Log in

View Full Version : Religion



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12

eagle2
09-22-2010, 09:33 AM
I'm just saddened that there is so much Catholic HATE in this thread. I posted another church that actually espouses hate and people brush it aside. I can mention many PROTESTANT churches that preach hate and do little to help anyone, and no one ever makes a peep.



There isn't Catholic hate in this thread. People are condemning the church's actions that have harmed other people, not Catholics for their religious beliefs. I have nothing against people who follow the Catholic Religion, but I do have a problem with the Catholic Church when their actions harm other people.

eagle2
09-22-2010, 09:47 AM
How do you know this? If you are correct that these statements were told (assuming you KNOW the truth and aren't just relying on anti-Catholic propaganda, or out-of-context statements), then I agree that, although somewhat true (even the condoms packaging warns that condoms cannot guaranty against the spread of STDs), these statements are misleading, and should be censured.



Again, no religion is "clean" - humans are humans. Will you tell a Jew not to contribute to his synogogue, because of the excessive and outrageous "self-defense" tactics of Israel?


I'm sure there are plenty of synagogues and churches whose leaders have not committed or protected criminal actions. Contributing to a synagogue has nothing to do with any actions taking by Israel's government, unless the synagogue is contributing money to the government of Israel.



I contribute to my church, because, without parishioner support, there would be no church to worship in. The mortgage and other expenses don't pay for themselves. Furthermore, I highly doubt that my miniscule contribution (I am not a big donor) goes farther than our local church and its local charities. If my church was shown to be directly involved in wrongdoing, and the wrongdoers were not held accountable, I would go to another Catholic church and donate to another Catholic church.

No, your contributions go to the entire church, not just the one you go to. The Vatican's biggest source of revenue is American Catholics.




What do you contribute to? Do you really think there is any institution, relgious or secular that has perfectly "clean hands".

Again, there are plenty that have not committed and covered up criminal actions.



Again, imagine holding all dancers accountable for the "bad things" that some dancers do. I know that dancers are not organized into an institution, but the principal is the same - punish the "bad" individuals and don't castigate or stereotype an entire group for the sins of some.

It's not the same. Dancers aren't responsible for other dancers' actions.



The Catholic Church is the biggest religion/denomination in the world and is world-wide with 1.1 billion people. Its far too easy to find a handfull, or even hundreds of bad incidents, and call the whole thing evill. But, if you want to be fair, you would have to put the "good" and the "bad" side by side.

I see the "bad" far outweighing the good, especially with your church's opposition to contraception.

eagle2
09-22-2010, 09:57 AM
^ You're shifting from genuinely bad conduct that we both agree is bad (like child sexual abuse, etc.), to religious beliefs, that we probably disagree on. Unnatural birth control (as distinguished from Church-approved natural forms of birth control), abortion, homosexuality, etc. - these issue are dealt with based on religious beliefs based on biblical interpretation. I am not Jew, Muslim, Bhuddist, etc., - and I don't share their religious views and beliefs, but I respect those religions and their non-violent beliefs.

I've personally researched the issue regarding unnatural birth control and I agree with the theological analysis of the Catholic Church. That doesn't mean that I don't use condoms - since I am FAR from being a saint.


You're such a liar. The fact that you use condoms show that you don't agree with your church.



The Catholic answer to concerns over STDs is to avoid sexual intercourse, except with your spouse. Of course, people in third-world countries also have to cope with rape, and I don't know how to address that situation. Should the Catholic Church give out condoms to suspected rapists and ask that they wear it when they commit acts of rape? If you want to be purely practical and logical, that would be the best approach, since the victim is less likely to have the time or opportunity to secure a condom.

It's none of your church's business if people want to have sex before they're married. Your statement about giving condoms to rapists is completely ridiculous, even from you.

eagle2
09-22-2010, 10:11 AM
\
If you compare abstinance until marriage (the Church ideal) vs. sexual promiscuity (even with condoms) in a country where a HUGE percentage of the population is infected -- the Pope is correct that condoms have increased the risk of AIDs, because of the false sense of security and the tacit encouragement to be sexually promiscuous. (If you disagree, answer this question honestly - Would you knowingly have sex with a person infected with AIDS using a condom?... I sure as hell would not.)


You're an ignorant liar to make such a statement. Condoms have not increased the risk of AID's. Having sex with condoms is far, far safer than having sex without condoms.

There isn't a choice between everyone staying abstinent and engaging in sex. There are always going to be people who want to have sex before they're married. Simply telling these people not to have sex is not going to do anything. Providing them with condoms will greatly reduce their chances of getting AID's. Your church is constantly fighting this. Your church would rather see more people die from AID's than approve of using condoms to prevent it.



In a country with a massive AIDS epidemic - abstinence until marriage is really the only safe option (assuming your spouse has done the same).

No it isn't. Always using condoms will greatly reduce your chance of getting AID's. There are countries that once had "massive AID's epidemics" and they were able to stop it through the widespread use of condoms. Brazil and Thailand were both were successful in stopping the spread of AID's by promoting condoms.

Kellydancer
09-22-2010, 10:32 AM
There isn't Catholic hate in this thread. People are condemning the church's actions that have harmed other people, not Catholics for their religious beliefs. I have nothing against people who follow the Catholic Religion, but I do have a problem with the Catholic Church when their actions harm other people.

But other churches harm other people. For instance the radical forms of Islam hurt all of us. Conservative Baptists hurt all of us because various branches have tried to take away womens rights. Most churches have extreme members who have done harm.

eagle2
09-22-2010, 12:33 PM
I agree. Any religion that promotes hatred and/or ignorance is bad.

jack0177057
09-22-2010, 12:39 PM
Condoms have been a failure:
In addition to my arguments about the misguided reliance, misuse and defects of condoms,.. ironically, the biggest problem appears to be that there are not enough condoms to go around. Like Kellydancer said, these people don't have money for food. The rest of the world supplies them with some free condoms, but never enough.

Some 450 million male condoms are distributed in South Africa every year, but, with 16 million sexually active men and one of the highest HIV infection rates in the world, there are never enough.

The condom "solution" has been attempted for about 20 years and it has not proven itself a failure. I am not going as far as to say that people in Africa should not use condoms, but that it is not the solution to the AIDS epidemic.

Catholic solution proven to be the best:
According to a study of Uganda by the US Agency for International Development (USAID): "HIV prevalence peaked at around 15 percent in 1991, and had fallen to 5 percent as of 2001.This dramatic decline in prevalence is unique worldwide." USAID believes "The most important determinant of the reduction in HIV incidence in Uganda appears to be a decrease in multiple sexual partnerships and networks."

According to the report:

"HIV prevalence has declined significantly in Uganda: Now considered to be one of the world’s earliest and best success stories in overcoming HIV, Uganda has experienced substantial declines in prevalence, and evidently incidence, during at least the past decade, especially among younger age cohorts."

"Religious leaders and faith-based organizations have been active on the front lines of the response to the epidemic: Mainstream faith-based organizations wield enormous influence in Africa. Early and significant mobilization of Ugandan religious leaders and organizations resulted in their active participation in AIDS education and prevention activities. Also, Mission hospitals were among the first to develop AIDS care and support programs in Uganda. In 1990, the Islamic Medical Association of Uganda (IMAU) piloted an AIDS education project in rural Muslim communities that evolved into a larger effort to train local religious leaders and lay community workers. Documenting increases in correct."

"PROJECT LESSONS LEARNED CASE STUDY: What Happened in Uganda?
knowledge and decreases in risky behaviors, the IMAU project was selected as a “Best Practices Case Study” by UNAIDS. The Protestant Church of Uganda organized a workshop for bishops and other religious leaders in 1991, and implemented an extensive AIDS education project in many dioceses. The Catholic Church and mission hospitals provided leadership in designing AIDS mobile home care projects and special programs for AIDS widows and orphans. The three chairpersons of the Uganda AIDS Commission have included an Anglican and a Catholic Bishop. (The first leader was President Museveni.)"

