Thread Derails... Aids, Popes And Condoms

[havok579257]

[quote name='philbo' date='25 January 2010 - 10:37 AM' timestamp='1264433826' post='2044155']
My point was that if somebody has already made what in your view is an immoral choice, still saying "don't use a condom" is actively wanting to make things worse: if you think they're going to Hell anyway (for fornication), why not let 'em use condoms? It can't do any further damage to their immortal soul, yet it could save lives here in the land of the living. If you're going to forgive them anyway, why not forgive them using a condom, too?

That's what I meant by "burn in hell as soon as possible" - by condemning condoms out of hand, you're encouraging the transmission of disease. Otherwise what's the problem with saying "if you're going to be immoral, at least be immoral with a condom on"?



You were attempting a reductio ad absurdam by trying to compare a reasonable behaviour with something that is completely beyond the pale. I don't think anything is inherently good because it has been practised for generations - you're the one who's asserting that the Church's moral position is somehow more moral because it has been like that for a couple of millennia.

The point I was making was that some johnny-come-lately steps in to tell somebody that their behaviour is sinful and immoral "because we say so" (OK, "because we say that our invisible, intangible, omnipresent yet somehow never, ever there omnipotent yet stangely powerless father figure says so").. Things aren't wrong or immoral because they're written in some book somewhere - they're wrong or immoral because they hurt people.

Morals *are* relative - a look at the consistency of what was considered moral through the history of the Catholic Church itself will tell you this. This pretence that there is an unwavering moral code practised by the church over the millennia is simply bollocks.



It's not a guarantee: in some cases, people are hurt by promiscuous fornication; in some, they're not. I'd rather reduce the number hurt, e.g. by reducing transmission of STDs, than lump all fornication together as one.


Moral principles change with societies - always have, and always will. You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

Where's the hypocrisy? Please back up your accusations with something a bit more concrete.


No lie: the Catholic Church has for decades used intimidation to silence the victims of abuse by priests - this is not my opinion, this is what has been reported by hundreds (or even thousands) of people over the past few years - it's only after a critical mass (so to speak) had the courage to go public that it finally got to point where the Vatican could no longer deny it had happened. Only a few years ago, the then Cardinal Ratzinger sent out a missive that can only be interpreted as saying "keep the lid on it and protect the Church", letting abusers continue to avoid justice.

Continue to bury your head in the sand if you must, but I am not lying.
[/quote]


any chance of seeing facts about the catholic churchs intimidation towards victims. Your saying its no lie, so show us the proof. its a simple enough request.

[philbo]

[quote name='havok579257' date='02 February 2010 - 12:39 AM' timestamp='1265067593' post='2049226']
any chance of seeing facts about the catholic churchs intimidation towards victims. Your saying its no lie, so show us the proof. its a simple enough request.
[/quote]

From [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/17/religion.childprotection#history-byline]this article[/url] (my highlight)
[quote]Rev Thomas Doyle, a US Air Force chaplain in Germany and a specialist in Church law, has studied the document. He told The Observer: 'It is certainly an indication of the pathological obsession with secrecy in the Catholic Church, but in itself it is not a smoking gun.

'If, however, this document actually has been the foundation of a continuous policy to cover clergy crimes at all costs, then we have quite another issue. [b]There are too many authenticated reports of victims having been seriously intimidated into silence by Church authorities to assert that such intimidation is the exception and not the norm.[/b]

'If this document has been used as a justification for this intimidation then we possibly have what some commentators have alleged, namely, a blueprint for a cover-up. This is obviously a big "if" which requires concrete proof.' [/quote]

The chap making these statements, [url=http://www.votf.org/priest-support/72]Rev Doyle[/url] comes across as a very credible witness.

[havok579257]

[quote name='philbo' date='02 February 2010 - 09:14 AM' timestamp='1265120055' post='2049650']
From [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/17/religion.childprotection#history-byline]this article[/url] (my highlight)


The chap making these statements, [url=http://www.votf.org/priest-support/72]Rev Doyle[/url] comes across as a very credible witness.
[/quote]


those are not facts. nice try. so again, any chance at ACTUAL FACTS, not just conjuncture. and maybe to you that guy is credible, but not to me. he wants to rip the church apart. he has his own agaenda. that hardly makes his credible. although to someone like you, anyone who has something against the catholic church is probobly a credible witness against it.

Edited February 2, 2010 by havok579257

[philbo]

[quote name='havok579257' date='02 February 2010 - 07:44 PM' timestamp='1265136246' post='2049793']
those are not facts. nice try. so again, any chance at ACTUAL FACTS, not just conjuncture.
[/quote]
What would consitute "facts" to you, given that this sort of behaviour was not carried out on video camera? How about the individual testimony of nearly a hundred people to a grand jury? And that's just two counties in NY.


