"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?

Gag me with a spoon
 

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)

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

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.

"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?

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

http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ts/fm0045.html

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

"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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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