http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0318/pope.html
Does anyone actually believe anything this archaic institution says anymore? How completely out of touch can they be?
Printable View
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0318/pope.html
Does anyone actually believe anything this archaic institution says anymore? How completely out of touch can they be?
Ratzy: "Solution lies in a 'spiritual and human awakening' "
What's it Homer'd say? ... "Yeah ...good luck with that!"
YAWN:Here we go again with the church bashing,give it a rest lads!!!!
If the Pope stops claiming that condoms don't help stop the spread of aids, I'd imagine most criticism on the subject would stopQuote:
Originally Posted by eamo1
As it is, he deserves absolutely every bit of the "bashing"
Eamo -just for a hoot -go find me three threads here on foot.ie where there's what you consider church bashing going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by eamo1
If former South African president Taabo Mbeki deserves a kicking for repeated public announcements that garlic will protect you from Aids (or was it cure it?) then I reckon the leader of one of the biggest religions on the planet can be fair game for at very least a size eleven loafer up the hole for this particular feat (no pun) in evidence denial and downright King Canutism.
I reckon garlic could protect you from AIDS, because if you're reeking of it your chances of getting some action are very little :D
As for Pope Benny 16 and the rest of the virgin squad, what can they know possibly know about anything to do with sex. It would be like Trappatoni telling Kidney who to pick for Saturday - Crazy. But everybody has their own opinion, and the free will to disregard other persons rubbish opinions.
I can think of 2 other threads where "church bashing" went on,one was where i started a thread about Richard Dawkins attending Mass another was from last year aswell (i think) talking about the first Lisbon vote.i couldnt be bothered looking for the threads but im sure someone else will.
My general point being that church bashing DOES AND HAS EXISTED on this forum and on others too.In one arguement i remember one of your church bashing brigade did admit that too much church bashing goes in general.I remember in one thread i requested it be closed by the MOD as it was ridiculous the abuse myself and others were getting.I commented that if the same level of abuse was given out to Muslums the thread would have been closed-i got no reply from the MOD about that comment,i wonder why!!!
Eamo, do you agree with the comments the pope has made regarding contraception and the spread of AIDS?Quote:
Originally Posted by eamo1
In college a girl in my class did a project on the benefits of bicycle helmets. She found that you're more likely to suffer an injury wearing one since whatever benefits the helmets bring is more than canceled out by an increase in risk taking by helmeted cyclists and the drivers around them.
Why was my thread title changed?
If the Pope, as the spiritual leader of the Catholic Church, derides the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS, then he is essentially supporting the spread of AIDS.
@ eamo1. Religion is bashed because so much of it goes against basic common sense. One religion is just as ridiculous as the other as far as I'm concerned.
I'm no fan of the Catholic Church; it's position on condoms and AIDS sure as hell isn't pragmatic, but it is at least logically consistant.
In the first place the Church forbids adultery and /or sex outside of marriage. If you're willing disregard this rule, I reckon you're free to use as many rubbers as you like.
I've never had any beef with organised religion, even to the point I've defended them against complete egotistical idiots like Richard Dawkins (a man who has a point, but is so loathsome that you just want to disagree with him) but the Ctaholic Church are a disgrace in their views on such things as contraception and homosexuality
Anyone who says otherwise is a complete moron tbf
Doesn't it forbid their use at all times? Even within marriage?Quote:
Originally Posted by crc
Eamo, with respect, despite the fact there was pre-existing thread on Dawkins God Delusion which strikes me as suitable for your post, you felt the need the start a new thread which you titled "Dawkins is seen at Mass-what a turnaround". The title on it's own dragged a coat-trail that Dawkin had seen the light and signed up to catholicism. The content and the source ...some catholic publication or other -were demonstrable garbage and even some who find Dawkin odious put you squarely back in your box.Quote:
Originally Posted by eamo1
I think Richard Prior put it best while impersonating an incredulous chinese restaurant owner dealing with a complaint ..."but YOU ordered s**t!"
