Is Labour Prosecuting A Class War?
News2 mins ago
I am disgusted
154 Answers
Pope John Paul II.This man presided over a clerical abuse coverup and contributed to an AIDS epidemic. And now they want to make him a saint?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by soaps. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hope this is not too provocative; as you know, sowing dissension is the last thing on my mind.
http://vodpod.com/wat...itional-catholic-hymn
http://vodpod.com/wat...itional-catholic-hymn
ummmm
///Her husband might put it about. He has aids...he then sleeps with his wife without protection because her religion forbids them...Or their religion...but it's her that following the rules of the religion.///
In that case the spread is limited to one person (the woman) unless she is putting it about as well, two if she gets pregnant. Meanwhile hubby is still putting it about and is busy infecting far more than two people because he has decided he doesn't want to use condoms, and anyway the church's strictures don't apply to him because he isn't Catholic. So How is that the fault of the church ?
///Her husband might put it about. He has aids...he then sleeps with his wife without protection because her religion forbids them...Or their religion...but it's her that following the rules of the religion.///
In that case the spread is limited to one person (the woman) unless she is putting it about as well, two if she gets pregnant. Meanwhile hubby is still putting it about and is busy infecting far more than two people because he has decided he doesn't want to use condoms, and anyway the church's strictures don't apply to him because he isn't Catholic. So How is that the fault of the church ?
Because if they said she could use a condom she wouldn't have got infected in the first place (limited anyway). She also wouldn't give birth to children that are/could be infected.
You seem to be comparing these people with us Westeners. Many do not have access to TV's, GUM clinics, Media..etc etc....The Catholic religion is being preached to them as gospel.
I'm a Catholic btw...
You seem to be comparing these people with us Westeners. Many do not have access to TV's, GUM clinics, Media..etc etc....The Catholic religion is being preached to them as gospel.
I'm a Catholic btw...
The last thing on my mind? The hymn seems to laud anyone who has been elected Pope. Are elections fool (or devil ) proof? Aids is passed on by unprotected sexual contact and contamination by other body fluids.
Catholic priests are supposed to be celibate. Sex is reserved for married couples. Only women can get pregnant. Men get the satisfaction, women the babies. Why does the catholic church want to keep women tied to childbearing and ignoring the possibility that sex could be enjoyable for a woman and fatal without condoms?
Catholic priests are supposed to be celibate. Sex is reserved for married couples. Only women can get pregnant. Men get the satisfaction, women the babies. Why does the catholic church want to keep women tied to childbearing and ignoring the possibility that sex could be enjoyable for a woman and fatal without condoms?
Naomi I checked that one out when it was posted before - it refers to a programme broadcast 7 years ago and iplayer doesn't go back that far, so I cannot comment on the content.
I did however do a little bit of homework, on the assumption that the Catholic church is not totally insane, and I found this little piece http://journals.lww.c..._Barriers_to_a.7.aspx published in 1997, which may well have formed the basis for what the church was saying at the time. I also found an earlier piece (dated around 1990) saying the same thing, but I didn't bookmark it.
Now, has condom quality and testing improved since 1997 ? I'd be astounded if they haven't. Is the church still telling people that you can still catch HIV when using condoms ? I doubt it, because it's just too good an item for Stephen Fry not to have used it in his piece against the church.
Were the church "cherry picking" in using that ? Yes, of course they were - it suited their purposes, which was to discourage the use of contraception, a position they have held for a long time. However they would also have discouraged sex outside of marriage, a rule which, if followed, would not contribute to teh spread of AIDS
I did however do a little bit of homework, on the assumption that the Catholic church is not totally insane, and I found this little piece http://journals.lww.c..._Barriers_to_a.7.aspx published in 1997, which may well have formed the basis for what the church was saying at the time. I also found an earlier piece (dated around 1990) saying the same thing, but I didn't bookmark it.
Now, has condom quality and testing improved since 1997 ? I'd be astounded if they haven't. Is the church still telling people that you can still catch HIV when using condoms ? I doubt it, because it's just too good an item for Stephen Fry not to have used it in his piece against the church.
Were the church "cherry picking" in using that ? Yes, of course they were - it suited their purposes, which was to discourage the use of contraception, a position they have held for a long time. However they would also have discouraged sex outside of marriage, a rule which, if followed, would not contribute to teh spread of AIDS
ummmm, I was brought up as a Catholic, and these days I go to church for baptisms, weddings, funerals and to accompany my wife at Christmas an Easter. I'm happy to accept that there may well be a god, but until I have proof I will continue to doubt it. Neither of my children have been confirmed or go to church any more, their choice. So now you know where I'm coming from, and what actually gets my goat is this business of tarring every one (or a whole community or organisation) with the same brush.
