Pope

[Iplayboard]

I personally believe that the pope is a horrible individual. He has condemmed the use of condoms. Great, lets increase the spread of AIDS in third world countries.

Also, his philosophy includes discrimination. The pope has condemned homosexuality, and refused to grant equal rights to women.

A person with such a great influence on others should not take such harmful positions.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
He has condemmed the use of condoms.

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought this has always been the Catholic Church's position. So how does that make this Pope horrible?

[ QUOTE ]
The pope has condemned homosexuality

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, I was under the impression that this was the Catholic Church's position.

[ QUOTE ]
and refused to grant equal rights to women.

[/ QUOTE ]
Such as...?

[ QUOTE ]
A person with such a great influence on others should not take such harmful positions.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not like these are new positions...

[Edge34]

Since you clearly don't understand the traditions of the Catholic religion, it would probably be better if you just shut up.

Condemned condom use - tradition. Birth control is looked down upon highly in the strict Catholic religion, especially considering sex is supposed to be saved for marriage, and for the main purpose of procreation.

Homosexuality - same tradition thing.

Women - what? Just says they shouldn't be priests...which again...tradition...

He's not out there to make everybody happy. He's the head of the Catholic Church and follows its teachings. Do some research before talking out your ass.

[dr_venkman]

As a Dr. I'd like to offer a preliminary diagnosis to this person's condition; acute Popeaphobia.

With group therapy and some Hail Marys I'm sure you'll be fine.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]

A person with such a great influence on others should not take such harmful positions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be wrong, but my impression is that the whole system there is based on the assumption that he was given those positions by the church, and told that's the way it is. And that the church was given those rules by God, and told that's the way it is.

A church isn't a country club, where the members can change the rules through a majority vote. If you belong to a church, you believe that the church is teaching the word of God. If you want a vote on the positions, fine, but God's got 51% of the votes.

I am not a Catholic. I used to be, but I don't believe in all of the teachings of the Church. Anyone who says that they are a Catholic and but that they don't believe in all the teachings of the Church is wrong. By definition, they are not Catholics. Period.

They may have been born and raised Catholic, they may still go to church on Sunday, but they are not Catholics. Wake up and go find a church you can believe in. Or stop going to church. Show some guts and quit whining about the Pope. It's like whining about the referee because you don't like the rules of football. They aren't going to change the rules for you. It's football. If you don't like football, go watch rugby.

[Zygote]

the things you talk about are from the old and new testament, not the pope. You should direct your complaints to judeo-christian religions; it is unfair to single out the pope.

[vulturesrow]

Ben,

Good post, you display a better understanding of what it means to be Catholic than do some Catholics.

It seems to come as a shock to many that the new Pope espouses Catholic views.

[Beerfund]

[ QUOTE ]
He has condemmed the use of condoms.
The pope has condemned homosexuality, and refused to grant equal rights to women.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, me and the Pope have a lot in common.

[Iplayboard]

Ok, so its Catholic Church that has inhumane views, whatever. I don't believe that you can lump all Christian religions into this category, although pretty much all. Some allow women preachers for example.

Even though a lot of the pope's views come from church doctrine, there is defintely a little bit of a variation in terms of the views of the papal candidates. Some are more conservative then others. From what I've heard from reliable news sources, think CNN, not foxs news, this particular candidate is more conservative than some of the other candidates.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally believe that the pope is a horrible individual. He has condemmed the use of condoms. Great, lets increase the spread of AIDS in third world countries.

Also, his philosophy includes discrimination. The pope has condemned homosexuality, and refused to grant equal rights to women.

A person with such a great influence on others should not take such harmful positions.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the Pope is a horrible individual because he's Catholic?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Even though a lot of the pope's views come from church doctrine, there is defintely a little bit of a variation in terms of the views of the papal candidates. Some are more conservative then others. From what I've heard from reliable news sources, think CNN, not foxs news, this particular candidate is more conservative than some of the other candidates.

[/ QUOTE ]


While this is true to a point, I doubt any pope will be ever change many of the positions that the Church currently holds.