"Condom social marketing has played a key but evidently not the major role: Condom promotion was not an especially dominant element in Uganda’s earlier response to AIDS, certainly compared to several other countries in east
ern and southern Africa. In Demographic Health Surveys, ever-use of condoms as reported by women increased from 1 percent in 1989, to 6 percent in 1995 and 16 percent in 2000. Male ever-use of condoms was 16 percent in 1995 and 40 percent in 2000. Nearly all of the decline in HIV incidence (and much of the decline in prevalence) had already occurred by 1995 and, furthermore, modeling suggests that very high levels of consistent condom use would be necessary to achieve significant reductions of prevalence in a generalized-level epidemic. Therefore, it seems unlikely that such levels of condom ever-use in Uganda (let alone consistent use, which was presumably much lower) could have played a major role in HIV reduction at the national level, in the earlier years. However, in more recent years, increased condom use has arguably contributed to the continuing decline in prevalence. "

"In the early 1990s, there was resistance on the part of the President and some religious leaders to promoting condom use, but by the mid-1990s the controversy had generally faded. Purchased mainly with external donor funds, millions of condoms have since then been distributed by the MOH through health centers and NGO projects. Condom sales and reported use have increased significantly during the past half-decade (although still not to the same extent as in other countries like Zimbabwe, South Africa, Botswana, and Kenya). High levels of condom use have been reported for commercial sex work (i.e., reportedly at near-100 percent levels in Kampala), and according to Uganda’s 2000 DHS, among people reporting a non-regular partner in the past 12 months, 59 percent of men and 38 percent of women reported using a condom with their last non-regular partner. Therefore, current condom use rates with non-regular partners are probably playing a role in the continued declining seroprevalence. Note that while condom use with non-regular partners has been increasing, Ugandans are also reporting significantly fewer non-regular partners. In contrast, according to John Stover, if condom use in Kenya had not been as plentiful, seroprevalence might have increased even more than it has. But without the other, Uganda-like behavior changes (i.e., delay of sexual debut and “zero grazing”/partner reduction), prevalence did not decline."

"The most important determinant of the reduction in HIV incidence in Uganda appears to be a decrease in multiple sexual partnerships and networks: In general, Ugandans now have considerably fewer non-regular sex partners across all ages. Population-level sexual behavior, including the proportion of people reporting more than one sexual partner, in Kenya ( 1998 ), Zambia (1996), and Malawi (1996), for example, appear comparable to those reported in Uganda in 1988 - 89. In comparison with men in these countries, Ugandan males in 1995 were less likely to have ever had sex (in the 15-19-year-old range), more likely to be married and keep sex within the marriage, and less likely to have multiple partners, particularly if never married."

"A “social vaccine” in Africa? (Can this success be replicated?) It must be remembered that many of the elements of Uganda’s response, such as high-level political support, decentralized planning, and multi-sectoral responses, do not affect HIV infection rates directly. Sexual behavior itself must change in order for seroincidence to change. According to Stoneburner, the effect of HIV prevention interventions in Uganda (particularly partner reduction) during the past decade appears to have had a similar impact as a potential medical vaccine of 80 percent efficacy. The historical and socio-cultural context, various interventions and other factors are complex and may be somewhat unique to Uganda, and it is not clear to what extent this success can exactly be replicated elsewhere, especially in more cosmopolitan, Westernized settings. However, recent seroprevalence and behavioral survey data among youth in Zambia indicate that a Uganda-like success story may be in the making there as well. According to a recent study by Population Services International, the main factor behind the large decline in prevalence among Zambian youth during the 1990s was a significant reduction in multiple partner trends."

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/aids/Countries/africa/uganda_report.pdf

Secular Agreement with the Pope

Benedict Is Actually Correct, concedes Edward C. Green, director of Harvard AIDS Prevention Research Project: "This is hard for a liberal like me to admit, but... there's no evidence at all that condoms have worked as a public health intervention intended to reduce HIV infections at the 'level of population.' This is a bit difficult to understand. It may well make sense for an individual to use condoms every time, or as often as possible, and he may well decrease his chances of catching HIV. But we are talking about programs, large efforts that either work or fail at the level of countries, or, as we say in public health, the level of population."

Condom Programs Fail in Africa, insists Giuseppe Caramazza in The Guardian: "The condom might work in Europe; perhaps it does in Latin America. It certainly does not in Africa. Those countries that have chosen to popularise use of the condom – like many nations in southern Africa – are now fast changing policies. Those countries that have given emphasis to late start of sexual activity, abstention and faithfulness in relationships have seen a dramatic fall in the rate of new cases. According to UNAids, in Botswana 24% of the adult population is infected by the HIV virus, in South Africa 18%. In Uganda, after a two-decade campaign stressing the importance of abstinence and faithfulness, the figure is under 7% – a fact noticed by various international agencies, which are now quietly modifying their targets."

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Pope-Benedict-Sparks-Condom-Debate-Ahead-of-World-AIDS-Day-1747

Non-religious arguments against relying on condoms as the "solution":

1. The distribution of condoms harms women by taking away a major tool they have for protecting themselves against undesired sexual pressures. In African society, a man who impregnates a woman is considered responsible for protecting and supporting the child. This allows women to use this risk of responsibility as a defense. Condoms invalidate this by vastly decreasing the probability of pregnancy. They also make men feel less responsible for any children created during sex while using condoms because condoms give a false sense of security against pregnancy.

2. Condom distribution doesn't significantly decrease HIV/AIDS. It's likely that they don't even reduce the prevalence of these diseases. Countries in which condoms have been widely distributed for years are still dealing with HIV/AIDS epidemics. Hundreds of thousands of Africans still die each year because of AIDS.

3. Condom distribution can increase the prevalence of AIDS. If people think that they can have risk-free sex by using a condom, they are likely to have sex more often and with a greater range of partners. Although condoms have a high success rate, it's still imperfect. If people have sex more often because they have condoms, it's possible that the increase in sexual activity will override the intended disease preventing effect of increased condom usage.

4. The money spent on distributing condoms could be better spent on education about abstinence and HIV/AIDS for African countries. Although the sex using condoms is less likely to spread HIV than sex not using condoms, not having sex at all decreases the chances by an enormous factor. If our current efforts being channeled into condom distribution were largely shifted into efforts to discourage polygamy, prostitution, sex before marriage, and sex with multiple partners, we would be much more likely to attain the desired result of reducing the harm caused by HIV/AIDS in Africa. Instead of encouraging more sex in an HIV/AIDS infused culture through widespread distribution of condoms, we should encourage more abstinence and monogamy.

flickad
09-22-2010, 11:59 PM
Jack - I realise that humans are capable of self-control, but realistically speaking, they don't always exercise it.

The point is that the pope's statement was misleading and potentially harmful. Sure, advocate abstinence followed by monogamy as the ideal situation, but don't say that condoms are counter-productive.

At mo point did I disagree that abstinence is the surest way to avoid disease. Certainly it is. What I did disagree with is that condoms are ineffective when the parties are not abstinent. They are 98% effective and suggesting otherwise is misleading.

I know that few kids actually are abstinent as they are taught to be. However, the problem with abstinence-only education is that it does not mention birth control and condoms, which has caused the problems of which you speak. It was not teen pregnancy but rather religious imperative that changed sex education in the US.

flickad
09-23-2010, 12:15 AM
[B]

Non-religious arguments against relying on condoms as the "solution":

1. The distribution of condoms harms women by taking away a major tool they have for protecting themselves against undesired sexual pressures. In African society, a man who impregnates a woman is considered responsible for protecting and supporting the child. This allows women to use this risk of responsibility as a defense. Condoms invalidate this by vastly decreasing the probability of pregnancy. They also make men feel less responsible for any children created during sex while using condoms because condoms give a false sense of security against pregnancy.

2. Condom distribution doesn't significantly decrease HIV/AIDS. It's likely that they don't even reduce the prevalence of these diseases. Countries in which condoms have been widely distributed for years are still dealing with HIV/AIDS epidemics. Hundreds of thousands of Africans still die each year because of AIDS.

3. Condom distribution can increase the prevalence of AIDS. If people think that they can have risk-free sex by using a condom, they are likely to have sex more often and with a greater range of partners. Although condoms have a high success rate, it's still imperfect. If people have sex more often because they have condoms, it's possible that the increase in sexual activity will override the intended disease preventing effect of increased condom usage.