Sure, it's easy to say that the Church's teachings contribute to the spread of AIDS, but so far nobody has explained how, I, if I were a practising Catholic in the most Aids infested country in the world, could contribute to that spread if I follow the church's teachings. In essence that was the question I asked in this thread, and despite a lot of hot air, nobody has come up with an answer, because the only one that can be given is that I CAN'T contribute to the spread in those circumstances.
Sure, it's easy to say that the Church's teachings contribute to the spread of AIDS, but so far nobody has explained how, I, if I were a practising Catholic in the most Aids infested country in the world, could contribute to that spread if I follow the church's teachings. In essence that was the question I asked in this thread, and despite a lot of hot air, nobody has come up with an answer, because the only one that can be given is that I CAN'T contribute to the spread in those circumstances.
Huderon, come on! You have to be kidding me with that link. What's that? Any excuse?
The question we're discussing is not whether you personally contribute to the spread of Aids (although by excusing the Catholic church's stance you are in fact condoning its dogma) but whether the church with its attitude to the use of condoms exacerbates the spread of Aids - and I've given you the answer to that question more than once. It does.
The question we're discussing is not whether you personally contribute to the spread of Aids (although by excusing the Catholic church's stance you are in fact condoning its dogma) but whether the church with its attitude to the use of condoms exacerbates the spread of Aids - and I've given you the answer to that question more than once. It does.
Naimi, your story is an incident on South Africa, a country which is close to 80% Christian and has the highest number of people with Aids in Africa. Catholics in South Africa make up 3.8% of the population, that's around 1.7 million people.
The estimate in 2009 was that 5.6 million people there were living with HIV and AIDS ( http://www.avert.org/aidssouthafrica.htm ). Now even if every single Catholic there had aids and was busy sha99ing everyone with a pulse at every opportunity, I'd accept that they were contributing to the spread of AIDS.
Of course they WOULD be disregarding the Catholic church's rules on sex, but you implied that people in Africa believe what they are told, and if they are told that it is wrong to have sex outside marriage - which is what the Catholic church would say - and believe it, and follow that teaching, they are not going to contribute to the spread of AIDS.
Now I do not deny that some Catholics disregard the church's teachings, nor do I deny that doing so may well help to the spread of AIDS. All I have said is that following the church's teachings does NOT contribute to the spread of AIDS, and so far nobody has been able to explain to me how they do.
In the only example that does work (Catholic woman married to non-Catholic man who is putting himself about) the spread is limited to one or two people, but is caused not by the Catholic but by the non-Catholic who is the one going out and getting infected in the first place.
And while it is nice to have a pop at the Catholic church, don't forget that the other Christian groups also say you shouldn't do sex outside of marriage. So if, in the case above, the man is a Christian, he is breaking the rules of his own church's teachings, which is hardly the fault of the Catholic church.
The estimate in 2009 was that 5.6 million people there were living with HIV and AIDS ( http://www.avert.org/aidssouthafrica.htm ). Now even if every single Catholic there had aids and was busy sha99ing everyone with a pulse at every opportunity, I'd accept that they were contributing to the spread of AIDS.
Of course they WOULD be disregarding the Catholic church's rules on sex, but you implied that people in Africa believe what they are told, and if they are told that it is wrong to have sex outside marriage - which is what the Catholic church would say - and believe it, and follow that teaching, they are not going to contribute to the spread of AIDS.
Now I do not deny that some Catholics disregard the church's teachings, nor do I deny that doing so may well help to the spread of AIDS. All I have said is that following the church's teachings does NOT contribute to the spread of AIDS, and so far nobody has been able to explain to me how they do.
In the only example that does work (Catholic woman married to non-Catholic man who is putting himself about) the spread is limited to one or two people, but is caused not by the Catholic but by the non-Catholic who is the one going out and getting infected in the first place.
And while it is nice to have a pop at the Catholic church, don't forget that the other Christian groups also say you shouldn't do sex outside of marriage. So if, in the case above, the man is a Christian, he is breaking the rules of his own church's teachings, which is hardly the fault of the Catholic church.
Naomi, you posted a link relating to an old edition of Panorama, one I did not watch and have no way of watching.
Now you may well think that the Catholic clergy are all idiots, but I don't, and I have come across more than a few of them over the years. All I pointed out was that, in relation to the blurb for that edition of Panorama which was about the church telling people that you could get AIDS even when using a condom, there was SOME evidence available at a point before then that it could happen.
However much you may dislike the Catholic church and their teachings, the clergy in general are NOT idiots, and there are some very clever people in there.
Now, if you want to use that link to hit them over the head with, go ahead. Just be aware that there was SOME justification for what they were saying at the time, and I'd be very surprised if it wasn't mentioned in that Panorama programme as well - they call it balanced reporting.
Now you may well think that the Catholic clergy are all idiots, but I don't, and I have come across more than a few of them over the years. All I pointed out was that, in relation to the blurb for that edition of Panorama which was about the church telling people that you could get AIDS even when using a condom, there was SOME evidence available at a point before then that it could happen.
