Talk Elections

stand on condom use as the reason for AIDS in Africa, when, if Kunta Kinte really cared about what the Catholic Church said about sexual morality, he wouldn't be having premarital sex in the first place?

Moreover, is in wrong for white people to pretend to care about AIDS in Africa, when clearly all they want is for the Catholic Church to lift its ban on contraceptives and pre-marital sex, and are walking over dead African bodies as a means of getting their point across?

Well, is it?

The better argument for the Catholic Church's irresponsibility in Africa is that they refuse to give their aid money to condom distribution, where skeptics argue that it would be more effective than the money they spend on abstinence education.  In simple terms, if the Catholic Church didn't have a hang-up about condoms, they feel that fewer people would be dead in Africa.

By the way, calling all Africans as a group "Kunta Kinte" probably is going to strike a racism chord with some people.  Not me, but some people.

But if the White people who were so busy attacking the Catholic Church for its lack of action in opposition to its principles started sending money over to Africa to cover for groups that do dispense condoms then there would be no issue here.  Alas, the number of white people who are jumping on the wagon to bitch at the Catholic Church for not acting has not increased the level of action from Whitie on the issue.

It reminds me of the South Park episode lampooning post-Katrina, where everyone is so busy trying to blame someone/thing for what happened that no action is taken to help the people currently in crisis.

In a way, my Kunta Kinte comment was meant to be offensive, because I had intended my post to be as offensive as possible.  Sometimes the only way to get people (who are themselves being very offensive from my point of very) to realize how howl-at-the-moon, stupid-ass, careless they are being is to be offensive.

As far as I am concerned the Whites who use this to attack the Catholic Church are the real racists, since they don't really give a sh**t about millions dead in Africa, just so long as this gives them a platform to attack something they really don't like.

The Roman Catholic Church has done wrong in the past and will do wrong in the future.  So has my own beloved Episcopal Church and the wider Anglican Communion.  So have the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Methodists and the non-denominational groups.  I defy anyone to find a segment of the Christian church -- or of any religion -- that has not erred or done evil.

Such misdeeds should be properly owned by those to blame.

But what irks me is that those who are quickest to criticize and find fault with Roman Catholicism (or any other religion) are rather sluggish to acknowledge the great good the church has done.  I feel I owe a great debt to my Catholic brothers and sisters for so many things I haven't time or space to list them here.

No. Its most certainly not wrong.

Replacing some cultural myths and attitudes about sex (the infamous example: Raping a virgin gets rid of your AIDS) with a stident attitude against even condom use in marriage is certainly not very helpful mind.


You have a Disturbing mind.

I agree however that there is alot of showy "liberal" pseudo-intellectualism around certain positions of Catholic Church. (Moreso, Celibacy and Women priests imo)

And I'm no fan of the Catholic Church.

That isn't really a retort to their argument though.  Unless the Catholic Church's plan is to allow HIV to spread to the level that people feel compelled to donate, the two exist independently of each other.

The Catholic Church chooses to abide to their religious beliefs.  It, by most accounts, results in fewer deaths being prevented than optimally could be with the same number of resources.  A lot of non-Catholic thinkers object.  From where I'm sitting, I can't blame them.

Of course, a lot of those people just take glee in beating up the Church, but dismissing the complaints because of that would be well-poisoning.

Yes and no. It depends on how one views morality on a fundamental level. Personally, I've always thought it to be a bit unfair to attack a moral principle for the consequences of other people breaking it. At the same time I still understand where those people are coming from - the balance between pragmatism and principles is one I always found to be very tough.

But it's a bit strange for someone to say that others should have certain opinions because that person thinks it would optimize resource allocation...most people don't lift a finger for other people at all. Personally, if I see someone help a little old lady over the street I don't yell their head off because that person didn't help a lady who was older and more help-worthy.

My point is that people seem to think that the onus here is on the Catholic Church to fight AIDS by changing its position.  If people were truly concerned with fighting AIDS, then they would simply go around the Church and donate to organizations to do promote condom use.  It's as simple as that.  No one would waste anytime going after the Church for its stance.

Why have people decided that AIDS in Africa is in anyway the fault of the Pope?  It simply makes no sense, unless you want to find fault with the Church, which certainly many, many, many people do.

This is just like the notion that Pope Pius' "silence" somehow is responsible for the Holocaust.

I'm sick and tired of these hateful, inaccurate, pseudo-logical arguments being taken as obvious by people just because its the Catholic Church that is the target.

You're still missing the practical point.