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so its Catholic Church that has inhumane views, whatever. I don't believe that you can lump all Christian religions into this category, although pretty much all. Some allow women preachers for example.

Even though a lot of the pope's views come from church doctrine, there is defintely a little bit of a variation in terms of the views of the papal candidates. Some are more conservative then others. From what I've heard from reliable news sources, think CNN, not foxs news, this particular candidate is more conservative than some of the other candidates.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still fail to see what you're complaining about.

And btw, nice reference to "reliable news sources, think CNN not fox news". Fox News readily stated that this Pope is pretty conservative. I mean, to claim Fox News isn't reliable is pretty weak - just because you don't like your slightly more conservative news doesn't mean it isn't reliable. That's like me (pretty conservative) saying that CNN is unreliable because its too liberal...

So yeah...I guess if you don't like it, its just a good thing you're not Catholic. Following Church traditions doesn't make the Pope a bad guy.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Some are more conservative then others. From what I've heard from reliable news sources, think CNN, not foxs news, this particular candidate is more conservative than some of the other candidates.

[/ QUOTE ]
By conservative, I think they mean more strict and less willing to compromise traditional church standings. While I'm not Catholic, I believe there are some American Catholics who would rather the church subscribed to their views instead of the other way around. So an unwillingness to go along with these American Catholics could be considered a "conservative" position, but I don't think it's exactly analogous to American political term "conservative".

You sound very misinformed about this issue, so it might be better to either phrase it in such a way as to not sound like a fool or read up more.

[jack spade23]

Are you serious? The church has always condemned the use of birth control methods, as well as homosexuality. But other people have already said that. The church is allowed to take such stances, and the only discrimination against them is that they don't agree w/ gay marriage. They aren't encouraging the active hatred of gays.




P.S. God I am an awful writer.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
They aren't encouraging the active hatred of gays.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just the inactive hatred of gays?

This is going to be a fun papacy.

b

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you serious? The church has always condemned the use of birth control methods, as well as homosexuality. But other people have already said that. The church is allowed to take such stances, and the only discrimination against them is that they don't agree w/ gay marriage. They aren't encouraging the active hatred of gays.



[/ QUOTE ]

As I understand it, and there has been further public discussion of this within the last week, the Catholic Church does not consider "being a homosexual" to be a sin. It considers homosexual activity as being a sin.

This is encompassed within the general Church position that any sexual activity other than that which is between a married couple and which can lead to procreation is a sin.

This gets back to a big concept many people still don't get. If you are a practising homosexual, and you don't consider that to be sinning, you are not a Catholic. If you practise birth control or have an abortion and don't consider those things to be sin, you are not a Catholic, you are fooling yourself. Which is a polite way of saying you are a hypocrite.

[mackthefork]

Oh come on BenFranklin they admitted the world probably isn't flat, and that the sun doesn't go around the earth, I'm sure they will admit they are wrong on the OP subjects as well one day. Although I suspect they will hang doggedly onto tired worthless dogma for a couple of hundred years before they do, and condemn millions to death in the process. The fact is they are wrong I know it, they know it, everybody knows it, but until the funny man in the pointy hat speaks out it won't change.

Mack

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
He's not out there to make everybody happy. He's the head of the Catholic Church

[/ QUOTE ]

I fixed your post.

Mack

[Iplayboard]

AIDS is a huge epidemic that is killing millions of people around the world. Anyone who condems the use of any device that would limit the spread of such a disease is a [censored] [censored].

Many Catholics in this country, and I'm sure around the world do not subscribe blindly to idiotic church doctrine. Just because someone is Catholic doesn't mean he/she has to hate gays or believe every fairy tale that is in the Bible.

My point is that religious leaders have such a huge influence. There are over a billion Catholics in the world. At some level the Pope should be held responsible for his stances which have huge [negative] impacts around the world.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally believe that the pope is a horrible individual. He has condemmed the use of condoms. Great, lets increase the spread of AIDS in third world countries.

Also, his philosophy includes discrimination. The pope has condemned homosexuality, and refused to grant equal rights to women.

A person with such a great influence on others should not take such harmful positions.

