree that they have similar views and teachings. That is the duty of the Papal office. They continue teaching what the Catholic church has taught for decades on decades....they don't just switch the rules as each new Pope starts (like a President) whether it might be a good change or not. They teach the beliefs of the catholic church.

HOWEVER, John Paul taught in through love and peace. He showed his respect and love for all humans. Benedict seems to be a cold soul. It is hard to even read anything that is written from him.

So while they may be saying/teaching/preaching the same exact thing, it is all in how it is presented/taught/preached.

Again...this is my opinion.

[Guest]

Keep in mind that this is MY personal opinion.


I may not have agreed with everything that John Paul taught but his demeaner was much softer and much more loving. He taught more like I would have expected Jesus himself to teach...

Benedict does not show affection, emotion or seem to be a loving person. I am not in any way saying he is not these things...I am saying that I do not see it. (except he allowed his secretary to write a book about his life from the view point of a cat)

I agree that they have similar views and teachings. That is the duty of the Papal office. They continue teaching what the Catholic church has taught for decades on decades....they don't just switch the rules as each new Pope starts (like a President) whether it might be a good change or not. They teach the beliefs of the catholic church.

HOWEVER, John Paul taught in through love and peace. He showed his respect and love for all humans. Benedict seems to be a cold soul. It is hard to even read anything that is written from him.

So while they may be saying/teaching/preaching the same exact thing, it is all in how it is presented/taught/preached.

Again...this is my opinion.

We agree.

Both men are very different personalities. John Paul II had thespian training and experience, and used that skill wisely. Benedict XVI is a researchist and academic, and they can appear much less personal in their "stage presence."

John Paul II was indeed a very special person.

[Guest]

We agree.

Both men are very different personalities. John Paul II had thespian training and experience, and used that skill wisely. Benedict XVI is a researchist and academic, and they can appear much less personal in their "stage presence."

John Paul II was indeed a very special person.


Ah...I love when we agree as it does not happen often. Thank you for the conversation.

We probably don't agree on the teachings of the church. My grandmother was on the committee that wrote Vatican II. My family has much history within the church including a 2nd cousin (my fathers cousin) who is a Cardinal in Rome. John Paul II was indeed a Blessed man. He truly touched many lives.

Now...shall we talk about your comparison of left wingers and Atilla the Hun....yikes!! One can be on the left side of the aisle and not be as you described Atilla. Now there certainly are some people that are similar to Atilla....but they come from the left and the right alike. Can we agree on this as well?


I also am interested in the fact that 16 out of 23 votes for this poll have said it should be changed! I am curious as to how many of those 16 people grew up Catholic and if they still are...

[Guest]

Boys and girls,what is so hard to understand? If you want to be a Catholic, live by Catholic rules. It is that simple. There are a lot of protestant churches out there who would love your participation.

It's like moving to TV and expecting the rules to be changed soy your 6 yr old grand child can live with you and then complaining that the rule is unfair and arcane.

There is also the option of leaving your actions up to God to Judge. If you are of clear conscience, take the chance.

Yoda

[Guest]

Boys and girls,what is so hard to understand? If you want to be a Catholic, live by Catholic rules. It is that simple. There are a lot of protestant churches out there who would love your participation.

It's like moving to TV and expecting the rules to be changed soy your 6 yr old grand child can live with you and then complaining that the rule is unfair and arcane.

There is also the option of leaving your actions up to God to Judge. If you are of clear conscience, take the chance.

Yoda


I don't think it is that simple...there are many Catholic churches in this world and many of them do things differently. Each priest is different and presents the "rules", rather beliefs or doctrine, in his own interpretation. Even masses have different stagings or set up depending on the parish or the priest.

I think you can have many different people, all Catholic, who all have different interpretations or styles of Catholicism. This holds true for any main stream denomination or religion.

Your last statement is right on though! It is not mankind, in the end, who will be the Judge. We are not put on this earth to judge others...

[Guest]

Man, you're just a little right of Attila the Hun, aren't you?
Thank you! I'm not the only one who's noticed that!

[Guest]

Ah...I love when we agree as it does not happen often. Thank you for the conversation.

We probably don't agree on the teachings of the church. My grandmother was on the committee that wrote Vatican II. My family has much history within the church including a 2nd cousin (my fathers cousin) who is a Cardinal in Rome. John Paul II was indeed a Blessed man. He truly touched many lives.

Now...shall we talk about your comparison of left wingers and Atilla the Hun....yikes!! One can be on the left side of the aisle and not be as you described Atilla. Now there certainly are some people that are similar to Atilla....but they come from the left and the right alike. Can we agree on this as well?


I also am interested in the fact that 16 out of 23 votes for this poll have said it should be changed! I am curious as to how many of those 16 people grew up Catholic and if they still are...

Regarding Attila - that was meant as humor (albeit fact) just to show the perspective is subjective. What's usually the case is folk tend to see their viewpoint as the centerline, and others with different viewpoints must be way left or right - and does it really matter?

Regarding the "vote," the Catholic Church is not a democracy. So, it doesn't matter.

I don't think it is that simple...there are many Catholic churches in this world and many of them do things differently. Each priest is different and presents the "rules", rather beliefs or doctrine, in his own interpretation. Even masses have different stagings or set up depending on the parish or the priest.

I think you can have many different people, all Catholic, who all have different interpretations or styles of Catholicism. This holds true for any main stream denomination or religion.

Your last statement is right on though! It is not mankind, in the end, who will be the Judge. We are not put on this earth to judge others...
I think Yoda nailed it. Criticism of the Pope over dogmatic matters by non-Catholics is akin to non-Protestants complaining about Billy Graham's preachings, or non-Muslims complaining about Sheik Abdul-Aziz Al Sheikh's stand on the marriage age for females, and so on, and so on.

Benedict XVI, Billy Graham, Sheik Abdul-Aziz Al Sheikh and all other religious leaders can have personal political views. When they speak as a private citizen openly about those political views, they are fair game. However, criticism of their actions within their faith by those not of that faith (actual practitioners, not members of convenience) is nothing more than bigotry.

[Guest]

Steve -

What would you say a Catholic man should do in the following circumstance:

He meets a very compatible person who he falls in love with - the woman has HIV/AIDS - but they are both catholic and are at a crossroads.

Does he:

have sex with her (after marriage of course in this perfect world) and risk getting aids because he uses no barriers?

have sex with her with a condom to protect himself and say the heck with the catholic teachings?

decide not to be with her since he can't use a condom and doesn't want to risk AIDS?

live with her without sex? (yeah, like that would last).

Just wondering how you would approach this scenario? And "that scenario would never happen" is not an answer because non-HIV people meet HIV people every day somewhere in this world.

[Guest]

Russ,


This is a good question!! Hard one yes...but a good question.



