Pope visits Africa, reaffirms ban on condoms

[gerryh]

Get off your soap box. Now your rationalizing. You're preaching about not having premarital sex and following church policy in one thread, now your saying it has nothing to do with church policy and we can 'decide' what is flawed and what isn't, like cherry picking. :lol:

...

LOL...... whatever....I'm not on a "soap box".... Church policy IS no premarital sex....the fact that your parents HAD premarital sex has "what" to do with Church policy? Just because there are Catholics that HAVE premarital sex does NOT mean the Church should change their interpretation of Scripture.


Personally, I do NOT follow everything the Catholic Church says....I have my own interpretations of the Scriptures AND what Scriptures I feel are right. I consider myself a member of the Catholic Church because it is the one Church that "I" feel most comfortable with, even though I do not agree with all their positions. IF, I ever felt that the Church was too far out from what "I" believe, then I would leave the Church and go it on my own.

This is not to say that I expect the Church to change "their" interpretations. IF the Church was to make changes in how they "interprated" Scripture I would be looking REAL HARD as to what their reason's were. It was like when the Catholic Church changed the way they did the mass in the mid 70's. I couldn't understand HOW they could change the way mass was held. It actually caused me to fall away from the Catholic Church and my Christian faith.

 

[karrie]

No. it does not sound "ridiculously simple" it sounds "nuanced." I agree that you are correct in outlining the Canadian Catholic Church's official position on artificial birth control. If you read an earlier post of mine, I said the same thing. However, is this liberal perspective being taught from pulpit and Catholic press to parishioners? I went on line to find out...

You went online to find out what I've been hearing from the pulpit? Neat trick.

The nuanced position is there, like it or not. Is it written down? I've never read a document containing it, because it's not the official dogma. It's also not the first church where dogma and actual practice are sometimes out of step.

 

[karrie]

Not ever letting children out of the house is also a sure fire way to ensure that they will not be molested, but they need to enjoy the fresh air.

We want the church to soften its view so that we can stop trying to marginalize their opinion. A life free of risk is no life at all, but one should take precautions against risks. The church preaches sexual asceticism to people who will not listen to the message but hear only the words: do not use condoms.

Education beyond simply that is highly needed if the church wishes to maintain its stance Niflmir, of that I won't argue. The church should be doing more to dispell the myths surrounding AIDS and HIV in Africa, and should be making the entire picture clear.

What I question is people who simply say 'they need to change that rule'.

Well why that rule? Why not all the rules? Why not dispell the rule about monogamy too? Or 'enforce' it more strictly. (ban, enforce, these are all funny words to me). And what right do people have to sit outside and decide which rules are and aren't okay for Catholics to live by?

It's especially annoying when peppered by comments about how 'above' Catholicism people are, various references to pedophilia, and assertions that religious people are all perverts. It makes for one ****ed up attempt at conversation around the issue.

 

[Spade]

You went online to find out what I've been hearing from the pulpit? Neat trick.

The nuanced position is there, like it or not. Is it written down? I've never read a document containing it, because it's not the official dogma. It's also not the first church where dogma and actual practice are sometimes out of step.

The Winnipeg Statement
Here is the document you said you've never read. Commonly referred to as the Winnipeg Statement, it was released by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops on September 27, 1968, in response to the encyclical Humanae Vitae of Paul VI declaring artificial birth control immoral. In the Winnipeg Statement the bishops argue for allowing dissent from the message based on individual conscience. To this Statement the Vatican consented.

In reality, the document was an appeal based on the fact that almost 100% of Canadian Catholic couples chose to ignore the Vatican encyclical. Bad law is unenforceable!

But, do you know if Catholic couples in African countries where HIV infections are rampant are given the same latitude? I am sure neither you nor I know, so the context and possible harm of the current pope's comment is debatable.

 

[talloola]

Here's the problem with your argument Bear....IF the people were to follow Church teachings concerning sex, then condoms would NOT be needed for the prevention of the spread of AIDS, or any other sexualy transmited disease. No premarital sex, and after marriage, sex ONLY with your spouse. Based on this, why should the Church change it's stance? Changing it's stance on contraceptives would be the same as the Church giving it's members the freedom to HAVE pre-marital sex....etc...... The Catholic Chrch has been steadfast in it's interpratation of the Scriptures. It can not very well change it's stance now without admitting that it has had it all wrong.

instead of stedfast, I would say stubborn, non conforming, not progressive,
arrogant, old fashioned, and on and on, and just as other religions, can't seem
to change with time, as a result religions are left hundreds and hundreds of years
behind, and are not helpful to the masses at all. There are constructive ways
to help in africa, and the catholic church moves in the opposite direction and
adds to the problem.
And sure, all stubborn people will never admit a wrong, and it is a strength to
admit a wrong and make it right, too bad that won't happen any time soon.
Their laws might have been helpful and abided by hundreds of years ago, but
no longer, and it is absurd to expect that to happen in this day and age.
So, I guess the idea is, 'they (who get aids) deserve their suffering, as they
haven't obeyed the church.