[/ QUOTE ]

First let me say that as a conservative I love people like you. Please continue to espouse your views as loudly and as often as you can so that my party and ideology can continue to grow in power. Just be sure to continue to include bashings of fox news and all things conservative so you are properly identified. Some of the so called "more reasonable" liberals on this board and other places my try and distance liberalism from you. Don't let them. You must continue to cry out and take your party back from these pansy ass moderates.

[ QUOTE ]
and refused to grant equal rights to women.

[/ QUOTE ] Could you please link me to where women were granted the "right" of priesthood.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
AIDS is a huge epidemic that is killing millions of people around the world. Anyone who condems the use of any device that would limit the spread of such a disease is a [censored] [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a large outbreak of catholism in Africa that I do not know about? Conversly is there a large AIDS outbreak among married couples who abstained from sex until such time?
[ QUOTE ]

Many Catholics in this country, and I'm sure around the world do not subscribe blindly to idiotic church doctrine. Just because someone is Catholic doesn't mean he/she has believe every fairy tale that is in the Bible.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure they do. I am also pretty sure they don't refer to the bible as a fairy tale.
[ QUOTE ]

My point is that religious leaders have such a huge influence. There are over a billion Catholics in the world. At some level the Pope should be held responsible for his stances which have huge [negative] impacts around the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what negative impacts would those be?

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]

You sound very misinformed about this issue, so it might be better to either phrase it in such a way as to not sound like a fool or read up more.

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored] that, please continue

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
AIDS is a huge epidemic that is killing millions of people around the world. Anyone who condems the use of any device that would limit the spread of such a disease is a [censored] [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who follows the Catholic Church’s doctrine of celibacy until matrimony is at an infinitesimally minute risk of contracting or spreading AIDS. How is this bad?

By your standards, the moral relativists who condone sex outside of marriage (thereby condemning a practice that would limit the spread of such a disease) are the bigger [censored] [censored]s.

[ACPlayer]

ever

Has the Catholic church NEVER changed its view on any position?

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
Has the Catholic church NEVER changed its view on any position?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe at one time they did have married priests.

Also the whole world is flat thing...

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
AIDS is a huge epidemic that is killing millions of people around the world. Anyone who condems the use of any device that would limit the spread of such a disease is a [censored] [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]
Last I checked, condoms were not a garuantee that you will not get AIDs...

[ QUOTE ]
Many Catholics in this country, and I'm sure around the world do not subscribe blindly to idiotic church doctrine. Just because someone is Catholic doesn't mean he/she has to hate gays or believe every fairy tale that is in the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]
What does any of this have to do with the new pope? Why should the religion change to suit a small group's views?

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that religious leaders have such a huge influence. There are over a billion Catholics in the world. At some level the Pope should be held responsible for his stances which have huge [negative] impacts around the world.

[/ QUOTE ]
If there are Catholics that don't like the Church's stances on the issues, let them form their own seperate religion. I'm also confused by this last statement. Before you said that you think "[m]any Catholics in this country...do not subscribe blindly to idiotic church doctrine. Now you say that the Pope wields such influence that his views (namely the Church's views) on some issues need to change. Which is it? Is the Pope so powerful that his views must be liberalized in order to prevent bigotry or do many Catholics not subscribe blindly to the Church's positions anyway?

[jack spade23]

Ben Franklin is right, i meant the practicing of homosexual sex, not simply feeling a certain way about men. However, I forgot to mention my argument against the AIDS statement made by the OP.

Condoms dont 100% stop Aids. The catholic church isn't condeming the use of condoms because they want gay people do die for practicing homosexual sex, they do it because it is birth control. People who die from aids are mostly, imo, people who had it passed on to them from a parent, especially in Africa, etc. What the OP is saying is this: The church should change its doctrine because non-catholics are doing what the church told them not to do, therefore it is the churches responisbility.

Also, If the church suddenly ok'ed condoms, you cannot tell what certain communities' responses would be. If the dont agree w/ the church in the first place, then why do they care what they think?

[InchoateHand]

Just so you folks know, the Church has not always condemned Homosexuality, and "Church Politics" have been a part of the Church since its inception. The "love it or leave it" Catholic Church simply never existed.