Steve,

I have to disagree....there are MANY practicing Catholics that disagree with the Pope and the Vatican...this doesn't make them any less Catholic in my opinion. I think it is healthy to question (in this case, criticize) things you don't understand or agree with. This is how we all learn.

[Guest]

Bigotry is a strong word for what goes on in the inner snactum of religious orders. My Father was a Presbyterian minister, and was in admin, as Stated Clerk and treasurer for the Presbyterian Churches of America for the last half of his career. He always stated there are more politics in religion than in "politics" itself. So, to call people bigoted that might disagree with some things in their denomination, is being short-sighted. There have been changes throughout the years, in every religious sect. Do you know, in the Old Testament, Leviticus, it says it is ok to have slaves, if they are from a neighboring country? Does this mean that the church still condones this? Of course not. But, it still teaches the Bible, doesn't it? Changes in philosophy happen, without changing doctrines, or reading, or literature all the time. This might be just a tad off the line of thought so far, but bigoted? No, new, forward thinking, wether you may or may not agree with it, isn't always bigoted.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Russ_Boston;195581]Steve -

What would you say a Catholic man should do in the following circumstance:

He meets a very compatible person who he falls in love with - the woman has HIV/AIDS - but they are both catholic and are at a crossroads.

Does he:

Run Like Hell! Sorry Russ. Call me shallow but that would be a deal breaker.

Yoda

[Guest]

No Yoda - I think that is one of the answers. But when millions in Africa are afflicted with HIV then it is going to happen. But I can accept your answer.

RCT - I think that answer was brilliant. Things change and adjustments are always made. I guess Pope Benedict won't go down as one of the catalysts of change in Catholic history.

[Guest]

i just read this whole discussion for the first time. i noticed that russ thinks the church condones withdrawal as a form of natural birth control. i do not think this is correct as the bible says something about being sin to spill your seed upon the ground. i do not think condoms are the answer to the problem in africa, and i agree with steve z that it is not the pope's job to change catholic teaching to suit behavior which is a disgrace for all concerned and demeaning and deadly to millions. as for the dilemma about meeting a girl with HIV, i do not think real love precludes a life without sexual intercourse if that is necessary to maintain health. whether the relationship would be a marriage, however, would be a question for canon law scholars. as for pope benedict's personality, i have seen him up close in person and he was smiling warmly and waving happily to the crowds who love and respect him. he is an intelligent and handsome man and upholds the ideals of my faith.

[Guest]

SteveZ has already stated on another thread that he would not even approve of abortion in the cases of rape or incest, so his posts do not surprise me at all. So far right, he's not even in this hemisphere.

I was raised Catholic and know that from my "little girl" days of Latin Masses to now, things have changed dramatically. As RCT says, there have been many, many changes throughout the years in all religious sects.

Growing up a Catholic, let's see: Had to wear a scarf or hat to church, now it doesn't matter. Couldn't eat meat on Friday, now it doesn't matter. Went from Latin to English, and in some churches Folk Tunes! This one was a Saint, now they are not. Much, much more.

I loved Pope John. But I agree with Cassie. Pope Benedict has a cold soul. If my religion cannot understand what is going on in the world and condones suffering, where it can be stopped, then there's something really wrong with my religion.

The Pope is, afterall, just a man. My God will judge even him.

[Guest]

And I think that with the opinions of us on here talking about our Catholicism whether currently active or one who grew up in the church....we have proven my point. There are many catholics that have differing opinions about the Pope and the "rules" of the church. Agreeing or disagreeing does not make someone less catholic or less christian or less likely to go to heaven.

Everyone on here has had a good and valid reason for believing what they do...


Unfortunatly the use of condoms nor the education of the African people will take care of the AIDS problem in the country. AIDS is there and spreading like wildfire. It is very sad. However, AIDS is in every country and is still spreading all over our country. While it may not affect you personally, it could in fact affect your children or their children or their children.

Not everyone waits till marriage (as good catholics do...LOL) to have sex. Most times ones "first time" is not with the person they spend the rest of their days with...the chance for contracting AIDS will get higher and higher if we don't do something now....and we have been educated!!


AIDS is not discussed much these days. But I believe that the largest and fastest growing group of people getting it right now is hetero women. This is very scary to me!

[Guest]

Bigotry is a strong word for what goes on in the inner snactum of religious orders. My Father was a Presbyterian minister, and was in admin, as Stated Clerk and treasurer for the Presbyterian Churches of America for the last half of his career. He always stated there are more politics in religion than in "politics" itself. So, to call people bigoted that might disagree with some things in their denomination, is being short-sighted. There have been changes throughout the years, in every religious sect. Do you know, in the Old Testament, Leviticus, it says it is ok to have slaves, if they are from a neighboring country? Does this mean that the church still condones this? Of course not. But, it still teaches the Bible, doesn't it? Changes in philosophy happen, without changing doctrines, or reading, or literature all the time. This might be just a tad off the line of thought so far, but bigoted? No, new, forward thinking, wether you may or may not agree with it, isn't always bigoted.

Is "religious intolerance" more politically correct?

The point is, what happens within a religion - doctrine, dogma, teachings, etc. - is a matter for the clergy and congregation. Those outside the religion who throw rocks at the doctrine, dogma, teachings, etc. do so with blinders - only seeing one factor and not understanding how all the factors ties together.

I'm not Presbyterian and thus am totally unqualified to comment on Presbyterian doctrine, dogma, teachings, etc.. To do so, especially in a negative manner would be "religious intolerance." And I would suspect that negative commentary regarding Presbyterian doctrine, dogma, teachings, etc. would be taken negatively. Why then should it be different when Catholicism is involved?

[Guest]

Steve -

What would you say a Catholic man should do in the following circumstance:

He meets a very compatible person who he falls in love with - the woman has HIV/AIDS - but they are both catholic and are at a crossroads.

Does he:

have sex with her (after marriage of course in this perfect world) and risk getting aids because he uses no barriers?

have sex with her with a condom to protect himself and say the heck with the catholic teachings?

decide not to be with her since he can't use a condom and doesn't want to risk AIDS?

live with her without sex? (yeah, like that would last).

Just wondering how you would approach this scenario? And "that scenario would never happen" is not an answer because non-HIV people meet HIV people every day somewhere in this world.

A very wise psychologist I knew used to describe love as caring about the person who is one inch behind the eyeballs. Anything else is caring more for the package than the person, and that's lust, not love. He knew his stuff!

Similar situations have always occurred. I've never personally inquired with couples where one (or both) partners are paraplegics or quadriplegics about their sex lives (that's their business, not mine), but accommodations occur when there is love versus lust.

[Guest]

You really should run for office Steve.

That's not an answer.

Would you stay and get HIV, leave and avoid it or go against the religious teachings and wear protection?

If there is another answer then great but yours was not one.

But you're under no obligation to answer of course.

[Guest]

SteveZ has already stated on another thread that he would not even approve of abortion in the cases of rape or incest, so his posts do not surprise me at all. So far right, he's not even in this hemisphere.