If the Church used its money to get condoms, unless the fall in independent donations to independent condom organizations exceeded the Church's contribution (it would not), the net benefit in the Church changing its positions would be more lives saved.  Thus, there's the awkward moral calculus of evaluating how much maintaining that moral theological teaching is worth versus lives, or whether there's any question about it being maintained at all.

The hypocrisy of the critics is not central to the validity of the criticism.  Unless, of course, you believe that one has no right to criticize the efficacy of a practice unless they are fully dedicated to that practice too, which seems like a black and white view.

Yes, I understand that.  I am saying that people seem to assume that there is some need for the Church to change its position here, so that the funding can get to organizations which promote condom usage.  There isn't. hence no need for the attack.  If the same people who were bitching about the Church's lack of action, and there are many, even on this forum, would get off their own asses and do something, then there would be no need to even have this argument.

I don't need to attack the hypocrisy of those who make claims against the Church, in this case, at least not directly, because the very notion that the Catholic Church is or should be the principle actor in this case is badly flawed, from a logical perspective.

I do, however, feel that the sincerity of the critics does effect the validity of their criticism.  If someone is willing to point the finger at someone for acting not against their principles to do what the accuser thinks should be done if the accuser themselves in not willing to buck up and take responsibility, when the accuser is not bound by conscience the way the accused is.  This position is like attacking a devout Quaker for not resorting to violence to bring down an evil force when the attacker themselves was equally as capable of acting and did nothing.

So Chris, under what conditions would you find criticism of the Church's condom policy to be acceptable?  I mean, obviously I would prefer the Church drop the anti-condom policy (secularly) because it would do more good.  What would make me entitled to criticize their policy, should I want to?

If the Church showed some inconsistency in its position, which is exactly what would happen should they allow it in one place but not another, which, I feel, is exactly what alot of people in the West (I am intentionally excluding Africans here, because their desires are doubtless, sincere) want.

If the Church was all for people screwing around before marriage, but then denied people condoms, then I would see how one would be upset, I would be upset.  But the Church opposes pre-marital sex in general.  One can argue the validity of that position, I argue the validity of that position, but it is what they say... thus it only makes sense that they would say "no condoms, because no sex".

You talk about these two things as though they have anything even close to moral equivalency.

While on the topic, I understand that a number of people have gotten AIDS via rape, but the Church condemns rape, genocide, war and child soldiering as well.  And I doubt condoms will much of a difference there.


You have a Disturbing mind.

I agree however that there is alot of showy "liberal" pseudo-intellectualism around certain positions of Catholic Church. (Moreso, Celibacy and Women priests imo)

And I'm no fan of the Catholic Church.
[/quote]

What is so disturbing about my assertion of people having another agenda here, certainly since those who seem to be protesting the loudest about the Catholic Church not sponsoring or allowing condoms are many of of the same people who are doing the least to help out.

If I note a hint of cynicism the the "caring" of certain people... well, its a cynical world.

Somehow I doubt Westerners, particularly Americans, in general actually care about the people being effected in Africa, as we have proven time and again that we only care about ourselves.  Westerns like cheap labor, except when in means they lose their jobs.  Westerners like democracy, but won't lift a finger to help it spread.  Westerners applaud sacrifice, but are appalled when it comes at the expense of their blood and sweat.  And of course, Westerners care about the causes of other's... but only when its trendy or fashionable.

Westerners are lazy, shortsighted, self-absorbed, selfish and stupid and if I didn't love our culture so much I would say that we deserve to collapse.

Kinda a non-sequitur, I know, but at least now you know where I am coming from on this.

Well, their objections are obviously rooted in differing theology.  So, I guess your answer is, "they can't."  But I think you can probably see why secularists and non-Catholics see the RCC as wielding their money and influence irresponsibly, if those people see better uses for it.  It's a theological difference, and I don't personally think that means they should be forced to shut up.  Nor do I think it is inappropriate scapegoating as you implied in the first post, even though I doubt it increases the epidemic, as some assert.

Ignoring AIDS, one can also blame the Catholic Church for responsible for couples popping out tons of kids that they aren't able to support.

Exhibit A

Let's ignore Broken Condom over thar and go on with our fun

LOL

Well, played.  But none-the-less, his point of view, and the fact that he directly linked this to another issue he has other than AIDS is indicative of a number of people.  The general lack of sincerity here just astounds me.

Yes.

supersoulty, you're casually ignoring the fact that there are various brave aid organizations in Africa that are doing all they can to spread education about sex and the health benefits of condoms, despite the constants threats and deceitful myths spread out by the Catholic Church about condoms. My heart and good wishes go to all of them, and I occasioanlly send them monetary donations.