 

[Cliffy]

Someone should whack Benny's pee pee for being such a dick. The arrogance of Benny and the church to tell people how to live their lives under such conditions is unconscionable. He should be made to live among them under the same conditions for at least a year. Then we might see a little humility from the arrogant SOB.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You went online to find out what I've been hearing from the pulpit? Neat trick.

The nuanced position is there, like it or not. Is it written down? I've never read a document containing it, because it's not the official dogma. It's also not the first church where dogma and actual practice are sometimes out of step.

Sorry, karrie, if it is not written down, then it is not the Church position as far as I am concerned. An individual preacher may preach something against Church’s teachings, that is not unheard of.

Church’s position is usually written down somewhere, in an encyclical, or a Papal Bull (there is an appropriate term) etc.

 

[YukonJack]

".... Africa has food shortage, not a surplus of population. Population density in Africa is lower than that in Europe."

Of course, one third of Africa is the inhabitable Sahara Desert. Where people can actually live, the density of population is quite high.

But the real point is that no matter what the density of population is, if the population can not provide their own food, then it makes no difference how you spin it.

 

[YukonJack]

There is a good chance that if a poster posted the kinds of hateful and vitriolic posts one reads here about Catholics in general and the Holy Father in particular, were aimed at gays, minorities, etc. the "offender" would be booted from this forum.

 

[OkiefromMuskoki]

If the posts were knocking Catholic worshippers then you are correct. If the posts were knocking Catholic ideology and policies then they were fair game.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

If the posts were knocking Catholic worshippers then you are correct. If the posts were knocking Catholic ideology and policies then they were fair game.

Exactly right, and that is the distinction Yukon Jack seems incapable of understanding. Ideologies, philosophies, religions etc. are fair game, one may express oneself freely about them.

It is the individuals that one must not insult or badmouth. So whether it is Catholic faith, Islam (and I have said some pretty nasty things about Islam in this forum) or even Atheism, one may criticize them to one’s heart’s content.

 

[gerryh]

Exactly right, and that is the distinction Yukon Jack seems incapable of understanding. Ideologies, philosophies, religions etc. are fair game, one may express oneself freely about them.

It is the individuals that one must not insult or badmouth. So whether it is Catholic faith, Islam (and I have said some pretty nasty things about Islam in this forum) or even Atheism, one may criticize them to one’s heart’s content.

Too bad the Christian and Catholic haters can't keep it to a discussion on JUST idealogies etc. YukonJack has it exactley right. Point....go back and see what has been said about the Holy See.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

".... Africa has food shortage, not a surplus of population. Population density in Africa is lower than that in Europe."

Of course, one third of Africa is the inhabitable Sahara Desert. Where people can actually live, the density of population is quite high.

But the real point is that no matter what the density of population is, if the population can not provide their own food, then it makes no difference how you spin it.

Sorry Yukon Jack, but that is not true. Most of the African counties have a pretty low population density. Refer to the following link.

List of countries and dependencies by population density - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The most densely populated country in Africa is Mauritius, which ranks 17 in the world. Most of the African countries appear in the bottom half. Countries such as Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, Uganda etc. have a fairly low population density.

Now look at European counties, most of them appear in the top half of the list. Europe is much more densely populated that Africa. I think it is a popular misconception that there is a population problem in Africa.

Population density in Africa is pretty low, compared to Europe and Asia. The problem is that most of the counties are inept, brutal dictatorships (with a few notable exceptions). So they cannot feed even the small number of people who live there.

 

[OkiefromMuskoki]

I should add that attacks on individuals would be appropriate IF they were responsible for policies and decisions. These individuals are, after all, only polititians.:lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I should add that attacks on individuals would be appropriate IF they were responsible for policies and decisions. These individuals are, after all, only polititians.:lol:

Quite so. Public personalities are fair game. So it is perfectly legitimate to attack the Pope. I am also within my rights to refer to Harper as the Messiah, and to Palin as Joan of Arc. Apparently Yukon Jack takes great offense at both.

 

[YukonJack]

"So it is perfectly legitimate to attack the Pope. I am also within my rights to refer to Harper as the Messiah, and to Palin as Joan of Arc."

SirJosephPorter you give Prime Minister Harper too m uch credit. The real Messiah is - as everyone knows - is the Saviour of the world, Barrack Obama.

Now, if I were as childish and petulant as you, I could refer to Obama as Sambo. And to Joe Biden as Bozo the Clown.

I am sure you weould takr great offense to that.