I was raised Catholic and know that from my "little girl" days of Latin Masses to now, things have changed dramatically. As RCT says, there have been many, many changes throughout the years in all religious sects.

Growing up a Catholic, let's see: Had to wear a scarf or hat to church, now it doesn't matter. Couldn't eat meat on Friday, now it doesn't matter. Went from Latin to English, and in some churches Folk Tunes! This one was a Saint, now they are not. Much, much more.

I loved Pope John. But I agree with Cassie. Pope Benedict has a cold soul. If my religion cannot understand what is going on in the world and condones suffering, where it can be stopped, then there's something really wrong with my religion.

The Pope is, afterall, just a man. My God will judge even him.

Perhaps the religion, especially the hierarchy, understands better than either of us. They have had to deal with all of these issues longer than either uf us, in greater detail, and on a global spectrum.

What is amazing is that the Pope can be considered "out of touch" and "a cold soul" despite having all of the counsel from clergy and research from scientists around the globe who have been working the matter for decades, and being personally involved - yet, Barack Obama can come on the scene as a total unknown, and because he's a smooth talker, he's the trusted "agent of change" and the folk hero.

Whenever a church leader doesn't kowtow to the views of those who believe more in convenience than discipline, that leader is thrown under the proverbial bus as "uninformed."

I'd rather be in his hemisphere where principles and honor still are accepted as a way of life.

[Guest]

You really should run for office Steve.

That's not an answer.

Would you stay and get HIV, leave and avoid it or go against the religious teachings and wear protection?

If there is another answer then great but yours was not one.

But you're under no obligation to answer of course.

I don't hide well.

Life involves choices. Life also involves the attempt for wisdom. Logic says both parties would obtain all the religious and medical counsel available, melding that counsel to determine how to live in that situation.

Nobody says it would be easy, and there rarely is an easy way out for difficult situations.

You comments are trying to make sex the premier driver between the parties, and if that's the case, that's lust, not love. Sometimes we must accept the impediments and rise above them.

Reverse twist - if your partner could not have sex anymore for whatever reason at any age, would you consider that justification for divorce?

[Guest]

Good twist Steve!

I would like to think that a divorce would not happen in my case. I've been married for 30 years and would never leave for any reason (of my own choice of course - she may kick my butt out some day:) )

But, unlike the church, I would hope that we wouldn't be inflexible when life presents these challenges. I wouldn't want to discuss the details here since that might cross the lines of sensitivity but I can think of possible arrangements that could be made so that all parties are satisfied (pun intended).

Sex isn't everything of course but ignoring the physical/psychological needs of anyone goes against the basic hierarchy of needs. In the end the vast majority of people would need to have that need met. Unlike the Church most people make accommodations and move on with their life. If there is a Saint Peter at the gates I think he'd say "Son, you did right by your wife for the last 30 years of her life, you loved her unconditionally, cared for her...". I don't he'd say "You were almost perfect BUT..."

Although I'm not a devout Catholic any longer I'd like to think that if there is a God then he/she knows that Russ is one heck of a guy who cares about others more than he cares about himself and that is how I live my life every day!

PS> I'm glad we can keep these discourses civil. There is room for debate on all issues.

[Guest]

Good twist Steve!

I would like to think that a divorce would not happen in my case. I've been married for 30 years and would never leave for any reason (of my own choice of course - she may kick my butt out some day:) )

But, unlike the church, I would hope that we wouldn't be inflexible when life presents these challenges. I wouldn't want to discuss the details here since that might cross the lines of sensitivity but I can think of possible arrangements that could be made so that all parties are satisfied (pun intended).

Sex isn't everything of course but ignoring the physical/psychological needs of anyone goes against the basic hierarchy of needs. In the end the vast majority of people would need to have that need met. Unlike the Church most people make accommodations and move on with their life. If there is a Saint Peter at the gates I think he'd say "Son, you did right by your wife for the last 30 years of her life, you loved her unconditionally, cared for her...". I don't he'd say "You were almost perfect BUT..."

Although I'm not a devout Catholic any longer I'd like to think that if there is a God then he/she knows that Russ is one heck of a guy who cares about others more than he cares about himself and that is how I live my life every day!

PS> I'm glad we can keep these discourses civil. There is room for debate on all issues.

I'm glad that we can have civil discussions, where the important thing is the message, not the messenger.

When you get down here, we need to discuss Red Sox and Patriots issues - the really important stuff!

[Guest]

Perhaps the religion, especially the hierarchy, understands better than either of us. They have had to deal with all of these issues longer than either uf us, in greater detail, and on a global spectrum.

What is amazing is that the Pope can be considered "out of touch" and "a cold soul" despite having all of the counsel from clergy and research from scientists around the globe who have been working the matter for decades, and being personally involved - yet, Barack Obama can come on the scene as a total unknown, and because he's a smooth talker, he's the trusted "agent of change" and the folk hero.

Whenever a church leader doesn't kowtow to the views of those who believe more in convenience than discipline, that leader is thrown under the proverbial bus as "uninformed."

I'd rather be in his hemisphere where principles and honor still are accepted as a way of life.

This is not a matter of convenience over discipline, it is a matter of life and death.

[Guest]

This is not a matter of convenience over discipline, it is a matter of life and death.

For some strange reason, when it comes to matters of interpreting theology and Catholic doctrine, I lean towards the Pope and his counsel over anyone else. That's faith, and it hasn't failed me yet.

What are matters of life and death in the African countries of highest AIDS risk are: lack of education, illiteracy, anarchy, ethnic feuding, slavery (yes, it still goes on) and a hundred other health issues (TB and cholera still abound) that are environmentally-related.

Like most problems, the root cause(s) of the problem need to be fixed, because nothing is accomplished through "band-aid" attempts at problem-fixing other than the band-aid dispensers feel good about themselves for doing something which indeed may make the problem worse (as the Pope suggests).

You know, he just may be right!

[Guest]

Attila the Hun had no moral values whatsoever, was highly narcissistic, killed for pleasure and his own convenience, and ruled in a dictatorial manner.

He sounds very much like the left wingers of today, and so anywhere "right" of him sounds good to me. Thanks for the compliment!


So "left wingers" have no moral values whatsoever and kill for pleasure and convenience?? That doesn't sound very factual to me.

[Guest]

I guess this is why the church looked the other way when priests molested altar boys, no need for condoms!
"There's a sucker born every minute, (every second if you show them a religious symbol or a flag!)" PT Barnum

[Guest]

So "left wingers" have no moral values whatsoever and kill for pleasure and convenience?? That doesn't sound very factual to me.
Attila was what he was, and he sure wasn't "right" in any way.

This whole left-wing, right-wing, middle-of-the-fuselage label stuff is silly, anyway - that's the point. I've never met anyone in my life who is all of anything, and that's the beauty of it all.