Before any of the neotards reply, I suggest they examine the difference between "sodomy" and "homosexuality." I'll give you a hint, one of them has only been around in the comparatively recent past.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Catholic Church’s doctrine of celibacy until matrimony

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you mean chastity. While to most they mean the same thing, celibacy from the church's perspective means remaining unmarried.

Incidentally, priests take a vow of celibacy, not a vow of chastity.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who condems the use of any device that would limit the spread of such a disease is a [censored] [censored].


[/ QUOTE ]

It's odd that you criticize the church whose position is truly the only way to prevent the spread of AIDS. If everyone followed the church's teachings with regard to sex, there wouldn't be an AIDS epidemic. It's such a strange argument.

The church has a teaching regarding sexuality that, if followed, would effectively stop the spread of AIDS. People don't follow that teaching. Because people don't follow that teaching, the church should change another policy because the same people who don't follow the first teaching strictly follow the second???

Very odd.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Since you clearly don't understand the traditions of the Catholic religion...especially considering sex is supposed to be saved for marriage, and for the main purpose of procreation


[/ QUOTE ]

For someone who so strongly criticizes other, it might benefit you to read the catechism and what it says about sex. The church's position on sex is that it has a dual purpose --- it is a mutual show of love and it is a means of procreation. To say that the "main purpose" of sex is procreation according to the church is incorrect.

[Iplayboard]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a large outbreak of catholism in Africa that I do not know about?

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4576590

Also, the marriage argument is faulty on so many levels. There is nothing inherently safe about having sex with your spouse. The reason why it is safe most of the time is because both you and your spouse have been tested. Thus, it is incorrect to say it is safe to have sex with someone else who is married. It is correct to say that it is safe to have sex with someone who has been tested.

Also, moral relativists aren't saying, hey kids go out and [censored] as many people as possible. Rather, being realistic, and understanding that humans naturely have sexual urges, they say hey IF you are going to have sex, take measures to be as safe as possible. Condoms aren't 100 percent, but pretty damn close.

There are 1.1 billion Catholics or so in the world. Even if only 10 percent blindly follow whatever the pope says, that's still a lot of people.

The analogy to the referee is horrible. You say if you don't like the rules, switch games. I'm not complaining that Catholicism has harmed me in any way, I'm saying that its policies are contributing to the spread of AIDS in Africa. I'm not saying that Catholics want Africans dead and there is a huge conspiracy to kill them by condeming condom use. I'm saying, it's time for the church to recognize that it's policies are harmful.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]


Incidentally, priests take a vow of celibacy, not a vow of chastity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean that without the law of chastity, priests would be free to have sex but not marry? Interesting.

[yaomama]

[elwoodblues]

It just means that priests can have sex without violating their vows as a priest. They would still be sinning by having sex outside of marriage but it isn't a violation of their vows.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
This can't be a serious argument, can it?

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems to be the position of those who believe the church is committing some huge moral crime by standing firm in their opposition to artificial means of birth control.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that its policies are contributing to the spread of AIDS in Africa. I'm not saying that Catholics want Africans dead and there is a huge conspiracy to kill them by condeming condom use. I'm saying, it's time for the church to recognize that it's policies are harmful.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the church would say that NOT following it's teachings is what's causing the spread of AIDS, not vice-versa. Changing it's policy on condom use is (pun intended) just a prophylactic solution that doesn't cure the root problem.

[[censored]]

So in your opinion these people who have chosen to not follow the laws of the church in regards to having sex, would choose the follow the church in regards to condom use?

[Iplayboard]

Of course if someone is religious, that means that person will not have sex outside of marriage ever [sarcasm].

When large institutions speak against condom use, it undermines attempts to educate people about safe sex.

Telling people not to ever have sex outside of marriage or you're going to hell, is not a realistic response to the current epidemic.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course if someone is religious, that means that person will not have sex outside of marriage ever [sarcasm].



[/ QUOTE ]

Of course if someone is religious, that means that person will not wear a condom ever [sarcasm.]