My favourite persecuted-Christian retort ...sure aren't we great that there's no threat of violence from us when we feel affronted.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by eamo1
:confused: ...did you just post in the wrong thread or are you insinuating a possible elevated level of risk of HIV contraction amongst those who use barrier contraceptives?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bald Student
I see what you're saying but ...and it's the big BUT, that goes back to errant biology informing errant theology. The seed is overvalued as the "source" of life. This goes right back to the whole story of Jesus' conception where his mam was basically seen as a vessel/incubator.Quote:
Originally Posted by crc
I know that's broadly how you could construe what the Pope said but I think you've twisted the argument a bit though Dodge. The Pope said the problem won't be overcome with condoms (I like to imagine he intended the pun the oul divil). Taken at its core and appreciating the head of a religion like Catholicism is naturally going to be extremely doctrinaire, I think the overriding point is that using condoms won't solve the problem, they might help to ameliorate the situation, but they won't solve the problem. Placing too much emphasis on condoms might, in the Pope's view, only serve to exacerbate the issue. And that's where Bald Student's little moral comes in. Condoms, like cycling helmets, are far from a panacea and should be seen as such.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Funnily enough the word "overriding" managed to sneak its way in there. I think that's where the Pope's point about spiritual awakening comes into play: that the spread of HIV is as much about wanton promiscuity than condoms.
Does the solution lie closer to: either people continuing to have multiple partners but using condoms; or to people being more selective in their sexual habits? And so, if anything, maybe there needs to be less sex; not more condoms? Or put another way, by encouraging condom-usage are we not encouraging the activity that gives rise to the spread of the disease? I think that's why the debate must run a little deeper into "spiritual awakening" and human behaviour than just bashing the Pope for his comments on condoms.
(Just to point out, I do not agree with the Pope's views. Obviously anyone with common sense or not bound by silly doctrine will realise condoms are at least part of the solution. For example, I think if you're pregnant and infected with HIV then your baby can also become infected. So in that case, the Church is egregiously guilty of ignoring reality - a couple who are both HIV-infected should be allowed have sex to their hearts' content without the worry of whether any potential offspring may also become infected.)
Keep it on topic folks.
The only reason this is a news story (and thread) here is because the Pope made a statement on this issue.
Surely people can be more selective in their sexual habits while using condoms. You are portraying an "either-or" situation which need not be the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
There can be both less sex and more condoms. Again, it is not an "either-or".Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
I'm sure encouraging condom usage would mean there would be some who would have protected sex who would not have had unprotected sex.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
I'm also sure there would be many many people who would have had unprotected sex who, with encouragement to use condoms, would now be able to have safer sex.
And I'd guess the the latter far, far outnumber the former.
Whether his word was "overcome" or not, for the Pope to refuse the role that condoms can play in HIV prevention alongside efforts to reduce levels of promiscuity and awareness (be they religious or secular) is a decision which should be criticised.
I'd imagine that a combination of condom usage and programs / education to promote monogamy, celibacy, or "spiritual awakening" would be more effective than either of those two approaches tried in isolation.
Surely saving lives is more important than trying to promote the favoured method of saving them?
i dont know but what would you expect a Pope to say on this issue? I dont agree with him but I do realise he is leader of the RC church and that his stance reflects his church
I'm not sure it reflects his church at all Bennocelt. Maybe informs it, maybe reminds it of party policy. But his stance can and should change. Popes have changed their stance (dragged kicking and screaming usually) fundamentally on many issues in the past...the world being round, there being more than five continents, black people having souls.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
Incidently, I don't think Africas HIV/AIDS problems are going to be solved the day a pontiff acknowledges the role barrier contraceptives have to play in preventing the spread of the disease. There are huge societal and cultural issues, and a diverse spread of them after that, which make tackling the disease on that continent an overwhelming task.
But his intervention is unhelpful and I wish he'd stick to what he knows and is most comfortable doing ...going over the books and dreaming up evidence that his predecessor should be made a saint. :rolleyes:
Don't you mean that as Leader his view is reflected in the Church? If he changed his stance the church would change.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
Were any of these ever church policy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
Gregory XVI, rightly condemning the slave trade, is generally seen as the first pope to acknowledge that "the blacks" (his words -and I'll not judge his language too harshly as he was writing in the 1830's) had souls though his language isn't explicit as he's merely saying it's wrong to treat them as animals rather than men. His condemnation of slavery itself was unequivocal though and I applaud him for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bald Student
The church and it's popes were in their time hostile to the idea there may be more than five continents as the bible apparently only refers to five.
There's a lot on the internet about this sort of thing, and much of it is contradictory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bald Student
While there's some evidence that many early Christians were flat earthers (against the grain at the time), it doesn't ever seem to have been an ecumenical matter. Possibly Lionel Richie was thinking of the fun Gallileo had over the earth not being the fixed centre of everything (I like to think of that as just a co-ordinate subsititution anyway). I don't know what place that had in church doctrine, but if it was worth threatening excommunication over, I'd guess it was fairly accepted.