[Guest]

I guess this is why the church looked the other way when priests molested altar boys, no need for condoms!
"There's a sucker born every minute, (every second if you show them a religious symbol or a flag!)" PT Barnum
And it was wrong, and it was dealt with. Both the present and past Pontiffs have worked hard to mitigate the harm caused.

We used to have a saying in the Army: One hundred "attaboys' get wiped out by a single "aw s&%#." No doubt the scandal was a massive "aw s&%#." But, there are daily "attaboys" still happening. Spend one day at a Catholic Charities office at any diocese and see a micro of the good still happening in spite of that very small percentage of the clergy who got all the headlines.

[Guest]

Attila was what he was, and he sure wasn't "right" in any way.

This whole left-wing, right-wing, middle-of-the-fuselage label stuff is silly, anyway - that's the point. I've never met anyone in my life who is all of anything, and that's the beauty of it all.


I didn't question your assessment of the HUN. I did question the inflamatory statement that was made since you said you would responding with facts. If the labels are so silly lets not use them or gradations of them in conjucnction with what are certainly offensive comments no matter your label.

[Guest]

I did take the time to read the interview the link provided. Perhaps the most offensive, or ridiculous, or uninformed part that grabbed me was the statement that condoms not only wouldn't help, but worsened the situation of HIV transmission. I have yet to see a concesus statement from any reputable researchers that would lend a shred of creedence to that, it is blatantly wrong.

When an organization as large as the Catholic church, that has so much influence in developing and "3rd world" countries espouses policies that are dangerous to them and the rest of the world at large and that fly in the face of convential health and scientific wisdom, we ALL have the privlege of examining it, even a duty to do so. It has nothing to do with religeous intolerance, and everything to do with using the knowledge God has given us to attempt to mitigate the damage of this disease where we can and in the confines of today's social context.

And to be clear, rules and laws of the church(es) have not always been made for the benifit of the majority/masses. They were historically made to control wealth, power, real estate, and people, and they have historically changed in those contexts.

[Guest]

SS....I have to say I agree with a lot of what you wrote. It was very eloquent as well. Thank you for your thoughts.

[Guest]

I did take the time to read the interview the link provided. Perhaps the most offensive, or ridiculous, or uninformed part that grabbed me was the statement that condoms not only wouldn't help, but worsened the situation of HIV transmission. I have yet to see a concesus statement from any reputable researchers that would lend a shred of creedence to that, it is blatantly wrong.

When an organization as large as the Catholic church, that has so much influence in developing and "3rd world" countries espouses policies that are dangerous to them and the rest of the world at large and that fly in the face of convential health and scientific wisdom, we ALL have the privlege of examining it, even a duty to do so. It has nothing to do with religeous intolerance, and everything to do with using the knowledge God has given us to attempt to mitigate the damage of this disease where we can and in the confines of today's social context.

And to be clear, rules and laws of the church(es) have not always been made for the benifit of the majority/masses. They were historically made to control wealth, power, real estate, and people, and they have historically changed in those contexts.

"Conventional scientific wisdom" has during its time has claimed the world was flat, the sun orbited the earth and many other then-rated-as-fact as a result of investigation, study and scientific research initiated or enhanced by the Catholic Church.

Science has a way of saying "oops" at later times, and it happens frequently. And the popular theme is to find a simple solution that just involves throwing money at the problem.

[Guest]

Today while hanging out at the bookstore, I saw a brand new book called Practicing Catholic. The official pub date is actually April 1. (Hey, do you think maybe they brought it out to coincide with this TOTV thread?) I glanced through the front and back cover flaps where it talked about what many of today's Catholics face. I saw the words "loyal outrage" and "quiet dissonance."

I looked on Amazon just now and, of course, the book is there, but it is so new that there are no reviews. What follows here is a blurb from Publishers Weekly (I could not link it and so I did a cut and paste. It's a short cut and paste and I am citing my source.)

The last sentence in this little blurb looks like it was written with some of you in mind.

Practicing Catholic James Carroll. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, $28 (448p) ISBN 978-0-618-67018-5

Carroll, a former Catholic priest who wrote of his conflict with his father over the Vietnam War in An American Requiem, revisits and expands on that tension in this spiritual memoir infused with church history. Here, Carroll traces his life as a son of the Catholic Church, showing how he and the church changed as he moved from boyhood into adulthood. Ordained a priest in 1968, the year Humanae Vitae, the controversial encyclical on contraception, was released, Carroll discovered by 1974 that he could no longer keep his vow of obedience if it meant heeding teachings with which he disagreed. Leaving the priesthood freed him to pursue more fully his life as a writer, but also to be the kind of Catholic he believes the reformers of his church envisioned in the Second Vatican Council of 1962–1965. Although he laments what he calls the more recent “conservative reaction” to the council, he remains Catholic. Readers who, like Carroll, remain Catholic but wrestle with their church's positions on moral issues will most appreciate his story. (Apr.)


Now, I will just duck out of here.

Boomer

[Guest]

"Conventional scientific wisdom" has during its time has claimed the world was flat, the sun orbited the earth and many other then-rated-as-fact as a result of investigation, study and scientific research initiated or enhanced by the Catholic Church.

Are you confusing the issue just a little?
Galileo was tried by the inquisition and convicted of heresy in 1633 for daring to suggest that the earth revolved around the sun, in contrast to scripture passages: Psalm 104:5 "the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." and Ecclesiastes 1:5 "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place".
It wasn't until 1992 that the Church (Pope John Paul II) conceded that the earth was not stationary.

[Guest]

"Conventional scientific wisdom" has during its time has claimed the world was flat, the sun orbited the earth and many other then-rated-as-fact as a result of investigation, study and scientific research initiated or enhanced by the Catholic Church.

Science has a way of saying "oops" at later times, and it happens frequently. And the popular theme is to find a simple solution that just involves throwing money at the problem.

I simply refuse to believe you are as obtuse about this as that statement appears. Times, information, people and situations change and evolve...always have...always will, as have the churches and their interpretations of their dogmas.
Fact are facts about HIV transmission and all of the emotion, or lack of compassion and critical thinking in the world will not change that.

[Guest]

Are you confusing the issue just a little?
Galileo was tried by the inquisition and convicted of heresy in 1633 for daring to suggest that the earth revolved around the sun, in contrast to scripture passages: Psalm 104:5 "the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." and Ecclesiastes 1:5 "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place".
It wasn't until 1992 that the Church (Pope John Paul II) conceded that the earth was not stationary.

Wow, excellent perspective K.:coolsmiley:

[Guest]

Is the purpose of this board to discuss political viewpoints or debate religious doctrine and dogma?

If the goal of some is to forward an anti-Catholicism agenda, this won't be the first place it's been tried.

[Guest]

I find debate over the modern role of the Catholic Church to be not only interesting, but sometimes downright fascinating. It might get a little hot once in a while but such is the stuff of informal debate sometimes. Especially when religion enters. You know it going in. Just like politics.