[Iplayboard]

I don't think people have sex because they think to themselves, [censored] the Catholic Church. I think it is more spontaneous as opposed to premeditated. Even devoutly religious people will sometimes break the rules of their institution in the heat of the moment.

On the other hand, condum use IS premediated. A person who uses condoms obviously plans on doing so.

Therefore a person can oppose both things in theory, having premarital sex, and using condoms, and still do one but not the other.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think people have sex because they think to themselves, [censored] the Catholic Church. I think it is more spontaneous as opposed to premeditated. Even devoutly religious people will sometimes break the rules of their institution in the heat of the moment.

On the other hand, condum use IS premediated. A person who uses condoms obviously plans on doing so.

Therefore a person can oppose both things in theory, having premarital sex, and using condoms, and still do one but not the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you suggest that the catholic church should say:

"extramarital sex is sin, but always carry condoms so that, if you do decide to sin, the physical consequences of your sin will be less severe."

the position of the church is that people sin when they underestimate (or disregard) the negative consquences of sin. mitigating those consequences would encourage some people to sin, and make life easier for people when they do sin. since sin is supposed to separate people from God, and the entire purpose of the church (supposedly) is to bring people closer to God, priority one for the church is that people sin as little as possible.

is this so unreasonable?

[Iplayboard]

[ QUOTE ]
is this so unreasonable?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

I understand the church's position and why they won't change. But I still believe that they are wrong for having that position.

Years ago the church was reluctant to admit that we lived in a sun centered universe. The church felt as though accepting a sun centered universe would undermine religious ideology, such as the belief those on Earth were God's people. That doesn't make their position right.

[MMMMMM]

I have to agree with Elwood on this.

If people just followed the principle of no sex outside of marriage, as the Catholic Church endorses (or even of only having one long-term partner instead of multiple or frequent partners, or simply abstaining when they were without a long-term partner), AIDS would not be an issue.

It is amazing how many people think they MUST have sex with multiple partners, or that other people MUST. Fact is, nobody is being forced to have sex (except rape victims).

[CHiPS]

I think the best method for determining the new Pope would have been the following - Give each eligible Cardinal $1000 in Tournament chips and have a No Limit Texas Hold Em Tournament. The winner is declared Pope. Just think of the advertizing - The World Poker Tour goes to the Vatican !

[beset7]

[/ QUOTE ]
By conservative, I think they mean more strict and less willing to compromise traditional church standings. While I'm not Catholic, I believe there are some American Catholics who would rather the church subscribed to their views instead of the other way around. So an unwillingness to go along with these American Catholics could be considered a "conservative" position, but I don't think it's exactly analogous to American political term "conservative".


[/ QUOTE ]

Well said. American Catholics represents a nearly irrelvant minority of the world Catholic population and most of them are just pissed that an actual Catholic was elevated to the papacy. I am Catholic and on some issues more "liberal" (if that's the right word) then Pope Benedict but I think he is a brillant man and very orthodox. What exactly were people expecting? Even Cardinal Kasper (the liberal favorite) is against ordaining women and condoning gay marriage as far as I know. I am sympathetic to Catholic Democrats who fault Ratzinger with tipping the presidential election for Bush but he was doing his duty as the head theologian of responding to a pressing theological concern of the Church. Sure it was done at the hands of all the very well reasoned pro-life reasons for not voting for Bush either. For the record I abstained from the presidential election because of my faith. I later entered into a dialogue with my local bishop about this choice and next time I'll vote. The truth that the Catholic perspective straddles the red/blue divide on moral and social issues and if I only voted for canidates that didn't offend church teaching I'd never vote. So, it's a balancing act.

In addition, many people didn't read his whole letter and it was alot more nuanced then "Voting for Kerry is a mortal sin and if he shows up in your diocese deny him communion."

As per the condom issue, After Vatican II a theological inquiry was conducted in Rome as to whether artificial birth control, within the context of marriage, could be allowed in harmony with scripture and sacred tradition and the answer was "Yes." So the door is still open on that one. The female priesthood and gay marriage thing will never change (JMO).