4. The money spent on distributing condoms could be better spent on education about abstinence and HIV/AIDS for African countries. Although the sex using condoms is less likely to spread HIV than sex not using condoms, not having sex at all decreases the chances by an enormous factor. If our current efforts being channeled into condom distribution were largely shifted into efforts to discourage polygamy, prostitution, sex before marriage, and sex with multiple partners, we would be much more likely to attain the desired result of reducing the harm caused by HIV/AIDS in Africa. Instead of encouraging more sex in an HIV/AIDS infused culture through widespread distribution of condoms, we should encourage more abstinence and monogamy.


1. How about the word 'no'? You don't need to make any excuse to refuse sex.

2. Yes it does - where condoms are widely used, AIDS is less of a problem. Condoms are 98% effective.

3. See above.

4. What's wrong with advocating condom use as part of the responsible sexual behaviour ideas here?


Please stop defending this crap (particularly since you use condoms yourself and obviously don't buy your own bullshit about how ineffective they are). I don't want the good opinion I have of Catholics as a whole to be tarnished.

Dirty Ernie
09-23-2010, 07:36 AM
abstention and monogamy (with a partner whose done the same). Again, we're talking about a region with the worst AIDS epidemic in human history - extreme situations call from extreme measures.

you consider abstinence and mongamy, tenants of your church, to be extreme?

I personally used this line - "Just this one time, I'll pull out right before I come." - and it resulted in a lovely baby girl. (No regrets.)

Is this monogamy or abstinence here?
As a Catholic, you must regret your sins, otherweise, absolution is impossible. Not only are you a hypocrite, you're a lousy Catholic. Don't worry, the Church is full of them.

Seriously, are we really animals that can't control ourselves? Most of the guys that go to SC get seriously turned on from LDs and still manage to refrain from forcing themselves on the dancer. Half of them will go home and have sex with their wives and the other half will go home and masturbate. (Good kinky and fetish porn for masturbation might help the Africans.)

If abstinence is impossible, what about monogamy? Have sex with your high school sweatheart, marry him/her when you're older, and never sleep with another person.



Again, we're talking about an extreme situation - an EXTREME AIDS EPIDEMIC! - People, put your clothes on and stop fucking everything is sight, because half of the people you're fucking have AIDS!

If half of the boys you have had sex with said - "I have AIDS, but not to worry, I have a condom." - would you have slept with them?

My sex-drive is extremely powerful, but my keep-alive-drive is even more powerful. I would not fuck Angelina Jolie is she had AIDS, even with 10 condoms on.

Your ignorance of the cultural differences of life in America and life in Africa, and it's contribution to the HIV problem is glaringly on display throughout this thread.

Everything in our society glamorizes and celebrates promiscuity and porn has penetrated (no pun intended) and influenced the main stream - for example, music videos, fashion and fitness trends (e.g., strip aerobics and pole-dancing). (I'm not saying these things are bad - porn has some good attributes, when restricted to adults - its entertaining, it encourages women to explore their sexuality, it adds some spice to "vanilla" sex. It also encourages masturbation, which could be a way to cut down on promiscuity and the spread of STDs, in places with epidemics like Africa.)

Maybe the Church could supply VCRs to every African male so he can watch porn and masturbate instead of having sex. And power plants too , while they're at it.

As for excusing your bad behavior with "Im not a saint", the Church's goal is not to make you a saint. It's to show you the right path to God. Sainthood is rare and usually requires the occurence of a miracle associated with the nominee's life work.

Now we know why they call the congregation sheep! Baaa

Dirty Ernie
09-23-2010, 07:45 AM
Catholic solution proven to be the best:

In 1990, the Islamic Medical Association of Uganda (IMAU) piloted an AIDS education project in rural Muslim communities that evolved into a larger effort to train local religious leaders and lay community workers. Documenting increases in correct."

The Protestant Church of Uganda organized a workshop for bishops and other religious leaders in 1991, and implemented an extensive AIDS education project in many dioceses.

The Catholic Church and mission hospitals provided leadership in designing AIDS mobile home care projects and special programs for AIDS widows and orphans. The three chairpersons of the Uganda AIDS Commission have included an Anglican and a Catholic Bishop. (The first leader was President Museveni.)"


All the Catholics did was care for the sick (which they do very well all over the world), but it was the Muslims and Protestants who educated and effectively changed brhavior. There is no Catholic Solution.

jack0177057
09-23-2010, 10:45 AM
1. How about the word 'no'? You don't need to make any excuse to refuse sex.

You are making far too many assumptions - particularly, the assumption that women in Africa can assert themselves and can say "no" like (most) women in the US, and that men in Africa will honor that decisions like (most) men in the US.

I'm willing to bet that many women in Africa would be happy to be in monogamous relationships. From what I've heard, men are very sexually aggressive (rape is rampant in Africa). The men need to be trained to respect women and to practice monogamy.


2. Yes it does - where condoms are widely used, AIDS is less of a problem. Condoms are 98% effective.

Again, Africa is an extreme situation of AIDS epidemic. The Pope said, "You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms,... On the contrary, it increases the problem."

I referenced a US Agency for International Development (USAID) report that agrees with this and so does Edward C. Green, director of Harvard AIDS Prevention Research Project. Even a liberal professor in ultra-liberal Harvard agrees with the Pope's statement that condoms are not going to solve the AIDS issue in Africa. Its has been tried for 20 years and it has failed.

Also, here again, you make far too many assumptions: (1) that there are enough condoms available for ALL people (considering the size and poverty in Africa - this is the biggest and most erroneous assumption), (2) that the condoms are of the same quality as condoms in the US (if they are locally made, that is highly doubtful), (3) that the condoms are good and fresh, and not expired or "reject" condoms from other countries, (4) they have not been subjected to extreme temperatures that jeopardize their effectiveness, (5) that the people are going to know how to use them (i.e., put them on before any precum, so they don't slip out, and take them off immediately after ejaculation), (6) that the people will have the discipline to ALWAYS use a condom (except within a marriage), even for oral sex.

You yourself admitted you would not have sex with someone with AIDS, even with a condom. Let's do a little math here - let's assume all of the above are true and a person in AIDS-infested Africa ALWAYS uses a GOOD condom that is 98% effective (each act of intercourse). She has sex about twice a week, and in the course of a year, she's been with 10 different guys. Let's assume half of them have the AIDS virus. She's had sex a total of 104 times that year - and half of those times (52), she's exposed herself to a 2% chance of contracting AIDS. The 2% chance of contracting AIDS is multiplied by the number of times she has sex with an infected person. (Maybe a math wiz on this forum can compute the actual probability that she has AIDS.)

At the very least, you should concede that it is a legitimate debate - regardless of which side you're on.


4. What's wrong with advocating condom use as part of the responsible sexual behaviour ideas here?

Please stop defending this crap (particularly since you use condoms yourself and obviously don't buy your own bullshit about how ineffective they are). I don't want the good opinion I have of Catholics as a whole to be tarnished.

Personally, I agree with you that condom use should be enouraged for safe sex - but, it should not be relied upon as "the solution" (i.e., the magic bullet) to the AIDS epidemic. The "surest way" to effectively cut down on the problem is with reducing exposure, i.e., monogamy.

Also, here is the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about --- pervasive and undeterred rapes of women in Africa by infected men. If you want to think logically and practically (suspending moral outrage for just a minute) the "condom solution" would require reaching out to the rapists, and educating them on the use of condoms. A victim is unlikely to force her aggressor to wear a condom.

How would you feel about a program that trained potential rapists on safe-rape? The rape victim would still be a victim of rape, but at least, she would not be killed with the AIDS virus. Serial rapists are probably a main factor in the spread of AIDS. (I am NOT advocating this one way or another - just throwing out there what no one wants to talk about.)


All the Catholics did was care for the sick (which they do very well all over the world), but it was the Muslims and Protestants who educated and effectively changed brhavior. There is no Catholic Solution.