My background is such that the Catholic Church has had an influence in my personal life, not to mention how I look at the big world picture. And I have truly wondered where it is all headed. Not in our lifetime perhaps, but still I wonder.

I know of some people who refer to themselves as Cafeteria Catholics, and it seems to work for them. They are not willing to give up some of the things about the Catholic Church. They do not want to be Protestant. But there are things about the role and influence of the Catholic Church that they must question. We all know these people, of course. There are a lot of them.

But you know, Martin Luther started out Catholic. I wonder sometimes how long it will be before the world once again sees a couple of theses nailed up on a church door.

But I guess that would not work. Protestants are Protestants and over the centuries they have fine-tuned it to their individual liking. Lutherans have more than one kind of Lutheran even. Different Synods. Some way more conservative than others. But I guess the Catholic Church could not really do that. There could not be two popes. But I still wonder.

Boomer

[Guest]

As you probably know 'two popes' has happened before:

http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/WestEurope/GreatSchism.html

The history of religions doesn't fall too far off the line of the history of politics. There seems to always be a cyclical nature to it.

[Guest]

**snip**But I guess the Catholic Church could not really do that. There could not be two popes. But I still wonder.
Boomer

"In Europe, between 1378 and 1415 there were Two Popes at all times and eventually Three Popes!"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1117324

A primary cause of the Reformation and Protestantism?

[Guest]

At a time when 25 million in Africa have died of AIDS, and at least another 3 million are infected, I think it's reprehensible (this will cause sleepless nights in Rome) that Pope Benedict condemned the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS in Africa(state your religion - don't be a coward)

AIDS in Africa is virtually 100% heterosexually spread through intimate contact. (No gays, no needles. It's spread by the milennium old sexual customs of millions of tribespeople.(anal) heterosexual sex is the Women are helpless (ever hear of prostitution?) to stop becoming infected because even if they are monogamous (they aren't) and HIV negative, their husbands need not be so.(it's always a man's fault).

Other than prolonging a rigid(that's why I hate the 10 commandments-too rigid) un-Godly ideology (let's all take turns making up the rules of the game. won't that be fun, children?)that until only recently (recently?-you think 3 centuries is recent?)advocated burning hundred of thousands (this is an outright falsehood) at the stake, there is no compassionate or logical reason (you have little compassion and zero logic)to condemn the use of condoms by a married couple in a monogamous relationship where one partner is infected.

Benedict could have been courageous (by agreeing with you) and taken the Church where it should be- helping to heal the sick by preventing illness in the first place.(The Church is the largest private charitable institution in the world -ever been to a Catholic hospital?)

To make this ideology even more absurd,(you haven't proven it's absurd in the first place) the Pope reiterated his stand against saving the life of a mother under any circumstances, even when the pregnancy directly threatens her life. (Not that old chestnut again-yawn)You can tell that decision was made by a male! (we got a man hater here-probably sat out the senior prom)The Church ought to adhere to an ethic of Life (anti abortion is an ethic of life-don't you get it?)that is not trampled on by ideologues of high stature(You don't like tall people?)or rooted in medieval superstition,(The gospel is not medieval superstition) whose exercise of power now officially (according to whom) contributes to the death of millions. The pope's actions will result in more African deaths (an illogical conclusion])than all the blood diamond like conflicts (how can a conflict be like a diamond)in Africa combined.(melodramatic verbosity)

[Guest]

"In Europe, between 1378 and 1415 there were Two Popes at all times and eventually Three Popes!"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1117324

A primary cause of the Reformation and Protestantism?

Thanks, K, I must have been absent that day.

I guess the more than one pope thing didn't work out it looks like. Figured it would not. Did not know about this part though.

--still likin' the discussion topic.

Boomer

[Guest]

Russ
Thanks for being honest and admitting you have rejected Catholicism. It provides perspective.

But I find this statement "Condoms are natural barriers to sperm meeting egg - the same as withdrawal would be." absurd on its face. Condoms are an unnatural barrier. That is why the Church opposes their use.

I have nothing against condom use BTW.

[Guest]

"AIDS in Africa is virtually 100% heterosexually spread through intimate contact. No gays, no needles."

There are no homosexuals or needle users on the continent of Africa? Surely you jest. Can you provide a link?

[Guest]

This link provides an answer to the basic question of this thread.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0045.html

[Guest]

This link provides an answer to the basic question of this thread.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0045.html

"abstinence is the obvious solution"
:1rotfl: :1rotfl: :1rotfl: :1rotfl:

[Guest]

"what is a Catholic" depends on the "day", whether the magisterium thinks it or not! ONe day,you're pracriviincg the centruties old Tridentine Mass, the next day, you're a heretic. One day, earth is flat, center of the universe, and your a heretic; next day "We're Sorry" One day Latin, next day vernacular. One day celibate priesthood, next day 39 Epsicopal married men admitted from the "liberal" Episcopal Church.

There are only three things a "Catholic" needs to believe- the Nicene Creed- which all Christians believe, and the two ex cathedra dogmas of Mary's Immaculate Conception
and Assumption. Vatican II reaffirms the PRIMACY of informed conscience in a Catholic, thus all the current doctrines- including the priesthood, birth control and dare I say- even abortion- are open to the "possibility" of reinterpretation in future papacies. The "value life" ethic of the Church is a farily recent thing. It's a good thing, but it's fairly recent.

[Guest]

What are matters of life and death in the African countries of highest AIDS risk are: lack of education, illiteracy, anarchy, ethnic feuding, slavery (yes, it still goes on) and a hundred other health issues (TB and cholera still abound) that are environmentally-related.

Like most problems, the root cause(s) of the problem need to be fixed, because nothing is accomplished through "band-aid" attempts at problem-fixing other than the band-aid dispensers feel good about themselves for doing something which indeed may make the problem worse (as the Pope suggests).

Your absolutely right Steve the systemic problems are the the major problem. Unfortunately, children born to HIV mothers don't have an option to explore that. The world, and to his credit George Bush, has dramatically improved the funds and education for AIDS in Africa, and countries that had transmission rates approaching 75% are now down in the 20's.

The problem with Benedict's statement- and let's face it, this Pope has pulled a bunch of "boners" since his elevation - and had to backtrack on a number of them. When your up to your arse in mitres, it's sometimes hard to remember your objective was to drain the HIV pool!

[Guest]

Other than prolonging a rigid, un-Godly ideology that until only recently advocated burning hundred of thousands at the stake, there is no compassionate or logical reason to condemn the use of condoms by a married couple in a monogamous relationship where one partner is infected.
Please provide some documentation or link to substantiate your extraordinary claim that the Church "until recently" advocated burning hundreds of thousands at the stake. Please provide quotes of the advocacy. I would also appreciate if you would define your use of the term "until recently". Do you believe that Columbus discovered America recently? It is certainly probable that hundreds of people have been burned at the stake, perhaps thousands. But hundreds of thousands? This demands documentation or retraction.