But, obviously, the use of artificial birth control is only theoretically permissible within the context of marriage. It would be completely absurd for the church to change it's teaching so as to make committing a sin safer. Look, most Catholics who are willing to go against their faith in a very substantial way and have sex outside of marriage are not going to have a big problem committing the lesser sin of putting a wrapper on it. The more challenging moral problem is in cases involving a married couple where one party has HIV and the other does not.

The truth is that a majority of American Catholics excommunicated themselves at one point or another and wonderful examples of hypocrisy in action. Reconversion is always possible (thank god) but there is no point going around clinging to a Catholic identity when you are not in communion with Rome.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
So in your opinion these people who have chosen to not follow the laws of the church in regards to having sex, would choose the follow the church in regards to condom use?

[/ QUOTE ]

Every guy is a Catholic on prom night.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the best method for determining the new Pope would have been the following - Give each eligible Cardinal $1000 in Tournament chips and have a No Limit Texas Hold Em Tournament. The winner is declared Pope. Just think of the advertizing - The World Poker Tour goes to the Vatican !

[/ QUOTE ]

That might be what they're doing... the cardinals aren't allowed to disclose what went on during the election, and as far as I know, gambling is not prohibited by the Catholic Church. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[beset7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the best method for determining the new Pope would have been the following - Give each eligible Cardinal $1000 in Tournament chips and have a No Limit Texas Hold Em Tournament. The winner is declared Pope. Just think of the advertizing - The World Poker Tour goes to the Vatican !

[/ QUOTE ]

That might be what they're doing... the cardinals aren't allowed to disclose what went on during the election, and as far as I know, gambling is not prohibited by the Catholic Church. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif we can gamble! woop woop.

But, gambling on the identity of the pope is grounds for excommunication. But gambling FOR the identity of the pope... hmm.

[Iplayboard]

[ QUOTE ]
American Catholics represents a nearly irrelvant minority of the world Catholic population

[/ QUOTE ]

Do American Catholics have vastly different views on social issues than Italian or French Catholics? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I genuinely don't know and would like an answer.

[beset7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
American Catholics represents a nearly irrelvant minority of the world Catholic population

[/ QUOTE ]

Do American Catholics have vastly different views on social issues than Italian or French Catholics? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I genuinely don't know and would like an answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd hate to generalize tooo much but my experience is that in Western Europe people are either religous and accept the church or they are fully secular and reject it. I'm sure there are a lot of "cafeteria catholics" in France and Italy, but my personal experience has been that if you attend mass regularly in those countries you probably accept a substantial portion of the church's moral teachings.

In the US, however, there is a very vocal minority of Catholics that might be characterized as "fundamentalists" or "traditionalists" who adhere stringently to church teaching. The majority of practicing American Catholics, however (once again just in my experience) live in direct contrast to numerous areas of church teaching but continue to attend mass and recieve the sacraments. It's something about the libertarian roots of our country; people search their consciences and then follow them. This is even true of priests. I know of priests who are openly homosexual (celibate), advocate for gay marriage, the female priesthood and believe that abortion should be permissible under certain circumstances for reasons of public policy. And with regards to birth control this teaching has been almost universally rejected by the american Church.

I don't need to point out how inauthentic this reality is. The church is not democratic so you can't really "work for change." But, it is a resilent part of the Catholic identity I suppose that even when the church has ideologically left you behind people feel a strong need to participate in the liturgy and receive the sacraments.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The [Catholic] church['s] ... position is truly the only way to prevent the spread of AIDS.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's not. It's not the only way.


[ QUOTE ]
If everyone followed the church's teachings with regard to sex, there wouldn't be an AIDS epidemic.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if we all followed Karen Carpenter's "teachings" with regard to eating, there wouldn't be obesity in the world. How's that?

Total sexual abstinence before or outside marriage is indeed one way way of stopping AIDS. Not the only one. (Remember that AIDS is also transmitted through transfusion of contaminated blood, by anymmeans.) The best solution is not necessarily the most radical solution. The best solution is, as usual, the one that strikes the best balance between cost and benefit. And the Church's "solution" is hugely imbalanced in my opinion : Abstaining from sex until I get married is an unnecessarily high cost. Unnecessarily high because there are other ways, scientifically endorsed and, for the majority of people, perfectly acceptable morally as well.