The Catholic Church is in a perfect position to also do this, but they do not. This makes them immoral. I do not care one bit what Church doctrine is. if you are in a position to save lives, and you do not do so, you are immoral.

I know your response will probably be 'But the church teaches abstinence instead.' Very well, but that does not account for the myths and propaganda sent out by them against condoms and it does not account for the attacks on anyone who promotes or distributes them.

Why can't the Catholic Church just say, ' it is our doctrine that you should not have sex before marriage and sex is only for procreation, but if you feel compelled to flaunt this doctrine, then please for your own sake, wear a condom.'

Why exactly can't or won't they say that?

You think one should always save lives, regardless of circumstances and what is required? I could save a ton of lives if I robbed a little old lady in the street and donated the money to charity, for instance. Is it immoral for me to refrain?

Not a fan of taxation, then?  :P

Huh?

Not to sound like a hyper-libertarian, but other than forcing you to spend time filling out forms, what's the moral difference between robbery and taxation, if both have the ends of bettering society?  What makes one moral, and the other immoral?  Besides the assumption that the government has more oversight in managing the money, and the negative psychological impact of being robbed forcefully, I don't see any.

Oh. Sure, that could be an interesting discussion, but I don't believe it's of the utmost importance for my point, since most people support the existence of taxes and don't support robbery.

But two answers to your point: in taxation we reach some sort of consensus whereby at least a majority of the people, hopefully guided by a constitution through certain measures try to achieve common goals. In the robbery I'm more into what Mango seems to be arguing, namely that I myself know what should be done and does it without paying any heed to other people.

Secondly, in most free societies there is an implied limit to what levels of taxation are acceptable. The robbery was based precisely on the premise that there was no such limit. Keep in mind that the robbery was supposed to be committed by me, living in a country with the world's highest taxes and the largest foreign aid, as a GDP percentage (IIRC).

That's fair.  I was mostly being snarky.  :P

Short answer to the original question?

No. The univeralism and indivisable nature of the Church and the hierarchy that has been constructed as a result means every problem, every wrong and every failing is ultimately the responsbility of the Vatican. Such is the nature of such an institution.

The analogy is false. You're talking about doing something seen as bad for the result of something generally seen as good. The Church is doing something they seem to think is good, with the result of something generally seen as bad.

Maybe if you actively created a major campaign against charities, told people they are useless and that bad things would happen to those who gave money to them...that might be a better analogy.

I never claimed it was an analogy. You said "if you are in a position to save lives, and you do not do so, you are immoral."

I merely asked if you actually believed in this by providing you with an example.

As for your point, the Church obviously think that the result they're getting (people not using condoms) is a good result and that the negative side-effects are an acceptable cost. Just the same as with my example. But, again, that is not really relevant. You made a very sweeping statement and I found it hard to believe that you would stand by it.

That is the nub of my critique. They seem to think that preserving the purity of their doctrine is more important than anything. If they really cared about AIDS, then they would make the statement I said above, ' Our belief is that you abstain from sex from marriage, but if you feel compelled to break this doctrine, then please wear a condom, for your own health.' I know there are some factions of the Catholic Church that wish they would say that, but unfortunately they are in the minority.

As for my statement, I admit is is sweeping. I meant it more rhetorically speaking, than anything. But I don't think it detracts from my argument, as you must admit that there are degrees of responsibility for saving lives. Not telling a deaf person that they're about to get run over is on the highest end, your analogy is on the lowest. As regards the argument we're having, the Church's responsibility is clearly close to the lower end of the scale, but that is not enough for an organization that proposes to be the beacon of moral guidance for a billion people.

Now I think we're getting to the truth. But I'll quit being a Socratic ass and just say what I'm trying to get you to admit: namely, that the real difference between you and the Catholic Church lies more in that you have different ideas of what is a moral principle. You wouldn't refrain from saving lives in order to uphold Catholic dogma, but you would, perhaps, hopefully, for other reasons. And the virtues of Catholic dogma are hard to argue about, imo.

I should note that I personally don't agree with it either. I'm a condom-supporter myself. :P

Well, first off, it's not the Catholic Churches position that sex is only for procreation.  I challenge you to do something that almost no one who opposes Catholic Doctrine has ever done and actually read Humanae Vitae.  The notion that the Catholic only wants you to have sex to make more little Catholics is a position that is advanced only by the ignorant, liars and feministas.