I would also appreciate it if you would explain how one person in a monoganous relationship could contact aids. it occurs to me that it is impossible to do so if both partners are monogamous.

[Guest]

I would also appreciate it if you would explain how one person in a monoganous relationship could contact aids. it occurs to me that it is impossible to do so if both partners are monogamous.

Monogamous only means with this relationship. Either one could have had numerous partners prior.

[Guest]

Condoms are an unnatural barrier. That is why the Church opposes their use.

I guess I used the word natural improperly. My point was that any barrier method is not life destruction which I would have thought the church would be most against.

I'm not anti-Catholic. In fact I'm not anti any religion. But I am not a follower of any particular religion either.

[Guest]

Your absolutely right Steve the systemic problems are the the major problem. Unfortunately, children born to HIV mothers don't have an option to explore that. The world, and to his credit George Bush, has dramatically improved the funds and education for AIDS in Africa, and countries that had transmission rates approaching 75% are now down in the 20's.

The problem with Benedict's statement- and let's face it, this Pope has pulled a bunch of "boners" since his elevation - and had to backtrack on a number of them. When your up to your arse in mitres, it's sometimes hard to remember your objective was to drain the HIV pool!
I just don't see any gaffe in his statement. He spoke to the issue, and provided some background for the statement. What he described was what it will take to correct the problem, not just provide a false sense of problem removal via devise distribution, and hoping/demanding its usage will occur and will stop the problem from recurring.

Sometimes we just can't have it all, and hard word, education, sacrifice and culture change must be accomplished to cure an ill. If the answer to AIDS prevention was as simple as dumping a couple billion condoms onto a continental region (and that has happened), AIDS would have been alleviated years ago.

When you give someone something that you claim will protect them from anything, and then also say they must get smarter about it all too, the fact is that people may take the "something" and then ignore the rest. Then, when the "something" proves not to be so protective, that too and all credibility goes with it. That's the message!

[Guest]

Unfortunately Steve, the Pope's message, although reflecting current Catholic teaching, ignores science. IN the U.S. HIV rates were cut dramatically among gay males with condom education (whatever you think the morals of it are). It was also cut dramatically in infants when mothers were administered HIV meds during pregnancy. It is now a chronic disease rather than a fatal one, in the "developed" world.

Sadly, in Africa, as recently as a few years ago, several governments denied the existence of AIDS as a virus at all. S. Africa had no prevention program at all until only 3 years ago- thanks in large part to pressure from George Bush's initiatives and a new government.

Again, this issue is the use of condoms between married couples when one is positive and the other negative. It has nothing to do with blocking the transmission of life, in fact, it could be said that in celebrating what the Church says is the ultimate expression of marital union, wearing a condom in these situations is blocking the transmission of death.

Of course, if we're to adhere to the virtually ignored "doctrine" of sex being used only for the purpose of procreation, then we're talking an ancient language which the vox populi has long ignored.

[Guest]

S. Africa had no prevention program at all until only 3 years ago- thanks in large part to pressure from George Bush's initiatives and a new government.

That came out wrong- I'm crediting the Bush initiative and new government for starting AIDS education and treatments. Rob

[Guest]

Unfortunately Steve, the Pope's message, although reflecting current Catholic teaching, ignores science. IN the U.S. HIV rates were cut dramatically among gay males with condom education (whatever you think the morals of it are). It was also cut dramatically in infants when mothers were administered HIV meds during pregnancy. It is now a chronic disease rather than a fatal one, in the "developed" world.

Sadly, in Africa, as recently as a few years ago, several governments denied the existence of AIDS as a virus at all. S. Africa had no prevention program at all until only 3 years ago- thanks in large part to pressure from George Bush's initiatives and a new government.

Again, this issue is the use of condoms between married couples when one is positive and the other negative It has nothing to do with blocking the transmission of life, in fact, it could be said that in celebrating what the Church says is the ultimate expression of marital union, wearing a condom in these situations is blocking the transmission of death.

Of course, if we're to adhere to the virtually ignored "doctrine" of sex being used only for the purpose of procreation, then we're talking an ancient language which the vox populi has long ignored.

Are you nuts? I think you need to consider that possiblity. You say that the "vox populi" has long ignored.... Do you even realize that Vox populi means "the voic eof the people"? How can the Vox Populi ignore something?


And what is it with this your fixation with married couples in which one person is infected? You ignore the fact that Aids is in the vast majority of cases a homosexual disease in which homosexuals purposely avoid safe sex.They call it "chasing the bug". It has nothing - zero-zilch-nada- to do with the Pope or the Church. Aids is now considered a chronic disease among homosexuals. You are right. That is why they refuse to use condoms.

Stop blaming the Pope for the degenerate behavior of homosexuals. They don't use condoms due to their own choice. It has nothing to do with Catholic teaching.

BTW - you never documented your absurd claim that hundreds of thousands were burned at the stake "until recently". I take that as a tacit admission that you were blowing smoke.

You are a fraud.

[Guest]

Are you nuts? I think you need to consider that possiblity. You say that the "vox populi" has long ignored.... Do you even realize that Vox populi means "the voic eof the people"? How can the Vox Populi ignore something?


And what is it with this your fixation with married couples in which one person is infected? You ignore the fact that Aids is in the vast majority of cases a homosexual disease in which homosexuals purposely avoid safe sex.They call it "chasing the bug". It has nothing - zero-zilch-nada- to do with the Pope or the Church. Aids is now considered a chronic disease among homosexuals. You are right. That is why they refuse to use condoms.

Stop blaming the Pope for the degenerate behavior of homosexuals. They don't use condoms due to their own choice. It has nothing to do with Catholic teaching.

BTW - you never documented your absurd claim that hundreds of thousands were burned at the stake "until recently". I take that as a tacit admission that you were blowing smoke.

You are a fraud.

Aids is primarly a homosexual disease! What! Are you kidding???? What century are you living in? Jump into the 21st! Wow! Ignorance is bliss I guess. :shrug:

[Guest]

Aids is primarly a homosexual disease! What! Are you kidding???? What century are you living in? Jump into the 21st! Wow! Ignorance is bliss I guess. :shrug:

Ignorance is always trying to avoid personal responsibility in the quest for a tool or device that will "let me be me" no matter what the risk or possible hurt to someone else.

I guess the "popular" position is that the most important thing is to be able to have sex - anytime, anywhere, anyhow - no matter what, and that anything which infringes on that "freedom" or suggests there be thought before action has got to be wrong.

As far as science is concerned, it was not that long ago when the "best medical practice" involved leeches and purging. Several kinds of surgeries performed over the past 50 years have already been questioned as whether medically necessary. We can all remember medical procedures, practices and remedies - all considered as the way to go - which were in vogue when we were younger, that today are considered close to quackery. Why? Because medical science (or tort cases) proved later that the science was flawed. And now we in our more enlightened state just can't understand how people could have been so dumb as to rely on "leech medicine." What will it be 40 years from now?