Many local churches in the US supposedly suggested black people had no souls. I've never seen anything to suggest that offical catholic docterine bought into that. The Catholic church has even gone so far as to suggest that animals have souls, relatively recently I think.
I've never heard of the other thing he suggests.
However, there are other things on which attitudes may have been altered, e.g. Pope Gregory sent a priest to Britain to buy Pagan boys to work as slaves on church estates, while the 9th Council of Toledo ruled that all children of clerics were to be automatically enslaved. This ruling was later incorporated into canon law. There are various other examples (and counterexamples), but the church's stance on slavery wasn't terribly firm in the middle ages and later. I don't know what their current teaching is, but I doubt they'd openly approve of it any more. Sometimes it's hard to distinguish local actions from official teaching - a Catholic bishop condemned Martin Luther King at one point.
Then there's the treatment of Anabaptists and other sects and schisms, which was often violently discriminatory.
I'm only working from memory here so feel free to contradict me. There were two major references to the place of gentiles (including black people) in the bible. One was at the nativity where Jesus was introduced the three gentile kings when he was 12 days old. The other was a vision Saul had on the road to Damascus, where God showed him a great sheet and placed on it all the plants, creatures and people of the world. The theme common to both was that Christianity was to be a world religion. This was a mojor shift away from the Jewish belief that they were the chosen people. I'd be very surprised if any subsequent Pope contradicted that teaching. That argument is entirely separate from the issue of slavery. There's no inherent contradiction in believing that a slave can have a soul.
I'm also pretty sure that the ancient Greeks discovered that the world is round about 2700 years ago and that it was commonly accepted at the time. A round world appeared on Roman coins, for example and St. Thomas Aquinas wrote on the topic quite a bit (he had some interesting ideas, if you ever look them up). The idea that people used to think the world was flat comes from a children's book written in America a bit over a hundred years ago. The book described Columbus' voyage of discovery and in it all the Europeans thought he was crazy and that he would fall off the edge of the world.
I've never heard the claim about five continents before but I imagine it was quite a common belief before Australia and Antarctica were discovered.
I agree with you on the 'black people having a soul' thing - I suspect it was a local thing, never sanctioned by the pope. I've read nothing to suggest otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bald Student
I've read a little Aquinas, though not on very many topics. He was quoted extensively in a book I read a few years back on the history of the church but I can't recall the name - I must dig it out when I get home.
As for flat earthism, there are a few minor passages (like references to the four corners of the earth and the ends of the earth) which I've read that a few early Catholics interpreted in that way, but nothing to suggest that this was a majority view at any point (I said "many" in my last post, which may have been misleading). Better established is the idea that the earth is fixed - I think there's a line in Genesis about it being "fixed in the firmament" or something. I think that's the origin of the heliocentric controversy.
I assume that Lionel meant that the church was somehow resistent to the idea that there were more when Australia was found. Again, I've never heard of this one.Quote:
I've never heard the claim about five continents before but I imagine it was quite a common belief before Australia and Antarctica were discovered.
I hope I don't have my saints mixed up but the belief at the time of Aquinas was that the world's climate was arranged into bands. That the desert was to hot for anyone to cross but that the climate would get cooler on the other side and become livable again before becoming too cold at the pole. He did a lot of philosophising on the people who might live in the southern hemisphere. Whether they would all be dammed because they never got to hear the word of Jesus and whether this was fair on them.
Also, I'd be amazed if a pope actually denied the existence of Australia after it was discovered. Especially since the Americas were discovered first.
I assumed the usual level of "religion is ridiculous" etc etc would come up on this thread and it did.
However to keep this thread on topic ill submit this article to ye.I hope this link works,let me know if it doesnt.
http://www.catholic.org/internationa...y.php?id=32739
I don't mean to question the objectivity of the journalists at Catholic International News but was that story covered in any mainstream publications?
I found this article too.I was happy i did because it sums up a point i was going to make comparing South Africa's AIDS problem to Uganda's AIDS problem.Which policy is working???
BTW,keep the personal insults out of this thread,IM NOT BRAIN DEAD!!!
Many media organisations have agenda's and it wouldnt look very good if the other side of the argument got a few paragraphs in their publication now would it.Thats why much(not all) of whats on this site doesnt get to "main stream" media.BTW:Is main stream media totally objective i ask you??