And a funny little coda: If someone is a homosexual and wants to avoid AIDS through practicing what the Catholic Church is preaching about sexuality, he or she would have to (a) get married but the Church forbids marriage between homosexuals, or (b) turn straight which is a physical impossibility.

Nice advice, Your Holiness.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
It is amazing how many people think they MUST have sex with multiple partners.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, always MUST MUST MUST, it's a real chore, it is. /images/graemlins/grin.gif


[ QUOTE ]
or that other people MUST have sex with multiple partners.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I enjoy FORCING other people -to have sex with multiple partners. I'm such a PERSUADER. /images/graemlins/grin.gif


[ QUOTE ]
Fact is, nobody is being forced to have sex (except rape victims).

[/ QUOTE ]
Therefore, except for rape victims, everybody's already on the same wavelength as the Church! Wow. Problem solved... /images/graemlins/grin.gif


Fact is, you are making a mess of an argument once again.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
And the church would say that NOT following it's teachings is what's causing the spread of AIDS, not vice-versa.

[/ QUOTE ]
What if I told you that the solution to the problem of crime in America would be to execute every criminal? That would mathematically solve the problem, right? (Note absence of quotation marks.)

I could cite statistics too, from other countries that have more draconian crime laws than the U.S., such as Saudi Arabia. You see the flaw in the argument, I hope.

Listen : When I propose an impossible solution to you and you do not/cannot follow it, then I could be (in some sense) theoretically correct in saying "you did not solve your problem because you did not follow my advice". But this is not about being correct theologically/theoretically, it's about practical ways to address the problem of STDs, including AIDs which the most deadly.

The Church's solution is theoretically correct but, for better or worse, not practical at all. The proof is in the numbers: A significant number of people practice sex for other reasons than "to show love" or for breeding. Sexual education of minors, use of prophylactics, etc, are among the available practical weapons to combat AIDS but the Catholic Church totally condemns them!

[beset7]

[ QUOTE ]
The best solution is, as usual, the one that strikes the best balance between cost and benefit. And the Church's "solution" is hugely imbalanced in my opinion : Abstaining from sex until I get married is an unnecessarily high cost. Unnecessarily high because there are other ways, scientifically endorsed and, for the majority of people, perfectly acceptable morally as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are of course correct that from a ultilitarian civic perspective the best approach is the balanced one.

However,

(1) I'm not sure a majority of people believe premarital sex is moral. It feels that way living in US/Western Europe but between the majority of the world lives in the third world where i'm not sure this is the case.

(2) For the people that it is morally acceptable, won't they just use birth control no matter what the church teaches?

(3) Therefore, what we are really concerned about is people who think that premarital/promiscuous sex is immoral for socio-cultural-religious reasons but are unable/unprepared/too young to be chaste and not discerning enough to use protection.

Q: Do you really think the Catholic church changing it's stance on artificial birth control would have more then a nominal effect on this group of people whom we are looking to protect?

I guess the thrust (no pun intended) of my inquiry is that I think the secular west is giving the Church way to much credit and (as usual) misunderstanding the role it serves it setting policy around the world. It often takes the form of "By forbidding birth control the Catholic church is causing overpopulation and the spread of AIDS." While the church is powerful and her ideas are very influential, there are thousands of other social/politicla/cultural/ideological forces at work in creating this alarming problems that the Church is given so much credit for inspiring. I've got to go or I'd ramble some more.

(just for the record, I think the Church's stance on birth control is need of modification but it will never condone extra-marital or promiscous sex so I don't think it any potential changes would have the effect people are looking for).

[KellyRae]

Is your ultimate point that the Catholic Church should not exist?

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
(Remember that AIDS is also transmitted through transfusion of contaminated blood, by anymmeans.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, I don't think the Church changing its position on condoms is going to help then.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
And a funny little coda: If someone is a homosexual and wants to avoid AIDS through practicing what the Catholic Church is preaching about sexuality, he or she would have to (a) get married but the Church forbids marriage between homosexuals, or (b) turn straight which is a physical impossibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

or (c) not have sex.