[Guest]

Aids is primarly a homosexual disease! What! Are you kidding???? What century are you living in? Jump into the 21st! Wow! Ignorance is bliss I guess. :shrug:

You are throwing out a string of cliches there.

I guess it all depends on your definition of primarily. But here are some stats:

In 2007, the estimated number of persons diagnosed with AIDS in the United States and dependent areas was 37,041. Of these, 35,962 were diagnosed in the 50 states and the District of Columbia and 812 were diagnosed in the dependent areas. In the 50 states and the District of Columbia, adult and adolescent AIDS cases totaled 35,934 with 26,355 cases in males and 9,579 cases in females, and 28 cases estimated in children under age 13 years.


The cumulative estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS through 2007 in the United States and dependent areas was 1,051,875. Of these, 1,018,428 were diagnosed in the 50 states and the District of Columbia and 32,051 were diagnosed in the dependent areas. In the 50 states and the District of Columbia, adult and adolescent AIDS cases totaled 1,009,220 with 810,676 cases in males and 198,544 cases in females, and 9,209 cases estimated in children under age 13 years.

Transmission Category Estimated # of AIDS Cases, in 2007
Adult and Adolescent Male Adult and Adolescent Female Total
Male-to-male sexual contact 16,749 - 16,749
Injection drug use 3,750 2,260 6,010
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 1,664 - 1,664
High-risk heterosexual contact* 4,011 7,100 11,111
Other** 181 220 401

*Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.
** Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal exposure, and risk not reported or not identified.

Chelsea, why do you think 80% of the cases are among men? I'll grant you there are some needle users in there too. But heteros who do not have sex w bisexual, homosexual men, needle users and infected women are safe from AIDS.

That's enuff on this thread for me. I've had my say. I'll turn it over to the Catholic bashers now.

[Guest]

You are throwing out a string of cliches there.

I guess it all depends on your definition of primarily. But here are some stats:

In 2007, the estimated number of persons diagnosed with AIDS in the United States and dependent areas was 37,041. Of these, 35,962 were diagnosed in the 50 states and the District of Columbia and 812 were diagnosed in the dependent areas. In the 50 states and the District of Columbia, adult and adolescent AIDS cases totaled 35,934 with 26,355 cases in males and 9,579 cases in females, and 28 cases estimated in children under age 13 years.


The cumulative estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS through 2007 in the United States and dependent areas was 1,051,875. Of these, 1,018,428 were diagnosed in the 50 states and the District of Columbia and 32,051 were diagnosed in the dependent areas. In the 50 states and the District of Columbia, adult and adolescent AIDS cases totaled 1,009,220 with 810,676 cases in males and 198,544 cases in females, and 9,209 cases estimated in children under age 13 years.

Transmission Category Estimated # of AIDS Cases, in 2007
Adult and Adolescent Male Adult and Adolescent Female Total
Male-to-male sexual contact 16,749 - 16,749
Injection drug use 3,750 2,260 6,010
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 1,664 - 1,664
High-risk heterosexual contact* 4,011 7,100 11,111
Other** 181 220 401

*Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.
** Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal exposure, and risk not reported or not identified.

Chelsea, why do you think 80% of the cases are among men? I'll grant you there are some needle users in there too. But heteros who do not have sex w bisexual, homosexual men, needle users and infected women are safe from AIDS.

That's enuff on this thread for me. I've had my say. I'll turn it over to the Catholic bashers now.

Thanks for the meaningless USA stats. Last time I checked, the pope was talking about Africa, not the US.

Check this link which reflects the 22 million people in Africa infected and the orphans this has created. I guess the homosexual men in Africa must have fathered a lot of kids.

http://www.avert.org/subaadults.htm

[Guest]

Thanks for the meaningless USA stats. Last time I checked, the pope was talking about Africa, not the US.

Check this link which reflects the 22 million people in Africa infected and the orphans this has created. I guess the homosexual men in Africa must have fathered a lot of kids.

http://www.avert.org/subaadults.htm

Why would you consider those stats meaningless?

Look, this forum is not the place to get into the sexual habits of Africans. There is also the fact that the symptoms of tuberculosis in its later stages and AIDS are somewhat similar and can be misdiagnosed, particularly in 3rd world countries where sanitation facilities are primitive and TB is rampant. AIDS in Afrca is often misdiagnosed TB. There's no money in TB. AIDS prevention and treatment is a money pump. The AIDS numbers in Africa are inflated.

If you want to blame the Pope for the spread of AIDS go ahead. He is no more responsible than Billy Graham, Joel Osteen or Ted Haggard. The wages of sin are death. That is an age old message that nobody in this feel good world of easy access to drugs, sex and pornography want to hear. But reality has a funny way of intruding on fantasy, doesn't it?

And that is my final word on this subject.

[Guest]

Why would you consider those stats meaningless?

Look, this forum is not the place to get into the sexual habits of Africans. There is also the fact that the symptoms of tuberculosis in its later stages and AIDS are somewhat similar and can be misdiagnosed, particularly in 3rd world countries where sanitation facilities are primitive and TB is rampant. AIDS in Afrca is often misdiagnosed TB. There's no money in TB. AIDS prevention and treatment is a money pump. The AIDS numbers in Africa are inflated.

Is RK simply denying the existence of science and quoting Paul (The wages of sin...) as the definitive answer to all? The Bubonic Plague?Smallpox? I suppose the 21 people killed last year by the Tornado were killed for being sinners? The Church that was destroyed was Satans? All 225,000 killed in the Tsunami- all deserving sinners? The old man who didn't see the oncoming car on 441?

Scientifically, RK should learn that TB is spread through aerosol transmission- sneezing, coughing or touching wet infected surfaces, and is HIGHLY infectious- and if caught highly treatable and easily contained. If somoeone has TB, seeing them wearing a mask is proof of prophylaction.

AIDS is transmitted through body sera- Blood, semen, vaginal secretions, mammary milk. It's teansmission is virtually "invisible" unless you want to hire sex police to stand between every act of sex between two individuals. The amount of HIV contained in saliva compared to blood or semen is comparable to a tsp of water in a 64 gallon container. AND that saliva has to "HIT" an open or bleeding area of the body to even have a remote chance of indefecting AND HIV can live out of the body for no more than 11 seconds!

RK may also believe that Jesus had a pet dinosaur. When it comes to the unnecessary spreading of illness in the modern world, nothing is more effective than ignorance. RK seems to have a PhD in such study.