Most of the religions involved in Africa agree that monogamy is the best solution and they're all working towards that end. The report by the US Agency for International Development gives credit to the Catholic Church and other religions for their efforts. I am not going to debate which religion did more or deserves more credit, because that's silly. I only mention the Catholic Church in my posts because: (A) I'm Catholic, and (B) I'm responding to Catholic-bashing. (To be fair to flickad, I don't think she's Catholic-bashing, but she has strong disagreements with the Catholic Church, and I'm just responding to that.)

eagle2
09-23-2010, 11:20 AM
Jack,

All you're doing is coming up with nonsense to try and justify your church's abhorrent position. It is a fact that having sex with condoms is much safer than having sex without condoms. Those are the only two alternatives. Nobody is saying monogamy or abstinence shouldn't be encouraged, but not everyone is going to follow it. For those who choose not to practice abstinence, condoms greatly reduce the risk of getting AID's and other STD'S.

Condoms have been very effective in preventing AIDs where there has been a serious effort to promote them. Brazil was having a serious AIDs epidemic in the early 1990's. The government made a serious effort to promote the use of condoms and to make them more widely available. As a result, there was a significant decline in the number of people getting AIDs.

It's common sense that providing more people with condoms and educating them about how to use them to prevent disease will reduce AIDs, but you choose to throw common sense out the window and follow your church without question, regardless of the consequences. You're a perfect example of how religion is harmful to society. You obviously know condoms are effective, since you use them yourself, but you still go along with your church's position no matter how many people are harmed because of it.

flickad
09-24-2010, 06:47 AM
Re - not having sex with someone who I know has AIDS: Very few people say 'Hi, I have AIDS, wanna fuck?'. With respect to Africa, those infected may not know that they are, and if they do know, they very likely aren't telling. Therefore, Africans in general aren't having sex with people who they know for a fact are infected.

I would and have had protected sex with people whose HIV status I do not for a fact know. I would not and never have (with one exception) had unprotected sex with such people.

Also, whether I would or would not choose to take the 2% risk with someone who I knew had AIDS does not affect the high efficacy of condoms. I would be bothered by the 2% risk with someone I knew to be HIV positive and so would not take it. Not everyone feels that way about a 2% risk. People risk greater odds than that with regard to complications from surgery quite frequently.

There is no guarantee that one's partner is faithful or HIV negative with respect to the abstinence followed by monogamy solution. I have heard that some African women contracted the disease through their husbands. Therefore condoms remain appropriate even within the paradigm of teaching sexually responsible behaviour as there is no guarantee that your partner is or has always been sexually responsible.

Rape is a huge problem in Africa, and though it does seem like condoning it to educate rapists about condoms, it beats the opposing problem of rape victims ending up with a devastating disease on top of massive emotional trauma. However, few rapists will come out as rapists and attend a safer rape education session. Therefore safer sex education would not be specifically targeted at rapists in any event.

The quality of condom issue is potentially a valid one and should be addressed as part of any safer sex campaign in Africa.

Do you really believe that condoms make the problem worse or are you being defensive because the Pope said they do? It is possible to disagree with some things done by the leaders of the Church and still accept the foundations of your faith, you know.

Dirty Ernie
09-24-2010, 07:48 AM
It is possible to disagree with some things done by the leaders of the Church and still accept the foundations of your faith, you know.

This may be true in other religions, but the Pope has "ex cathedra infallibility", so despite all the half-Catholics attending Mass, those who disagree with the Church on such matters are, technically, unable to enter heaven. But the Church looks the other way because more congregants = more money and power, and if only the true adherants remained the Church's heirarchy would be unsustainable.

Elvia
09-24-2010, 01:31 PM
But I do think that it's unfair to hold out the Catholic Church as the epitome of all that's evil when, in context, it is no such thing. It's one of many religions that has acted badly in certain respects, and is nowhere near the worst of the bunch.

I never said the Catholic church was the "epitome of evil." I never said that no other organization has ever done horrible things. I don't see how anyone could give their money to a mosque that funded atrocities and human rights abuses either, but I don't think all mosques do, far from it. The difference with the Catholic Church is that when you make a donation it doesn't stay within your own little community. It all gets spread out amongst the entire Catholic Church, and so it does go to fund horrible things.

You're trying to point the finger at others wrongdoings as an argument in support of the Catholic church. It's a logical fallacy.

Elvia
09-24-2010, 01:36 PM
Again, no religion is "clean" - humans are humans. Will you tell a Jew not to contribute to his synogogue, because of the excessive and outrageous "self-defense" tactics of Israel?



As has already been explained a few times now: When I give money to my Temple, that money does not go to the Israeli government. In fact, the money doesn't go to Israel at all. It stay within the Temple and to a few local charitable organizations that I have checked out and agree to help fund.
So I accept the responsibility of understanding where my money is going. I do not fund atrocities. If my Temple wanted to do that, I would leave. If it meant not being able to go to Temple at all, then so be it. I wouldn't say "Oh, well, Catholics fund horrible stuff too so I guess I'll just keep handing money over." I don't understand how anyone can justify that attitude.

Elvia
09-24-2010, 01:43 PM
There are many reasons why the US has high teen pregnancy and disease rates and not all of it is because of abstinence classes. I personally feel that kids should be taught about condoms and other birth control but also that it's wrong to sleep with someone as a teen.


I would raise holy hell if you tried to teach my child that. You and your church have no business teaching my kids that it is "wrong" for them to have sex. I do not want you pushing your views on my kids and shaming them for having a healthy sex life. Keep your own personal sexual morals in your church where my kids won't have to be exposed to it. No Catholic guilt and shame for us, thankyouverymuch.

Kellydancer
09-24-2010, 01:51 PM
I would raise holy hell if you tried to teach my child that. You and your church have no business teaching my kids that it is "wrong" for them to have sex. I do not want you pushing your views on my kids and shaming them for having a healthy sex life. Keep your own personal sexual morals in your church where my kids won't have to be exposed to it. No Catholic guilt and shame for us, thankyouverymuch.

Why is it wrong to tell teens it's wrong to sleep with others? It is no matter the religion. Teens aren't mature enough to understand sex. Then when they get pregnant (and many do) many times TAXPAYERS pay for their choices. Teens shouldn't be having sex. If I had a teen and found out they were having sex I'd be livid. Of course then I'd watch them like a hawk as parents should do.

Any parent that tells their teens they should have sex are unfit parents and need to have their parental righs eliminated.

Elvia
09-24-2010, 02:03 PM
^^^ Why is it wrong? Because not everyone believes that. I do not believe it would be "wrong" for my teenager to have sex with another teenager. I don't think anyone can fully "understand sex" until they've had some experience having sex, and that's the case if you start having a sex life at 16 or 30. We had VERY comprehensive sex ed at my alternative high school and in it's 30+ year history there was not 1 teen pregnancy. Meanwhile, kids who preach the values of abstinence are often getting knocked up themselves.


There's quite a wide space between telling kids that it's "wrong" for them to have sex and telling them to go out and have sex. Can you see that?


Teach your kids your personal morals about sex, and I'll teach my kids mine.

Kellydancer
09-24-2010, 02:05 PM
Because teens are too young to understand the consequences. They need to also learn that dating can be fun without sex.

Elvia
09-24-2010, 02:12 PM
Because teens are too young to understand the consequences. They need to also learn that dating can be fun without sex.

I wasn't. Probably because the consequences were EXPLAINED to me time and time again. I was able to make smart decisions about sex due to the comprehensive, guilt-free sex ed I received. It seems that most other kids in my school were as well. I also knew what kinds of sex acts I could engage in that had 0% risk of STD transmission or pregnancy. And sex ed isn't just about giving people permission to have sex. It's about empowering them to look within themselves and decide when to say "no" as well. I think we underestimate teens, which leads to under-educating them, which leads to all kinds of problems. I was capable of understanding that I can have fun outside of sex, and that relationships are about more than sex, without being told that my sex life was wrong and immoral.

Elvia
09-24-2010, 03:12 PM
So it's your contention that the ENTIRE Catholic Church condoned this? I agree some of the things that have happened within the church, both historic and present, are horrible, but the church is a huge institution and one should not hate an entire population of people or religion over the actions of a relative few.