[quote name='havok579257' date='02 February 2010 - 07:44 PM' timestamp='1265136246' post='2049793']
and maybe to you that guy is credible, but not to me. he wants to rip the church apart. he has his own agaenda. that hardly makes his credible. although to someone like you, anyone who has something against the catholic church is probobly a credible witness against it.
[/quote]
Sorry, but that's your prejudice showing through: the guy's history is of one who was more concerned for the children than for the church, true, but your allegations that he's doing this because he wants to "rip the church apart" are unsubstantiated.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='philbo' date='02 February 2010 - 07:11 PM' timestamp='1265152313' post='2050000']

Sorry, but that's your prejudice showing through: the guy's history is of one who was more concerned for the children than for the church, true, but your allegations that he's doing this because he wants to "rip the church apart" are unsubstantiated.
[/quote]

You pointed to a link regarding Rev. Doyle and VOTF which is about eight years old. He in fact has since broken away from the VOTF to some extent. As to his views, he describes himself lately as a follower of John Shelby Spong, a former Episcopalian bishop whose views are so far-out and heretical he was sharply criticized by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Doyle is also a board member of the ARCC, and its views are completely contrary to the teachings of the Church. The Church would be ripped apart if the views of the ARCC were implemented.

S.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Skinzo

[havok579257]

[quote name='Skinzo' date='02 February 2010 - 07:37 PM' timestamp='1265157425' post='2050074']
You pointed to a link regarding Rev. Doyle and VOTF which is about eight years old. He in fact has since broken away from the VOTF to some extent. As to his views, he describes himself lately as a follower of John Shelby Spong, a former Episcopalian bishop whose views are so far-out and heretical he was sharply criticized by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Doyle is also a board member of the ARCC, and its views are completely contrary to the teachings of the Church. The Church would be ripped apart if the views of the ARCC were implemented.

S.
[/quote]


thank you. next philbo

[philbo]

[quote name='havok579257' date='03 February 2010 - 05:07 AM' timestamp='1265170030' post='2050240']
thank you. next philbo
[/quote]
I see you ignored my other question:
[quote]What would consitute "facts" to you, given that this sort of behaviour was not carried out on video camera? How about the individual testimony of nearly a hundred people to a grand jury? And that's just two counties in NY.[/quote]

But what Rev Doyle is doing now is irrelevant: unless you think that for the many years while inside the Church he was making up claims of abuse and intimidation. Frankly I don't give a beaver dam about whether his views are considered "heretical" (though whether they were considered heresy *before* he started trying to expose abuse might be of interest, I suppose). This isn't about doctrine... unless you think that covering up one of the nastiest crimes in the book is actually part of church doctrine.

[Socrates]

[quote name='philbo' date='25 January 2010 - 10:37 AM' timestamp='1264433826' post='2044155']
My point was that if somebody has already made what in your view is an immoral choice, still saying "don't use a condom" is actively wanting to make things worse: if you think they're going to Hell anyway (for fornication), why not let 'em use condoms? It can't do any further damage to their immortal soul, yet it could save lives here in the land of the living. If you're going to forgive them anyway, why not forgive them using a condom, too?

That's what I meant by "burn in hell as soon as possible" - by condemning condoms out of hand, you're encouraging the transmission of disease. Otherwise what's the problem with saying "if you're going to be immoral, at least be immoral with a condom on"?[/quote]
Two wrongs don't make a right. The Church simply teaches what is right and wrong.

And a person with even the worst venereal disease has plenty of time to repent and get to confession. If the Church was so bent on sending sinners to hell as you claim, it wouldn't be so eager to forgive repentant sinners.



[quote]You were attempting a reductio ad absurdam by trying to compare a reasonable behaviour with something that is completely beyond the pale. I don't think anything is inherently good because it has been practised for generations - you're the one who's asserting that the Church's moral position is somehow more moral because it has been like that for a couple of millennia.

The point I was making was that some johnny-come-lately steps in to tell somebody that their behaviour is sinful and immoral "because we say so" . . .[/quote]
Like some modern atheist jumping in and telling Catholics they are wrong for preaching sexual morality?


[quote]Morals *are* relative - a look at the consistency of what was considered moral through the history of the Catholic Church itself will tell you this. This pretence that there is an unwavering moral code practised by the church over the millennia is simply bollocks.
[/quote]
You're showing your own ignorance. What is moral and immoral does not change; whether individual Catholics choose to practice that morality is another question; being Catholic does not prevent anyone from having the free will to sin.

