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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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

[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? 

[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.

[Alcon]

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.