My contention is that one cannot say they don't condone something when their actions reflect the opposite. I'm saying that when someone gives money to teh Catholic Church without this horrible atrocity being addressed, they are saying that it's not a big deal. You obviously do not care about the victims of the Magdalene Asylums. You're basically saying that they're lifetimes of suffering are worth it.

Like I said, if you want to characterize it as a charity, then hold it to the same standards you would any other charity. You wouldn't give to any other charity that has such a recent history of great human rights violations and has gotten away with it scot free. No other "charity" could survive having committed such abhorrent atrocities, which were sanctioned at the highest order.

If the Nazi's had soup kitchens, would you say it would have been a great act of charity for people to willingly give donations to the Nazi Party? Would you have handed over more and more money then and talked about not throwing the baby out with the bath water?

If you fund an institution with a great history of human rights abuses (and you do) then you can't play innocent when the next human rights abuse comes to light.

flickad
09-25-2010, 04:42 AM
I never said the Catholic church was the "epitome of evil." I never said that no other organization has ever done horrible things. I don't see how anyone could give their money to a mosque that funded atrocities and human rights abuses either, but I don't think all mosques do, far from it. The difference with the Catholic Church is that when you make a donation it doesn't stay within your own little community. It all gets spread out amongst the entire Catholic Church, and so it does go to fund horrible things.

You're trying to point the finger at others wrongdoings as an argument in support of the Catholic church. It's a logical fallacy.

I'm not trying to do that to whitewash the Catholic Church, whose actions I do not support in any of the instances mentioned here. I brought up other examples to provide balance and context and to show that no religion has clean hands. Why attack one without attacking a range of others?

rickdugan
09-25-2010, 10:46 AM
As has already been explained a few times now: When I give money to my Temple, that money does not go to the Israeli government. In fact, the money doesn't go to Israel at all. It stay within the Temple and to a few local charitable organizations that I have checked out and agree to help fund.

So I accept the responsibility of understanding where my money is going. I do not fund atrocities. If my Temple wanted to do that, I would leave. If it meant not being able to go to Temple at all, then so be it. I wouldn't say "Oh, well, Catholics fund horrible stuff too so I guess I'll just keep handing money over." I don't understand how anyone can justify that attitude.

They don't. The fallacies of your argument are the theories that (1) the bulk of money given to the local church and to the local Archdioces goes to Rome; and (2) that the Catholic church is a monolithic and evil organization.

First, let's be clear that each local Archdiocese acts with a great deal of autonomy. While each church kicks some money up to the Archdiocese, which in turn kicks some money up to Rome, the vast bulk of what a parishioner gives stays within the local church and the local Archdiocese. The Archdiocese, in turn, generally decides how the money is used locally.

So because you didn't seem to get it the first time, I will say it again: What I fund is soup kitchens, homeless and battered women's shelter, good schools in blighted areas, and a variety of other important things done by my Archdiocese in my local community. If I and others stop funding the Archdiocese, those things cease to exist.

Good thinking there by the way, cut off the homless and helpless today because of some discreet bad acts done under the Catholic banner. Is your temple going to step in and feed all the people left hungry in your area if Catholic shelters and kitchens disappear? Will it educate the children that may rely upon Catholic shcools today? I highly doubt it.

Oh, and before you have another drama queen moment about the funding of atrocities, the Catholic church did not fund the Sisters of Magdalene. It was completely self funded by its laundry operation. So local businesses that used their laundry services paid the tab, not the church. Now of course the Diocese in Ireland had to have known about the operation because they would have needed to approve the use of church personnel for the operations (and I have no idea why they thought it was ok), but it was not funded by parishoners or the Vatican. Do some reading before you make inaccurate statements like that.

And the Nazi analogy you included in another post was ludicrous. As I have also said before, the Catholic church helps millions of people, the Nazis killed millions. The analogy of the Nazis and the soup kitchen was just plain stupid.

I understand your feelings about the bad acts of a variety of parties under the Catholic banner over the years, but the church does a tremendous amount of good and your arguments of cutting off the good done all over this country because of moral outrage over the bad acts of a relative few is nonsensical. Unless, of course, you want to go down to the local Catholic soup kitchen and kick out the hungry because you are outraged over what happened in Ireland. :O

flickad
09-25-2010, 11:20 AM
^^

Also, the last Magdalene Asylum was shut 14 years ago. Collection money therefore could not possibly go to support them.

Elvia
09-25-2010, 12:21 PM
I'm not trying to do that to whitewash the Catholic Church, whose actions I do not support in any of the instances mentioned here. I brought up other examples to provide balance and context and to show that no religion has clean hands. Why attack one without attacking a range of others?

1) I talked about the Catholic church because the subject of the Catholic church came up. If the subject of, say, Islam being used to justify abuse against women came up, I would have railed against that.

2) The difference (and I've said this how many times now? At least 3-4?) Is that the Catholic church is so organized and has this system from above. So you can't just compare it to a situation where there are a few radicals and the rest of the religion disagrees with them. All these things I've mentioned- the Magdalene asylums, misinformation in Africa, condemnation of a raped 9 year old girl receiving a life saving abortion...all these things were (one more time for the cheap seats in the back!) SANCTIONED AT THE HIGHEST ORDER. They either came directly from the top (the pope/the Vatican) or were allowed to go by unchecked by the pope and the vatican. They could have spoken up and put a stop to any of these things immediately. They could step up and apologize for the Magdalene Asylums, try to do something for the victims, most of which are still alive today and suffering with the wounds inflicted by the Catholic Church. They could override the ex-communication of the doctors, nurses, and mother of the child who was given an abortion to save her life. They could make a correction about role condoms play in preventing the spread of STD's (which is not a matter or religious beliefs, but an indisputable fact that saves lives). They could have done more to protect children from sexual predators, rather than just shuffling predators around to areas where no one knows where they are and letting them continue to have access to children. But they didn't.

THAT, once again, is why it is not comparable.

Elvia
09-25-2010, 12:24 PM
^^

Also, the last Magdalene Asylum was shut 14 years ago. Collection money therefore could not possibly go to support them.


Yeah, no shit. I'm not saying that more money should go to support a system of slave labor (!?!?) I'm saying money should go to the VICTIMS who are still alive today and have received NO compensation for the dangerously strenuous labor they endured and that the Catholic church lined it's coffers with.

Elvia
09-25-2010, 12:46 PM
They don't. The fallacies of your argument are the theories that (1) the bulk of money given to the local church and to the local Archdioces goes to Rome; and (2) that the Catholic church is a monolithic and evil organization.

No, it's not. I never said it was the bulk. How much money has to fund atrocities before you people care? Because I personally don't like to fund atrocities, or organizations that fund atrocities, AT ALL. I guess I'm kooky that way. And I never said "evil." I don't believe in the concept of evil, it's an intellectual cop out. I think it's a largely corrupt organizations that has gotten away with a lot of horrible things, even very recently, and will likely continue to.

First, let's be clear that each local Archdiocese acts with a great deal of autonomy. While each church kicks some money up to the Archdiocese, which in turn kicks some money up to Rome, the vast bulk of what a parishioner gives stays within the local church and the local Archdiocese. The Archdiocese, in turn, generally decides how the money is used locally.

So because you didn't seem to get it the first time, I will say it again: What I fund is soup kitchens, homeless and battered women's shelter, good schools in blighted areas, and a variety of other important things done by my Archdiocese in my local community. If I and others stop funding the Archdiocese, those things cease to exist.

I guess since YOU didn't get it, I'll repeat myself again- you have NO CONTROL over where the money goes. Some of the money goes there, and some will go to horrible things. I know I would stop giving to my charity if I knew they had a horrible history of sanctioned human rights abuses. I would give my money to a charity that can help one child's life without destroying another at the same time.

Good thinking there by the way, cut off the homless and helpless today because of some discreet bad acts done under the Catholic banner. Is your temple going to step in and feed all the people left hungry in your area if Catholic shelters and kitchens disappear? Will it educate the children that may rely upon Catholic shcools today? I highly doubt it.