[quote]It's not a guarantee: in some cases, people are hurt by promiscuous fornication; in some, they're not. I'd rather reduce the number hurt, e.g. by reducing transmission of STDs, than lump all fornication together as one.
[/quote]
Harm can be spiritual, as well as physical. Harm is done whether or not anyone contracts an STD, and is not always immediately obvious. After our society became largely accepting of fornication, divorce rates soared with many families being broken, and many children being raised without an intact family. Also, people of the opposite sex tend to be used as objects for cheap pleasure, rather than respected. That's not mere coincidence.
And if you're genuinely interested in the reasoning behind the Church's moral teaching, I suggest you study up on the Theology of the Body.

[quote]Moral principles change with societies - always have, and always will. You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
[/quote]
Social mores change for better and worse; moral principles (what is objectively right and wrong) are eternal.

[quote]Where's the hypocrisy? Please back up your accusations with something a bit more concrete.


No lie: the Catholic Church has for decades used intimidation to silence the victims of abuse by priests - this is not my opinion, this is what has been reported by hundreds (or even thousands) of people over the past few years - it's only after a critical mass (so to speak) had the courage to go public that it finally got to point where the Vatican could no longer deny it had happened. Only a few years ago, the then Cardinal Ratzinger sent out a missive that can only be interpreted as saying "keep the lid on it and protect the Church", letting abusers continue to avoid justice.

Continue to bury your head in the sand if you must, but I am not lying.[/quote]
There have been some very evil clergymen in the Church, but that doesn't invalidate Church moral teaching. The Church teaches that sexual abuse of any kind is extremely sinful and evil. Those who perpetuated it have no justification, and the Pope has strongly condemned their evil actions. Your claims that the Vatican and the Pope himself ordered this abuse to be covered up is baseless.

Such serious accusations against the Pope are going to require some serious documentation. Rumors, hear-say, and opinion pieces aren't going to cut it.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Socrates

[Skinzo]

[quote name='philbo' date='03 February 2010 - 10:08 AM' timestamp='1265206116' post='2050368']
I see you ignored my other question:


But what Rev Doyle is doing now is irrelevant: unless you think that for the many years while inside the Church he was making up claims of abuse and intimidation. Frankly I don't give a beaver dam about whether his views are considered "heretical" (though whether they were considered heresy *before* he started trying to expose abuse might be of interest, I suppose). This isn't about doctrine... unless you think that covering up one of the nastiest crimes in the book is actually part of church doctrine.
[/quote]

Your first question goes back to an also old and now discredited media report. Go back and look at the Vatican document in question. That deals only with solicitation in the confessional, not sex abuse. The article you link to completely distorts the content of the report.

It's nicely refuted by the Catholic League (way back in 2003):
""This is an issue fraught with deception all right—but it's not the Vatican that's guilty—it's CBS. By ripping the document out of context, CBS led viewers to believe that the Vatican was engaged in a sexual abuse cover-up as early as 1962. Here's what it didn't say in its report.

"First, the document did not apply to sexual misconduct—it applied only to sexual solicitation. Second, the only venue the document addressed was the confessional. In other words, it was meant to deal only with cases of sexual solicitation by a priest of a penitent in the confessional. Third, because the policy was specifically aimed at protecting the secrecy of the confessional, it called for an ecclesiastical response: civil authorities were not to be notified because it involved a sacrament of the Catholic Church, not a crime of the state.

"Fourth, if a priest were found guilty, he could be thrown out of the priesthood. Fifth, if the penitent were to tell someone what happened (perhaps another priest), he or she had 30 days to report the incident to the bishop or face excommunication. If anything, this proves how utterly serious the Vatican was about such an offense—it threatened to punish the penitent for not turning in the guilty priest. Sixth, the 1962 document was superseded by the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the norms established in 2001 for dealing with serious crimes involving the sacraments."

As to Rev. Doyle, the integrity of a witness does matter. You may not care about that but that matters everywhere even in secular courts. In a secular court he would be treated as a hostile witness. No one doubts the gravity of the sex abuse crisis, but this thread is about the pope and condoms. There is a seperate thread on sex abuse by the clergy. Post there or start a seperate thread if you like.

S.

[havok579257]

[quote name='philbo' date='03 February 2010 - 09:08 AM' timestamp='1265206116' post='2050368']
I see you ignored my other question:


But what Rev Doyle is doing now is irrelevant: unless you think that for the many years while inside the Church he was making up claims of abuse and intimidation. Frankly I don't give a beaver dam about whether his views are considered "heretical" (though whether they were considered heresy *before* he started trying to expose abuse might be of interest, I suppose). This isn't about doctrine... unless you think that covering up one of the nastiest crimes in the book is actually part of church doctrine.
[/quote]


facts from someone who does not have an agenda against the church and PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE show us this proof you have of the beniict ordering a cover up of sexual abuse. PLEASE show us the proof and not just your harbrained theory. ACTUAL PROOF of this cover up and it being order by Benidict. PLEASE