Secondly, if you oppose murder, do you then qualify that by saying, "but, if you are gonna do it, then shoot them in the head, so that way they don't feel it."  No, because, the mere sanity of saying something like that aside, it makes it so that you do, in fact, endorse murder.  The Catholic Church doesn't endorse premarital sex at all, thus they have no need to endorse anything other than not having premarital sex.  Plain and simple.

Most who do oppose Catholic doctrine (or parts of it) tend to read/quote Humanae Vitae re prohibition of artificial contraception. Rather than wave your arms about (as you seem to be doing alot recently) what Mango paraphrased was basically the position held by the proponents of the Winnipeg Statement whereby those who cannot follow the prescribed Church position should not be ostracised, disciplined or excommunicated but that 'whoever honestly chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience.' For the record, the Winnipeg Statement has never really been formally opposed or responded to.

Thankfully millions of Catholics continue to exercise both sense and conscience and make use of artificial contraception. Vatican diktats rarely change behaviour among lay Catholics anyway (bar the conservatives) and Humanae Vitae is no exception. As my late papa said 'Catholics think before they pray' and thank goodness for that!

No, most who oppose Catholic Doctrine tend to quote, in soundbytes, what they think Humanae Vitae says because all they know is that "prohibited artificial contraception" (in fact, it did not, it only reinforced a traditional ban already in place), what Paul writes about in it is a very well thought out and passionate defense of the Churches position by talking about human dignity, ideal human love, the couple as a reflection of God's love, etc.  I would strongly recommend people read it, as they might gain some appreciation of where the Church is coming from, other than simply saying "the Church thinks sex is only for procreation" which is patently false.  And when people are lying or acting out of sheer ignorance, I'll wave my arms as much as a damn well please.

No one has to agree with it, and I didn't ask for that.  I ask for understanding.  I understand where you are coming from, because I share your appraisal of the situation, for the most part.  I simply find it unconscionable for anyone who sits in wait to attack something he or she opposes to not at least make an effort to try to understand that which they mean to tear down.

I'm tired of all too often having to come into a room and try to have an open discussion with people who are unwilling to make an attempt at opening their own minds.  My effort to do so was meant to help, not hurt.  And personally, I'm not sorry you saw it otherwise, because there is apparently nothing I can do about that.  I don't mourn for something that can't be helped.

And the irony is, on the whole Progressives probably severely damaged their own cause with their merciless dogpile on Paul and Humanae Vitae, because the terrible extent to which Paul was trashed by people in the West prevented the most progressive Pope anyone is likely to see in a longtime from releasing another encyclical on any subject ever again. 

Of course, if you are going to make comments like "As my late papa said 'Catholics think before they pray' and thank goodness for that!" Then I suppose it is fair for me to shoot back in say that maybe it was God's great will that the Progressives crucified their highest supporter in the name of their idiocy.

But saying as much would just be adding to the cycle of assholic attacks. 

I'm very proud of my Church thank you, and when I do disagree with it, I do so respectfully because I actually make the effort to understand where the Church leaders are coming from.  And I think while I pray, thank you.  And your suggestion that I should be anything but proud enlightens my understanding as to what a waste of time it ever was trying to convince you that Catholicism is not something to be mocked.

Well thanks for distilling everything I said down to being a 'assholic attack' :( I don't know at what point you thought a statement of support for another perons point of view became an attack. I didn't even disagree with Humanae Vitae ffs, I just said some of those who oppose the Church's position actually take time to read the bloody thing

You say Catholicism is not something to be mocked. For the record I believe it is. I believe every faith and every belief should recognise that people have a right to mock it, either intellectually or through crass misinformation. You seem to having trouble of late in differentiating between the two. You think it's tough to defend your faith? Put on my shoes for a day Chris and see how difficult it is not just to justify your faith and your Church to others but to yourself

You think I'm disrespectful to the Church in my arguments? Well, to be frank thats bullsh-t (and it's not easy for me to call one of my favourite posters a bullsh-tter) You could have answered my point on the merits of the Winnipeg Statement, but instead you went off track and personal. You didn't reply to my last questions on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. I understand you were 'internally conflicted' regarding that issue, but your lack of a response left me hanging. For someone who wants people to take time to read and understand Catholic doctrine, maybe you could be more responsive and constructive to those who actually do.

No,  absolutely. Folks are going to have sex, and the issue is how lethal it will be. This hectoring about abstinence is just so way out of the zone of reality, and often permeated by hypocrisy. Some of the higher up Catholic clergy in Africa have concubines, or so I am told by a knowledgeable  and serious Catholic.

Yes.