Whether the main stream media is objective is separate from the question of whether the Catholic International News is objective.Quote:
Originally Posted by eamo1
Eamo, these "agendist" mainstream media organisations regularily invite priests, bishops, cardinals, primates as well as their protestant and non-christian counterparts on to news and current affairs programming to chuck in their tuppenceworth on any range of issues ...often despite the religious leaders having little or nothing beyond a laymans expertise in the topic at hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by eamo1
In my 36 years I can recall exactly one (1) religious affairs programme that had an atheist/humanist commentator on it's panel and if death metal langball Glen Benton from Deicide had been sitting next to him with his inverted crucifix branded on his forehead Benton would have gotten an easier ride.
John, I'm putting my hand up that my "round earth resistance" was a bad example on my part -it was actually your fixed earth/center of the universe I had more in mind. Also I think it was only FOUR continents and not five as I said in previous that are referred to in the bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
Surely it's the other way around - the church reflects the pope's idea's on the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
It defies logic for anyone to suggest that condoms and protected sex aren't part of the solution when it comes to helping prevent the spread of AIDS. It is not blatant church bashing to point out that their policy is ridiculous, and is in fact costing lives - only fundamentalists could possibly claim otherwise.
And on fundamentalists, people like David Quinn get plenty of column space and airtime in the mainstream media for their (imo bigotted) opinions. FFS the religious even get a seat at the social partnership table.
cant stand that man - he is so smug and always talks rubbishQuote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Quote:
"It is my belief that the most effective presence on the front in the battle against HIV/AIDS is precisely the Catholic Church and her institutions. I think of the Community of Sant' Egidio, which does so much, visibly and invisibly to fight AIDS, of the Camillians, of all the nuns that are at the service of the sick.
"I would say that this problem of AIDS cannot be overcome with advertising slogans. If the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem. The solution can only come through a twofold commitment: firstly, the humanization of sexuality, in other words a spiritual and human renewal bringing a new way of behaving towards one another; and secondly, true friendship, above all with those who are suffering, a readiness - even through personal sacrifice - to be present with those who suffer. And these are the factors that help and bring visible progress.
"Therefore, I would say that our double effort is to renew the human person internally, to give spiritual and human strength to a way of behaving that is just towards our own body and the other person's body; and this capacity of suffering with those who suffer, to remain present in trying situations.
"I believe that this is the first response [to AIDS] and that this is what the Church does, and thus, she offers a great and important contribution. And we are grateful to those that do this."
Mmmm. Hardly the rabid anti johnny rant its being made out to be.
I don't know where you got that quote from, but in the above piece I've quoted, he seems to be excluding condoms completely as even part of a solution.Quote:
The solution can only come through a twofold commitment: firstly, the humanization of sexuality, in other words a spiritual and human renewal bringing a new way of behaving towards one another; and secondly, true friendship, above all with those who are suffering, a readiness - even through personal sacrifice - to be present with those who suffer.
By all means use other avenues of approach also, but condom usage can, and I'd say must, have a role to play in any realistic plan on halting the spread of the disease.
I dont see how you read that from the qoute. however, of course he excludes condoms as part of the solution. hes the pope. but that doesnt mean his statement is without merit. my reading of the qoute is that it can be tackled by not shagging anything that moves and respecting your partner and also by showing a bit compassion to those suffering the disease. not exactly "ignorant" things to wish for at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
I completely agree. I said in the above post and in my previous posts that measures to tackle people's attitudes to sex is a crucial part of the solution. We agree completely on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billsthoughts
But it is not, or need not, be a given.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billsthoughts
As an example, the Catholic church under John Paul II recently changed a centuries-old policy on Limbo. It had previously been decreed that all babies that died before baptism could take place were born under original sin, and were therefore not able to enter heaven.
Without saying that Limbo no longer exists (which would be to admit an error which had existed for 14/15 hundred years, if not longer), they now say that God's mercy is such that it is surely possible he will accept those babies who died before baptism.
If the Catholic Church can make such a reversal on such an important issue, then why not more of them?
It shouldnt be a given. But it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
For better or for worse organised religion seems to be hung up on sexual matters. If pope came out in the morning and said johnnys are good. have loads of sex and that the most important aspect of christianity is love and respect for your fellow human beings........then loads of people would just leave the Catholic church and join the sex is bad breakaway church. questions of theology - not many people can get their heads round anyways...questions of riding - well everyone knows about that.