Stop pretending like the only way to help people is through the Catholic Church. And yes, my temple likely would step in and help the poor, it has a history of doing so (without abusing people).

Oh, and before you have another drama queen moment about the funding of atrocities, the Catholic church did not fund the Sisters of Magdalene. It was completely self funded by its laundry operation. So local businesses that used their laundry services paid the tab, not the church. Now of course the Diocese in Ireland had to have known about the operation because they would have needed to approve the use of church personnel for the operations (and I have no idea why they thought it was ok), but it was not funded by parishoners or the Vatican. Do some reading before you make inaccurate statements like that.

The laundries were PART of the Catholic church. They were born out of the Catholic church. But it's good to know that this is all just "drama" to you. Yet another giant "fuck you" to the people your church enslaved. So yes, the parishioners were giving money to an organization that was engaging in slave labor. I don't if the money directly went there or not.

And the Nazi analogy you included in another post was ludicrous. As I have also said before, the Catholic church helps millions of people, the Nazis killed millions. The analogy of the Nazis and the soup kitchen was just plain stupid.

The Nazi analogy is MORE extreme. But we're talking about a century of child labor...we crossed over into extreme quite a while ago. Hitler did a lot for Germany too, he did a tremendous amount to help Germany financially before the holocaust began. But we don't use that point to justify portraying him as a "great person." Atrocious human rights abuses have a way of overshadowing these things, huh? Unless it's an organization one personally identifies with, then people will say all kinds of things to try to excuse behavior they would never excuse from any other organization.


I understand your feelings about the bad acts of a variety of parties under the Catholic banner over the years, but the church does a tremendous amount of good and your arguments of cutting off the good done all over this country because of moral outrage over the bad acts of a relative few is nonsensical. Unless, of course, you want to go down to the local Catholic soup kitchen and kick out the hungry because you are outraged over what happened in Ireland. :O

Then insist that your church do something to help the victims of the Magdalene laundry. Until then, you can not say you care. You care about helping some people at the expense of others. There's no reason your church can't do that and continue to help others. It's not a "relative few." As has been said soooo, soooo many times, this was not the act of rogue individuals. It was sanctioned by the top, the pope.

flickad
09-25-2010, 10:41 PM
1) I talked about the Catholic church because the subject of the Catholic church came up. If the subject of, say, Islam being used to justify abuse against women came up, I would have railed against that.

2) The difference (and I've said this how many times now? At least 3-4?) Is that the Catholic church is so organized and has this system from above. So you can't just compare it to a situation where there are a few radicals and the rest of the religion disagrees with them. All these things I've mentioned- the Magdalene asylums, misinformation in Africa, condemnation of a raped 9 year old girl receiving a life saving abortion...all these things were (one more time for the cheap seats in the back!) SANCTIONED AT THE HIGHEST ORDER. They either came directly from the top (the pope/the Vatican) or were allowed to go by unchecked by the pope and the vatican. They could have spoken up and put a stop to any of these things immediately. They could step up and apologize for the Magdalene Asylums, try to do something for the victims, most of which are still alive today and suffering with the wounds inflicted by the Catholic Church. They could override the ex-communication of the doctors, nurses, and mother of the child who was given an abortion to save her life. They could make a correction about role condoms play in preventing the spread of STD's (which is not a matter or religious beliefs, but an indisputable fact that saves lives). They could have done more to protect children from sexual predators, rather than just shuffling predators around to areas where no one knows where they are and letting them continue to have access to children. But they didn't.

THAT, once again, is why it is not comparable.

I agree with everything you've said here except for the statement that it isn't comparable. Abuses have been sanctioned at the higher levels of other religions. In Australia, for instance, an Iman sanctioned the pack rape of a teenage girl, comparing her to 'uncovered meat' in the streets and saying that if cats eat uncovered meat, it is the fault of the uncovered meat, not the cats. Another instance (in Australia) relates to a sect of Hasidic Judaism, Adass. The principal was alleged to have abused some girls and the rabbis gave her 200 grand and flew her to Israel, where she is not expected to face extradition back to Melbourne or charges of any kind.

flickad
09-25-2010, 10:43 PM
Yeah, no shit. I'm not saying that more money should go to support a system of slave labor (!?!?) I'm saying money should go to the VICTIMS who are still alive today and have received NO compensation for the dangerously strenuous labor they endured and that the Catholic church lined it's coffers with.

Yes, it should.

Elvia
09-26-2010, 12:19 PM
I agree with everything you've said here except for the statement that it isn't comparable. Abuses have been sanctioned at the higher levels of other religions. In Australia, for instance, an Iman sanctioned the pack rape of a teenage girl, comparing her to 'uncovered meat' in the streets and saying that if cats eat uncovered meat, it is the fault of the uncovered meat, not the cats. Another instance (in Australia) relates to a sect of Hasidic Judaism, Adass. The principal was alleged to have abused some girls and the rabbis gave her 200 grand and flew her to Israel, where she is not expected to face extradition back to Melbourne or charges of any kind.

A single Iman is not comparable to a pope. It's more like a single rabbi, or a single minister. Again, it's the system from above that distinguishes the Catholic Church. If people don't want to support that Iman they can simply decide not to go to that mosque and not to financially support it. Yes, it is a terrible thing, but it is not on the same level as a conspiracy perpetrated by the Catholic Church all the way up to the top.

If I went to a temple where the Rabbi did something equally abhorrent, I would stop going to that Temple. I would demand the Rabbi and those that aided her escape be held accountable. I would urge others to find another synagogue. I would not just carry on as usual, sitting quietly in Temple as if there hasn't been a terrible miscarriage of justice and continuing to offer financial support as if it was all hunky dory.

rickdugan
09-26-2010, 05:29 PM
Then insist that your church do something to help the victims of the Magdalene laundry. Until then, you can not say you care. You care about helping some people at the expense of others. There's no reason your church can't do that and continue to help others. It's not a "relative few." As has been said soooo, soooo many times, this was not the act of rogue individuals. It was sanctioned by the top, the pope.

What do you, I or anyone else know about what the Pope has or has not sanctioned in modern times? Very little is the answer.

Now I normally do not pick fights up here on the pink side and do not want to come of as a religious nut (and I am far from it), but saying I don't care because I won't cause harm to those in need TODAY does not make sense. And I have made my opinions known on a few topics (not this one but some others), but I do not intend to deprive hungry people from food, homeless people from shelter or disadvantaged children of good schools because some people have done some bad things under the church's banner. It just makes no sense.

I truly feel for the women that were taken advantage of, but hurting the programs my local Archdiocese runs will not change what happened, all it will do is hurt needy people today. Sorry but I won't do that.

Now I actually agree that the church should do something for the relatively small number of affected women who are actually still alive, but there it is.

Now I suspect that we will never agree on this regardless of how many times we post back and forth, but I really think that you are looking at a large organization through a microscope. You have your particular feelings here, and I respect that, but what you are suggesting that Catholics do in response just makes no sense when you measure the outcome of that action.

Hopper
09-27-2010, 12:23 AM
Did somebody say "conspiracy"?

http://www.regnery.com/regnery/020618_goodbye.html

flickad
09-27-2010, 02:21 AM
^^

So, gay people and liberals are responsible for the Magdalene laundries, the pope's recent statement about the ineffectiveness of condoms and the excommunication of all involved in the lifesaving abortion performed on a nine-year-old girl? That's pretty way out, even for you. Particularly since none of these atrocities are particularly liberal or gay friendly.

Hopper
09-27-2010, 03:19 AM
^But it is in the interests of the RC church for the hierarchy to conspire to protect pedophile priests and move them around to other dioceses so they can continue to abuse children? That's way-out.

flickad
09-27-2010, 03:26 AM
^^

It is if it helps them sweep a reputation-destroying problem under the rug.

Kellydancer
09-27-2010, 10:30 AM
^^

So, gay people and liberals are responsible for the Magdalene laundries, the pope's recent statement about the ineffectiveness of condoms and the excommunication of all involved in the lifesaving abortion performed on a nine-year-old girl? That's pretty way out, even for you. Particularly since none of these atrocities are particularly liberal or gay friendly.

