No condoms please, we’re Catholic…

By DeusExMacintosh

camerooncondoms2

Pope Benedict XVI, who is making his first papal visit to Africa, has said that handing out condoms is not the answer in the fight against HIV/Aids.

The pontiff, who preaches marital fidelity and abstinence, said the practise only increased the problem.

“A Christian can never remain silent,” he said, after being greeted on arrival in Cameroon by President Paul Biya.

The Pope is also due to visit Angola on his week-long trip, where thousands are expected to attend open-air Masses.

Some 22 million people are infected with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa, according to UN figures for 2007. This amounts to about two-thirds of the global total…

While in Africa, the pontiff is expected to talk to young people about the Aids epidemic and explain to them why the Catholic Church recommends sexual abstinence as the best way to prevent the spread of the disease.

He gave a similar message to African bishops who visited the Vatican in 2005, when he told them that abstinence and fidelity, not condoms, were the means to tackle the epidemic.

BBC News

UPDATE 27/3/09: The Lancet has just gone biblical on the Pope’s ass over his condom comments…

The London-based Lancet said the Pope had “publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on this issue”.

It said the male latex condom was the single most efficient way to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV/Aids.

“Whether the Pope’s error was due to ignorance or a deliberate attempt to manipulate science to support Catholic ideology is unclear,” said the journal.

But is said the comment still stood and urged the Vatican to issue a retraction.

“When any influential person, be it a religious or political figure, makes a false scientific statement that could be devastating to the health of millions of people, they should retract or correct the public record,” it said.

Apparently,

The Pope said “the traditional teaching of the Church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids”.

No your holiness, PERFECT ADHERENCE to the traditional teaching of the Church IS LIKELY to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids. Get back to us with absolute statements like that just as soon as you achieve it.

34 Comments

  1. Posted March 31, 2009 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

    Adrien

    My view on this issue is that, whilst the Church is entitled to adhere to its version of sexual morality it has no business making distorted statements about the capacity of condoms to prevent HIV infection.

    The Pope’s statement which started this round of Catholic bashing in the blogosphere was in answer to a specific question – and his answer just happened to mention almost in passing that AIDS will not be overcome by condom distribution alone.

    Let me quote it for you in full – we even have a corrected transcript now (although you can find the video on You Tube) given so many of you have such a problem reading:

    Q. – Now a further question from a French speaker: our colleague Philippe Visseyrias from France 2:

    Q. – Your Holiness, among the many ills that beset Africa, one of the most pressing is the spread of Aids. The position of the Catholic Church on the way to fight it is often considered unrealistic and ineffective. Will you address this theme during the journey? Holy Father, would you be able to respond in French to this question?

    A. – I would say the opposite. I think that the most efficient, most truly present player in the fight against Aids is the Catholic Church herself, with her movements and her various organizations. I think of the Sant’Egidio community that does so much, visibly and also behind the scenes, in the struggle against Aids, I think of the Camillians, and so much more besides, I think of all the Sisters who take care of the sick. I would say that this problem of Aids cannot be overcome merely with money, necessary though it is. If there is no human dimension, if Africans do not help [by responsible behaviour], the problem cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it. The solution must have two elements: firstly, bringing out the human dimension of sexuality, that is to say a spiritual and human renewal that would bring with it a new way of behaving towards others, and secondly, true friendship offered above all to those who are suffering, a willingness to make sacrifices and to practise self-denial, to be alongside the suffering. And so these are the factors that help and that lead to real progress: our twofold effort to renew humanity inwardly, to give spiritual and human strength for proper conduct towards our bodies and those of others, and this capacity to suffer with those who are suffering, to remain present in situations of trial. It seems to me that this is the proper response, and the Church does this, thereby offering an enormous and important contribution. We thank all who do so.

    Start on the correct foot and continue from there Adrien. Otherwise, like I say, continue shadow boxing.

    Ditto when you read statements like this in HV

    …there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships.

    Does the Catholic church or do Christians in general share that fear?

    HV was written in the late 60s when the last round of overpopulation hysteria was sweeping the planet (and I see some are busily trying to resurrect this today). At that time even India wasn’t self sufficient in food as the real Green Revolution was only just beginning to unfold. PVI was right to note the concerns of the day. Doesn’t mean he or others shared those fears or that fear of overpopulation is church teaching. It isn’t.