[Guest]

RKAISS writes: "In 2007, the estimated number of persons diagnosed with AIDS in the United States and dependent areas was 37,041"

A_F_R_I_C_A that's on the other side of the flat world, after you fall off the end of it. ANd yes, the "voice of the people" DO ignore the Church hierarchys' teaching on birth control. That the Church is defined as the People of God must terrify you to no end! The Second Vatican Council actually reempowered humanity to use INFORMED Conscience to make the highest moral decisions. That means that one must actually learn something more than just what the nuns taught us to be a good Catholic- you are responsible for rising out of your own ignoirance and safety cradle. THAT is what being a GOOD Catholic is.

[Guest]

RKAISS writes: "In 2007, the estimated number of persons diagnosed with AIDS in the United States and dependent areas was 37,041"

A_F_R_I_C_A that's on the other side of the flat world, after you fall off the end of it. ANd yes, the "voice of the people" DO ignore the Church hierarchys' teaching on birth control. That the Church is defined as the People of God must terrify you to no end! The Second Vatican Council actually reempowered humanity to use INFORMED Conscience to make the highest moral decisions. That means that one must actually learn something more than just what the nuns taught us to be a good Catholic- you are responsible for rising out of your own ignoirance and safety cradle. THAT is what being a GOOD Catholic is.

I also hate ignoirance!

[Guest]

:a20:I also hate ignoirance!

[Guest]

Blind faith is ok, but being blind to facts isn't!!

[Guest]

I hate typing- Even with a Master's degree in Catholioc Theology! Touche on the sloppy typing!

[Guest]

You are throwing out a string of cliches there.


Yes, I'm the one with the "cutsie" answers. Or is it "elitist"??? I never know what I'm being called from week to week.

But here is a FACT. People are dying and need help and if YOUR religion can't be bothered with them or shows no mercy, whatever the cause, then it isn't worth anything. You can go to church every Sunday and say all the "Hail Mary's" you want to and it won't mean diddle squat. (I cleaned that up.) I am Catholic, not a Catholic Basher. But, the Pope is dead wrong on this, and as I stated in an earlier post, he too will see judgment day.

And as for the cliches -- here's a living example of one. The person that gets all dressed up on Sunday, kneels and prays and gladhands all his fellow parishioners. Then turns his back on his fellow man on Monday. Talk about a cliche! You better polish up your Golden Rule sweetie.

[Guest]

Yes, I'm the one with the "cutsie" answers. Or is it "elitist"??? I never know what I'm being called from week to week.

But here is a FACT. People are dying and need help and if YOUR religion can't be bothered with them or shows no mercy, whatever the cause, then it isn't worth anything. You can go to church every Sunday and say all the "Hail Mary's" you want to and it won't mean diddle squat. (I cleaned that up.) I am Catholic, not a Catholic Basher. But, the Pope is dead wrong on this, and as I stated in an earlier post, he too will see judgment day.

And as for the cliches -- here's a living example of one. The person that gets all dressed up on Sunday, kneels and prays and gladhands all his fellow parishioners. Then turns his back on his fellow man on Monday. Talk about a cliche! You better polish up your Golden Rule sweetie.


I guess that says it all. If you believe in your God then worship your God in the manner that he demands.

If you do not believe in your God, don't worship him as he demands. Demand that your God change his ways to accommodate you.

Who does he think he's pushing around? :bowdown:

Yoda

[Guest]

It is humans who are deciding these issues not any particular God. All of (any) God's teachings are interpretations by man. The Catholic church through the Pope has had its say and us regular humans can choose our path.

I choose to associate with people who think human life (and the quality of that life) is more important than abiding by a ruling on a latex barrier.

Every day that I step into the hospital to care for patients who are suffering greatly I am reminded of 'rules' like this that lead to greater numbers of afflicted. It seems so needless and cruel.

[Guest]

I guess that says it all. If you believe in your God then worship your God in the manner that he demands.

If you do not believe in your God, don't worship him as he demands. Demand that your God change his ways to accommodate you.

Who does he think he's pushing around? :bowdown:

Yoda

I worship God, not the Pope.

[Guest]

I worship God, not the Pope.

For Catholics, the pope interprets for God. In this case, he has not declared infallibility, yet.

[Guest]

For Catholics, the pope interprets for God. In this case, he has not declared infallibility, yet.

Although a common Catholic belief, the concept is actually heresy. The pope interprets for the Church, in consultation with all the bishops, for the betterment (spiritual salvation) of the People of God.

According to the Church's own canons, ultimately, an individual's properly informed and mature conscience is where the rubber meets the road!

[Guest]

This thread has turned ridiculous. The topic was use of condoms in Africa, and the Pope's comments on that.

[Guest]

Although a common Catholic belief, the concept is actually heresy. The pope interprets for the Church, in consultation with all the bishops, for the betterment (spiritual salvation) of the People of God.

According to the Church's own canons, ultimately, an individual's properly informed and mature conscience is where the rubber meets the road!

You are correct on conscience but uninformed on infallibility. The encyclical to be infallible must be proclaimed from the throne of St. Peter. This has only been done twice in the history of the church. Look it up.

Yoda

[Guest]

Yoda right not. Actually, I'm quite aware of the ex-cathedra dogma, although I know many Catholics are unaware that the pope is not infallible when he speaks. The only two times were on the Immaculate Conception (That's Mary's conception, not Jesus') and the Assumption of Mary (bodily and unstained) into Heaven.

Neither of these doctrines have even a whiff of Biblical evidence to support them. But the question persisted for centuries AND the Church needs to exercise power over the masses. Again, through the years, Sister, Brother and Father had much more power when they claimed to be part of the magical (spiritual) power of the Pope's direct line to God.

I'm a total believer in the Truth of Christianity and the authenticity of the Church, so the "magical" parts do not affect my faith, even if others might label it incorrectly as cafeteria Catholicism.

After all, for centuries, the Church cafeteria served up flat earths, Earth-centered universes and Inquisitions as part of the menu. I've got no problem pushing those away- and neither did the Church once it got its act together a bit. It seems almost arrogant to assume that today's Church is the epitome of knowledge of God's Plan.

[Guest]

Yoda right not. Actually, I'm quite aware of the ex-cathedra dogma, although I know many Catholics are unaware that the pope is not infallible when he speaks. The only two times were on the Immaculate Conception (That's Mary's conception, not Jesus') and the Assumption of Mary (bodily and unstained) into Heaven.

Neither of these doctrines have even a whiff of Biblical evidence to support them. But the question persisted for centuries AND the Church needs to exercise power over the masses. Again, through the years, Sister, Brother and Father had much more power when they claimed to be part of the magical (spiritual) power of the Pope's direct line to God.

I'm a total believer in the Truth of Christianity and the authenticity of the Church, so the "magical" parts do not affect my faith, even if others might label it incorrectly as cafeteria Catholicism.

After all, for centuries, the Church cafeteria served up flat earths, Earth-centered universes and Inquisitions as part of the menu. I've got no problem pushing those away- and neither did the Church once it got its act together a bit. It seems almost arrogant to assume that today's Church is the epitome of knowledge of God's Plan.

...yet even more arrogant is that any of us are so smart that we know better.