 

[YukonJack]

SirJosephPorter opined:

"Exactly right, and that is the distinction Yukon Jack seems incapable of understanding. Ideologies, philosophies, religions etc. are fair game, one may express oneself freely about them."

Based on your posts here and everywhere else it is clear that your statement implies that the adherents of those idealogies, phiolosophies, religions, etc. are also fair play.

After all, you always refer to people of faith as "right wing extremists", "wingnuts", "rednecks", "Bible-stompers" and generally stupid and unreasonable people simply because they disagree with you.

Those epithets are roughly equal calling gays "homos", African_Americans "jigaboos", women "broads", Muslims "ragheads" etc., etc. Heaven knows, I would be declared a "Racist" if I wondered if Obama likes fried chicken and watermelon.

Yet, anyone using those terms would be immediately booted from this or any forum, while you and your ilk can call religious people, their idealogy, philosophy and religion all the invectives you want with total and complete inpunity.

I never called any individual poster here or on any previous forums any derogatory names, while the oh so tolerant people on the left side of the political spectrum called me racist, bigot, homophobe, Anti-feminist and got me banned for nothing more than expressing a different point of view.

SirJosephPorter, you are incapable to comprehend that the subscribe to a double standard that makes you blind to facts.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"So it is perfectly legitimate to attack the Pope. I am also within my rights to refer to Harper as the Messiah, and to Palin as Joan of Arc."

SirJosephPorter you give Prime Minister Harper too m uch credit. The real Messiah is - as everyone knows - is the Saviour of the world, Barrack Obama.

Now, if I were as childish and petulant as you, I could refer to Obama as Sambo. And to Joe Biden as Bozo the Clown.

I am sure you weould takr great offense to that.

You may call Obama or Biden anything you like what is it to me? Why would I be offended if you insult Obama?

Similarly, if I insult Harper or Palin, why should that offend you (though I hardly think that calling somebody Messiah or Joan of Arc constitutes an insult. Sambo or Bozo the Clown however, definitely constitutes an insult).

 

[YukonJack]

Re #158.

Both Sambo and Bozo the Clown were beloved icons of a generation that was not spoiled by political correctness.

Besides, nobody called anyone those names.

You, however, called, with all the in will and bad intentions a typical left-winger can muster, denigrated your Prime Minister with ill-placed sarcasm and similarly, you mocked a lady who is the successful Governor of the most resource-rich State, and who earned to be elected and then re-elected to her post.

You set the rules about public figures are fair game for debasement, disrespect and vile, vitriolic hate. You certainly cherish hating and offendin your Prime Minister and rthe lady who you have nothing to do with, except your venom, typical of liberals.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

After all, you always refer to people of faith as "right wing extremists", "wingnuts", "rednecks", "Bible-stompers" and generally stupid and unreasonable people simply because they disagree with you.

Yukon Jack, the correct phrase is Bible thumper, not Bible stomper. And I cannot speak for others, but personally I have never referred to any individual poster as right wing extremist, wingnut, redneck etc.

Sure I use such descriptive terms to describe religious right, but so what? Here I am criticizing the philosophy, not individuals.

Similarly you are free to criticize liberals to your heart’s content. The problem comes when you start trashing individual liberals (and not liberal leaders, they are fair game, but when you start trashing liberal posters).

It is really very easy, as I described on canada.com forum once. If you want to make sure that you are criticizing ideologies and not individuals, don’t use the word ‘you’ in your posts.

It is very difficult to right an insulting post without using the word ‘you’ (it can be done, but you have to work at it).

Those epithets are roughly equal calling gays "homos",

I don’t think there is anything insulting in the word ‘homo’, it is simply short for homosexual. But if you want a short word, why not use ‘gay’?

Anyway, there is a big difference between words like ‘jigaboo’, ‘broad’ etc, which are terms of insult, and words like ‘right wing extremist’ or ‘Bible thumper’, which are descriptive terms.

As to ‘raghead’, that insults Muslims. You are free to criticize Islam (I have been pretty nasty when it comes to criticizing Islam), you are even free to criticize Fundamentalist Muslims (which I have done frequently). However, insulting all the Muslims with a term such as ‘raghead’ is over the top.

So let me summarize. You are free to criticize Islam, Fundamentalist Muslims, but you may not insult all Muslims. I am free to criticize Christianity, Fundamentalist Christians, but I may not insult all Christians.

You are free to criticize black organizations such as NAACP, you are even free to criticize extremist blacks (e.g. Louis Farrakhan, or even Jesse Jackson). However, you may not insult all blacks (‘jigaboo’).

You are free to criticize homosexuality, you are free to criticize individual gay leaders (e.g. Scott Bryson). You are free to say that homosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle. However, you may not insult all gays, by using derogatory language or derogatory terms.

If it still isn’t clear to you, I give up.