    In any case the world’s current population – significantly more than even what it was when HV was written – can comfortably fit into Queensland, there is global food surplus and the world’s biggest oil, gas reserves etc haven’t been touched yet (you don’t want to know what the U.S. is sitting on thanks largely to decades of Democrats and the fake greenies continually blocking legislation permitting exploration and drilling).

    The problem of global poverty and resource allocation is largely one of politics (which goes to good governance, stability, peace, order etc etc) and infrastructure as well as technology. If one can’t distribute food effectively in Africa because of poor roads and networks, don’t think they can get condoms to you in any hurry. And if your own government is busily bombing you using Chinese weapons exchanged for your oil because you happen to be black (that would be Dafur in case you didn’t know), don’t think people are really going to give two hoots about your condoms – American, Chinese or otherwise.

    As a final point and one which seems to be lost on most on you. A fair swathe of Sub-Saharan Africans are Christian – in many regions they are also the majority – and Christianity is the fastest growing religion on the African continent. If they don’t want to use condoms and would prefer to build stable, faithful relationships instead – for religious or any other reason, who are you to force them to do otherwise?

  2. Posted March 31, 2009 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

    Saint says:

    “In any case the world’s current population – significantly more than even what it was when HV was written – can comfortably fit into Queensland …”

    You aren’t very well informed, are you? There is no way Queensland has the resources to feed let alone provide a decent living standard for 6 billion people.

    If you bothered to read more widely you would know that even tiny little Britain produces vastly more food than Australia and that Australia’s farm sector is in strife even at current production levels.

  3. Posted March 31, 2009 at 11:00 pm | Permalink

    Like I said, great being a Quaker these days. You can believe anything you like.

    Yes … including the full on Trinitarian model of the Godhead if that’s the guidance of your conscience and the evidence of your personal experience. And in case you don’t think the big JC is getting enough credit, the fourth question from Advices & Queries says…

    The Religious Society of Friends is rooted in Christianity and has always found inspiration in the life and teachings of Jesus. How do you interpret your faith in the light of this heritage? How does Jesus speak to you today? Are you following Jesus’ example of love in action? Are you learning from his life the reality and cost of obedience to God? How does his relationship with God challenge and inspire you?

    Quakers emerged in a country and during a period where being “the wrong sort of Christian” got you beaten, imprisoned and quite often, dead. (The annual convention that checks on the progress of the movement – a little like a Synod – is still called the Meeting for Sufferings, because its first purpose was to record the various indignities being visited on members* ). It’s also why Quakers traditionally don’t support or practice evangelism.

    So you don’t consider me a ‘real’ Christian, saint? Well you’re welcome to your opinion but my conscience says that I am. There are evangelical protestants who’d say that the Pope isn’t a Christian (and members of the Orange Order who’d say he’s actually the Antichrist). I don’t agree with them either, but they’re entitled to their opinion. Quakers are big on freedom of conscience.

    We’ll all find out who is right eventually

    * In the second part of the recent John Adams miniseries, the title character condemned one of the Quaker members of the Continental Congress for moral cowardice in not supporting the Independence movement and linked it to the pacifism of his religion. In actual fact as a Quaker, the man probably had a much clearer (and immediate) idea of the treatment they could expect from the British state than those carried away by the otherwise inspirational call for Independence.

  4. Posted April 1, 2009 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    Unlike most people Deus, I don’t subscribe to the poor little persecuted Quaker school of history.

    You’re ol’ founding guru, was a man who thought that wondering around lost for a few years trying to get over his daddy issues suddenly gave him some magical insight that had eluded millions of Christians for over a millenia. Wow. Like we have never seen a thousand and one such men and women suck in a thousand and one other people before.

    The earliest Quakers thought both Protestants and Catholics were apostates and spent a lot of time distancing themselves from both, getting especially miffed when they were later associated with the Anabaptists. Which really makes one question just who did they think they were.

    Like Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans and others with whom they sometimes shared jail cells and with whom they faced discrimination at various times, Quakers were not singled out because they had a thing about the Pope or the Bible or liked to sit around and tell each other the first thing that popped into their head, but because they didn’t pay tithes (the equivalent of taxes), wouldn’t join the army, wouldn’t swear oaths required by law etc etc. I mean, you do know how the term “Quaker” came about didn’t you?