However much you may dislike the Catholic church and their teachings, the clergy in general are NOT idiots, and there are some very clever people in there.
Now, if you want to use that link to hit them over the head with, go ahead. Just be aware that there was SOME justification for what they were saying at the time, and I'd be very surprised if it wasn't mentioned in that Panorama programme as well - they call it balanced reporting.
Huderon, of course if people followed the orders of the church they wouldn't succumb to disease, but people are human, and the people I'm talking about don't know any different. They aren't capable of making an informed decision. Yes, they are superstitious, yes they are afraid of burning in hell (because quite disgustingly that's what they're taught is the penalty for 'sin' - and how I detest that word), but in amongst all that they are human - and the church IS at fault here because it fails absolutely to acknowledge, or to understand, or to empathise with human nature. Therefore, because of it's teaching on the use (or not) of condoms, it must take some responsibility for the spread in developing countries of the evil that is Aids.
I don't like to think I have a 'pop' at anyone. That smacks of dishonesty - and I abhor dishonesty. I simply say it as I see it. I can assure you that I'm just as likely to applaud a Catholic charity mission as I am to condemn an appalling, senseless, antiquated, philosophy that in a modern world means that innocent babies are born to die unnecessarily.
I don't like to think I have a 'pop' at anyone. That smacks of dishonesty - and I abhor dishonesty. I simply say it as I see it. I can assure you that I'm just as likely to applaud a Catholic charity mission as I am to condemn an appalling, senseless, antiquated, philosophy that in a modern world means that innocent babies are born to die unnecessarily.
Naomi, you really do have a thing about the Catholic church and condom use, so let me put it this way ...
Man tells girl he can't use a condom because he's Catholic. Girl says, you're Catholic, we are not married, so you can't have sex.
In other words, if a Catholic wants to disregard the sex within marriage teaching, using the teaching on contraception as a reason not to wear a condom is just an excuse. The church cannot, in my opinion, be blamed for what individuals decide to do or how they misuse it's teachings.
Man tells girl he can't use a condom because he's Catholic. Girl says, you're Catholic, we are not married, so you can't have sex.
In other words, if a Catholic wants to disregard the sex within marriage teaching, using the teaching on contraception as a reason not to wear a condom is just an excuse. The church cannot, in my opinion, be blamed for what individuals decide to do or how they misuse it's teachings.
Naomi, the church does allow for human nature - that's what confession is about. There is a catch 22 to that as well of course, it's not a get out of hell free card.
But all I have said with regard to breaking the rules and doing sex outside of marriage, is that if you break that one, you may just as well break the one on contraception. If a man does not WANT to wear a condom, he'll use any excuse he can come up with not to. It is hardly the church's fault if he uses their teaching as that excuse.
But all I have said with regard to breaking the rules and doing sex outside of marriage, is that if you break that one, you may just as well break the one on contraception. If a man does not WANT to wear a condom, he'll use any excuse he can come up with not to. It is hardly the church's fault if he uses their teaching as that excuse.
A quick query on WolframAlpha returns Christianity as being the largest world religion at 33%. Given the number of Christian churches around, I think it's safe to say that most of the people in developing nations are not Catholic.
Look, I'm more than happy to accept that the church's teaching on contraception is outdated, as is their attitude towards homosexuality. It's the broad brush statements like the one in the OP's question which annoy me.
Yes there are Catholics who have AIDS and who still have sex without using a condom. That's their decision, and they are not only disregarding the church's rules, they are also potentially breaking the 5th commandment as well, if the current Pope's thoughts are accepted. But that is down to individual decisions and actions (free will), not the teachings of the church, and, if there is a god and an afterlife, I'm sure they will regret it in the end.
Under Catholic teaching, you can disregard one (or more) of the church's teachings and not commit a sin if your conscience tells you that the teaching is wrong. There is a catch though (isn't there always ?). To do that you MUST have a fully informed conscience, which means you'd better have a very good and persuasive theological argument as to why the church is wrong on that matter.
Look, I'm more than happy to accept that the church's teaching on contraception is outdated, as is their attitude towards homosexuality. It's the broad brush statements like the one in the OP's question which annoy me.
Yes there are Catholics who have AIDS and who still have sex without using a condom. That's their decision, and they are not only disregarding the church's rules, they are also potentially breaking the 5th commandment as well, if the current Pope's thoughts are accepted. But that is down to individual decisions and actions (free will), not the teachings of the church, and, if there is a god and an afterlife, I'm sure they will regret it in the end.
Under Catholic teaching, you can disregard one (or more) of the church's teachings and not commit a sin if your conscience tells you that the teaching is wrong. There is a catch though (isn't there always ?). To do that you MUST have a fully informed conscience, which means you'd better have a very good and persuasive theological argument as to why the church is wrong on that matter.