Since it's Hopper, don't forget it means feminists too. Of course the higher ups are all men, but Hopper will blame feminists too.

jack0177057
09-27-2010, 11:01 AM
There isn't Catholic hate in this thread. People are condemning the church's actions that have harmed other people, not Catholics for their religious beliefs. I have nothing against people who follow the Catholic Religion, but I do have a problem with the Catholic Church when their actions harm other people.

Again, you are condemning the entire Catholic Church - which is comprised of more than one billion people, for the sins of a relative few. The Catholic Church that I attend (and donate to), in a Houston suburb, has never had any sex scandal, or any other type of scandal. The priests and lay people are exemplary and do many fine works of charity. But, you would lump them all together with child molesters, people involved in cover ups, and other corrupt church officials.

If you make stereotypes of this ridiculous magnitude with any race, ethnicity, culture, country, profession, sex workers, etc... you would be clearly identified as a fanatical bigot.

Also, the point made by KellyDancer and myself - which I am tired of repeating - is that these scandals in the Catholic Church appear elsewhere - in fact, EVERYWHERE - other Christian denominations and other religions, schools, secular youth organizations (even those involving police officers), correctional facilities, etc., etc., etc. - but you (and the Catholic-bashers) only focus on the Catholic Church. Its nothing more than sheer bigotry.

Yes, punish guilty individuals in the Catholic Church - even the Pope - if clear evidence is shown (not just allegations) of CRIMES (not just ideas you disagree with). I am all for that - and it would be a great service to the Catholic Church.

Kellydancer
09-27-2010, 11:09 AM
Again, you are condemning the entire Catholic Church - which is comprised of more than one billion people, for the sins of a relative few. The Catholic Church that I attend (and donate to), in a Houston suburb, has never had any sex scandal, or any other type of scandal. The priests and lay people are exemplary and do many fine works of charity. But, you would lump them all together with child molesters, people involved in cover ups, and other corrupt church officials.

If you make stereotypes of this ridiculous magnitude with any race, ethnicity, culture, country, profession, sex workers, etc... you would be clearly identified as a fanatical bigot.

Also, the point made by KellyDancer and myself - which I am tired of repeating - is that these scandals in the Catholic Church appear elsewhere - in fact, EVERYWHERE - other Christian denominations and other religions, schools, secular youth organizations (even those involving police officers), correctional facilities, etc., etc., etc. - but you (and the Catholic-bashers) only focus on the Catholic Church. Its nothing more than sheer bigotry.

Yes, punish guilty individuals in the Catholic Church - even the Pope - if clear evidence is shown (not just allegations) of CRIMES (not just ideas you disagree with). I am all for that - and it would be a great service to the Catholic Church.

Agree with everything you said. I want to mention that the current church I attend (in fact where I am taking RCIA classes because I never made confirmation but everything else) has never had a sex scandal at all. In fact it's known as the church that has a fest every year with beer and rock music. My previous church had a priest who was famous for trying to figure out ways for poor kids in the area (the area went from middle class to ghetto) to attend the school free. He was never involved in a sex scandal either.

Like you I support going after priests who molest and I'm willing to bet other Catholics do too, including other priests because it makes them look bad.

ETA: I mention that I'm in the process of making my confirmation because that is the only thing I am missing (I have been baptized and made holy communion). I am taking RCIA classes to make confirmation, and am alone in this because everyone else in the class are converting to be Catholic. In fact two men are becoming Catholics because their wife and children are and they like the religion. If it was so bad, why would people be going back to actually convert?

jack0177057
09-27-2010, 11:38 AM
The difference (and I've said this how many times now? At least 3-4?) Is that the Catholic church is so organized and has this system from above. So you can't just compare it to a situation where there are a few radicals and the rest of the religion disagrees with them. All these things I've mentioned- the Magdalene asylums, misinformation in Africa, condemnation of a raped 9 year old girl receiving a life saving abortion...all these things were (one more time for the cheap seats in the back!) SANCTIONED AT THE HIGHEST ORDER. They either came directly from the top (the pope/the Vatican) or were allowed to go by unchecked by the pope and the vatican. They could have spoken up and put a stop to any of these things immediately. They could step up and apologize for the Magdalene Asylums, try to do something for the victims, most of which are still alive today and suffering with the wounds inflicted by the Catholic Church. They could override the ex-communication of the doctors, nurses, and mother of the child who was given an abortion to save her life. They could make a correction about role condoms play in preventing the spread of STD's (which is not a matter or religious beliefs, but an indisputable fact that saves lives). They could have done more to protect children from sexual predators, rather than just shuffling predators around to areas where no one knows where they are and letting them continue to have access to children. But they didn't.

When you make broad and sweeping allegation like these, you need proof to support them. The idea that the Pope controls everything done by every Catholic is a silly myth. It wasn't even true in the middle ages, when the Popes had real armies and the political backing of the Holy Roman Emperor. The Pope is a spiritual leader, just like other religions have spiritual leaders or influential leaders. Yes, there is some structure to the Catholic Church, that makes it a little more organized than other faiths, but that doesn't mean the Pope is in control of everything or sanctions everything.

The American Catholic Church, for the most part, is a lot more liberal than in other places, and disagrees with the Pope on a lot of issues. Most Catholics in Congress are liberal Democrats. (The most conservative Catholics are in the US Supreme Court - rumored to be part of Opus Dei, a supposedly "secret" global ultra-conservative Catholic organization with far-reaching power and influence - I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up in this Catholic-bashing thread. A post about Opus Dei in 3... 2... 1... )

In Spain, with respect to younger generations (younger than 50), the Catholic Church exists mostly in name only. They love to get their days (and weeks) off to celebrate Catholic holidays - partying and getting drunk - but their genuine religious devotion is very mild.

South America used to be very Catholic, but protestant groups have been very strong in recruiting Catholics to other Christian denominations.

In Africa, there are some strong Catholic converts, but there are also many that notice discover a better financial prospect by joining the priesthood of the Catholic Church. A poor peasant young man can greatly improve his station in life by becoming a Catholic priest. He may be answering a genuine spiritual calling - or - he may just be pursuing the only way out of abject poverty and starvation.

The great irony is that the sexual scandals have come at a time when the church has tried to relax many of its more conservative attitudes and to embrace "modernity". Although John Paul II was conservative and was respected and admired, the Catholic Church leadership was overtaken by very liberal influences during his tenure. One example - men that were effeminate and even "gay" were allowed to become priests, as long as they took vows of celibecy (i.e., no sex with other men - the same celibacy promise required of heterosexual priests). The standards for priests, which was once extremely rigid and conservative, was liberalized to allow more diversity. Instead of making the Catholic Church stronger, its efforts to become more liberal and "modern" have been catastrophic.

Elvia
09-27-2010, 03:03 PM
What do you, I or anyone else know about what the Pope has or has not sanctioned in modern times? Very little is the answer.

Now I normally do not pick fights up here on the pink side and do not want to come of as a religious nut (and I am far from it), but saying I don't care because I won't cause harm to those in need TODAY does not make sense. And I have made my opinions known on a few topics (not this one but some others), but I do not intend to deprive hungry people from food, homeless people from shelter or disadvantaged children of good schools because some people have done some bad things under the church's banner. It just makes no sense.


I just recently found out that NAMBLA does charity work as well. We better give those pedophiles money too then, huh? Sure some of that money will go towards their efforts to legalize child sex abuse, but I guess that's ok as long as they pass out some sandwiches and pick up liter on the side of the highway ::)

I guess as your church continues to commit atrocities (because really, why should they stop considering that you're going to continue handing over money no matter what happens?) You'll just continue to prattle off nonsense about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. No one is asking you to throw the baby out with the bath water. They are asking you to do something about that disgustingly filthy bathwater that you continue to allow your "baby" to sit in forever.

eagle2
09-27-2010, 07:52 PM
^But it is in the interests of the RC church for the hierarchy to conspire to protect pedophile priests and move them around to other dioceses so they can continue to abuse children? That's way-out.

It is. They don't loose their priests if they let them stay on and continue, and they don't get bad publicity if they keep what they did covered up.

