Is it wrong for people to scape goat the Catholic Church's

[12th Doctor]

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?

[Alcon]

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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

[JSojourner]

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.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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 must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Alcon]

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.

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.

[Gustaf]

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.

[Gustaf]

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.

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.

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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

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.

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.

[Alcon]

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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

[Alcon]

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?

[12th Doctor]

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".

[12th Doctor]

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 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 must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Alcon]

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".

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.

[they don't love you like i love you]

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.

[12th Doctor]

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

[Alcon]

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

[12th Doctor]

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.

[J. J.]

Yes.

[Iosif is a COTHO]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?

[Alcon]

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? 

[Gustaf]

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? 

Huh?

[Alcon]

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? 

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.