Kellydancer
09-27-2010, 08:30 PM
I just recently found out that NAMBLA does charity work as well. We better give those pedophiles money too then, huh? Sure some of that money will go towards their efforts to legalize child sex abuse, but I guess that's ok as long as they pass out some sandwiches and pick up liter on the side of the highway ::)

I guess as your church continues to commit atrocities (because really, why should they stop considering that you're going to continue handing over money no matter what happens?) You'll just continue to prattle off nonsense about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. No one is asking you to throw the baby out with the bath water. They are asking you to do something about that disgustingly filthy bathwater that you continue to allow your "baby" to sit in forever.

I get it, you hate the Catholic Church. Since you aren't Catholic, I'm not sure why you care what they do. You are aware how much trouble the Islam religion has caused as well, aren't you? Or for that matter any religion. There are several churches here (none are Catholic btw) that cause trouble. How about that minister who's accused of molesting. It's not a Catholic only problem.

And honestly I'm not sure what NAMBLA has to do with this. That's not even a religion.

Elvia
09-27-2010, 08:59 PM
I get it, you hate the Catholic Church. Since you aren't Catholic, I'm not sure why you care what they do. You are aware how much trouble the Islam religion has caused as well, aren't you? Or for that matter any religion. There are several churches here (none are Catholic btw) that cause trouble. How about that minister who's accused of molesting. It's not a Catholic only problem.

And honestly I'm not sure what NAMBLA has to do with this. That's not even a religion.

I've addressed all this many, many times now Kelly. I won't bother to repeat myself again. I've explained the difference to you between the acts of rogue individuals, and a conspiracy. You don't address it, you just revert back to repeating your same argument again and again.

No, NAMBLA is not a religion. But if you follow the train of thought in this conversation, you'll see that's not relevant. Rick is defending overlooking the negative aspects of giving his money to the CC by arguing that they do good things as well. If that logic applies to the Church, then it applies to NAMBLA as well. I don't see what religion has to do with that, unless you believe that it's ok for the CC to get away with something we don't accept from other organizations simply because they have religious affiliation. But hey, for all I know maybe you do. It certainly looks that way.

As for the "why should I care" question....I mean really, just think about it. Does someone have to be Catholic to care about the damage done by the Catholic Church? Of course not. That's like saying I have no right to object to the holocaust because I'm not German.

Kellydancer
09-27-2010, 09:14 PM
I've addressed all this many, many times now Kelly. I won't bother to repeat myself again. I've explained the difference to you between the acts of rogue individuals, and a conspiracy. You don't address it, you just revert back to repeating your same argument again and again.

No, NAMBLA is not a religion. But if you follow the train of thought in this conversation, you'll see that's not relevant. Rick is defending overlooking the negative aspects of giving his money to the CC by arguing that they do good things as well. If that logic applies to the Church, then it applies to NAMBLA as well. I don't see what religion has to do with that, unless you believe that it's ok for the CC to get away with something we don't accept from other organizations simply because they have religious affiliation. But hey, for all I know maybe you do. It certainly looks that way.

As for the "why should I care" question....I mean really, just think about it. Does someone have to be Catholic to care about the damage done by the Catholic Church? Of course not. That's like saying I have no right to object to the holocaust because I'm not German.

Have their been too many priests who molest? Yes I'm not denying that and yes the church knows there's a problem. However, molesting is a problem everywhere. It just seems though that everyone concentrates on the evil the Catholic Church has done without discussing the evil ALL religions have done. On the flip side many religions (including Catholics) have done good things.

Elvia
09-27-2010, 09:18 PM
The great irony is that the sexual scandals have come at a time when the church has tried to relax many of its more conservative attitudes and to embrace "modernity". Although John Paul II was conservative and was respected and admired, the Catholic Church leadership was overtaken by very liberal influences during his tenure. One example - men that were effeminate and even "gay" were allowed to become priests, as long as they took vows of celibecy (i.e., no sex with other men - the same celibacy promise required of heterosexual priests). The standards for priests, which was once extremely rigid and conservative, was liberalized to allow more diversity. Instead of making the Catholic Church stronger, its efforts to become more liberal and "modern" have been catastrophic.

1) Let's not pretend the church has been steadily marching towards being more progressive. Notice that you had to go back to the last pope to make it look that way. Ratzinger was a giant step towards moving back to a more conservative church.

2) "its efforts to become more liberal and "modern" have been catastrophic." Please explain what this has to do with the "catastrophic" problems. Is moving in a more "progressive" direction what caused the molestation and coverup that's been going on for decades? Is that why the pope is telling people condoms have made the AIDS epidemic worse? Does this explain the Magdalene asylums that were opened over 100 years ago?

Kellydancer
09-27-2010, 09:23 PM
I have to agree with Elvia about the church moving more towards conservative, which is a bad idea. While Pope John Paul 2 was no liberal, he was a socialist compared to Ratzinger. This reminds me of the situation here. The last Cardinal of Chicago, Cardinal Bernardin was a pretty open minded guy for being a cardinal. He was well respected. The current one, Cardinal George is far more conservative and not open to bringing liberals and conservatives together like Bernardin was.

Elvia
09-27-2010, 09:24 PM
Have their been too many priests who molest? Yes I'm not denying that and yes the church knows there's a problem. However, molesting is a problem everywhere. It just seems though that everyone concentrates on the evil the Catholic Church has done without discussing the evil ALL religions have done. On the flip side many religions (including Catholics) have done good things.

It's more than the church knows it's a problem. The church covered it up, protected abusers, and put allowed them access to more victims. That takes things to a whole different level. I don't know how many times I have to go in circles with you again and again. That is NOT the same thing as the occasional pedophile continuing his crimes in secret. If you found out your child went to a school where a pedophile had been working and secretly abusing kids, that would be horrifying enough. Are you honestly going to tell me that if you found out the school had known about this teacher for decades, covered it up, pressured victims into remaining silent about it, and allowed him to continue working there and abusing more and more children, that wouldn't seem like an even bigger deal to you? You honestly don't see any significant difference between those two scenarios?

eagle2
09-27-2010, 09:30 PM
Again, you are condemning the entire Catholic Church - which is comprised of more than one billion people, for the sins of a relative few. The Catholic Church that I attend (and donate to), in a Houston suburb, has never had any sex scandal, or any other type of scandal. The priests and lay people are exemplary and do many fine works of charity. But, you would lump them all together with child molesters, people involved in cover ups, and other corrupt church officials.

It was the entire church. The church consists of the people who run the church, not every single Catholic who ever attends mass. It was the Catholic Church's policy to cover up for pedophile priests and allow them to continue. Do you think it's just a coincidence that every time the Church found out that one of their priests was raping children, the church allowed the priests to remain in their positions, or transferred them somewhere else, where they continued to commit more crimes? The church spent billions of dollars paying off victims to keep silent about the crimes being committed by priests.



If you make stereotypes of this ridiculous magnitude with any race, ethnicity, culture, country, profession, sex workers, etc... you would be clearly identified as a fanatical bigot.

No, you're a religious nut who posts personal attacks against anyone who mentions the many crimes committed by your beloved church.



Also, the point made by KellyDancer and myself - which I am tired of repeating - is that these scandals in the Catholic Church appear elsewhere - in fact, EVERYWHERE - other Christian denominations and other religions, schools, secular youth organizations (even those involving police officers), correctional facilities, etc., etc., etc. - but you (and the Catholic-bashers) only focus on the Catholic Church. Its nothing more than sheer bigotry.

You're lying. It's not EVERYWHERE. All you're doing is trying trivialize the crimes committed by your church. There are countless organizations that manage to operate without protecting and covering up for its members committing crimes against children.



Yes, punish guilty individuals in the Catholic Church - even the Pope - if clear evidence is shown (not just allegations) of CRIMES (not just ideas you disagree with). I am all for that - and it would be a great service to the Catholic Church.

So why have you continued to support your church without question while it was committing these crimes? What have you ever done to see that those people who have committed crimes are being punished? There are countless decent Catholics who stopped supporting their church when they found out what it's been doing.