    You might think Quakers have a monopoly on suffering (for what? not paying taxes?) or whatever, but the church has been dealing with such tensions with political, civic and other authorities – as well as tensions within its own house since its birth. How precious to have a little “Meeting of Sufferings” – the Copts still start their calendar from the end Era of the Martyrs nearly 1500 years before ol’ Fox got lost, and they are still being martyred for their faith today. Want to look up what their suffering comprised of? Oh but wait, are they Christians according to Quakers?

    If I even look at the numbers of Quakers who even endured a prison cell (often all comfy thanks, with access to pen and paper to write their over-wrought martyrologies with plenty of visitors and couriers to spread the word) or persecution or even death it is but a drop, a drop in the ocean and a minor inconvenience compared to what the earliest Christians endured or what Christians in various parts fo the world have endured since then, and still do today.

    The church – both East and West – embraces more saints named and unnamed who have sufferered for Christ, even to the point of being tortured or killed for their faith – for their testimony of Christ – than there have ever been Quakers in the course of human history.

    Whether some Quakers were or are Christians or not, I doubt that any Christian could remain a a Christian by remaining a Quaker.

    The few Quakers I have met were more careful to identify themselves as Quakers and NOT Christians (hec Quakers proclaim Christ? Such things are anathema to most them after all, and sacraments like baptism or the Eucharist? Pfft to a Quaker. They can ignore those bits about what Christ asks of us.).

    Whatever vestiges of Christian thought still permeate Quaker circles I see little evidence of actual Christian belief or praxis and a total disconnection with the historic apostolic faith. If anything modern Quakers have either found a nice justification for doing nothing or else just found a nice pseudo-religious cloak for their favourite lefty cause. Might as well be Episcopalian.

    So Quakers made a splash in fighting against slavery a couple of hundred years ago – and even there they are not special or unique or even as effective as others – but where were they when millions of Christians and others were slaughtered and enslaved during the Soviet era? Oh yes we had the relief efforts of the Quaker-affiliated American Friends Service Committee during the famine after WWI – and then what? The group went on to become the pseudo-religious front for the far left in America today. Just another bunch of fifth columnists -criticised even by some Quakers. (Yeah, love how all that kumabayah spirit seems to elude even the Quakers)

    These days you are more likely to see a Quaker or a Quaker affiliated whack job defending the rights of a terrorist then out there helping say, the Christians in Orissa rebuild their lives after the latest round of burning, pillaging, killing and rape by Hindu extremists in their community. Not going to find a Quaker human shields there.

    Yes, please do tell us about the Christian foundations of Quakerism and how Quakers are Christians Deus.

    Why not also tell us about how Quakers have persecuted their own and about the schisms within the Quakers – how it developed into a narrow, nasty little cult which would oust people for the most minor of infractions (so much for individual conscience, oh kumbayah) and split and split and spilt and split…here the Guerneyites, there the Hickites, look there’s the Wilburites, oh no we’re the whateverites – more kumbayah – until today ‘Quaker’ means what – just another bunch of people doing whatever seems right in their own eyes.

    Quakers Christian? I doubt that any Christian could, in good conscience, remain a Quaker. Even so Quaker cannot be equated with Christian. You can be a Jew and a Quaker (Maxine Nunn) a Unitarian and a Quaker (and while once upon a time some Quakers would actually boot you out *gasp* if you were a Unitarian, the Quakers are now the main source of growth of unitarian beliefs), an atheist and a Quaker…

    So yeah, follow your conscience Deus.

    Christians however, follow Christ.

  5. Posted April 1, 2009 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

    Saint Start on the correct foot and continue from there Adrien. Otherwise, like I say, continue shadow boxing.

    It would be a little more constructive if you’d shelve the superior attitude. I’m aghast that, when discussing the Church’s role in public policy, that staunch Catholic opponents retreat into the Mandelbrot nuaces of theological discourse.

    I once had an argument viz the Protestant Reformation where, despite the vast data I amassed demonstrating the Church’s skullduggery in the centuries leading up to Luther my opponent refused to directly deal with any of it and kept pathetically reminding me that I’d made the single error of forgetting that Luther’s original protest occurred near and not actually in Wittenberg.

    As I said then and say again: So what?
    .
    The Pope’s statement may be diplomatically delivered but the meaning is clear. Condoms aren’t the answer conforming to the the Creed is. He is quoted as actually saying that the Creed is the only thing that prevents HIV infection. The links above feature a person who invites the Pope to retract – he hasn’t.
    .
    Facts: Condoms stop the spread of HIV
    Fact: Catholic doctrine forbids their use
    Fact: The Pope is on record as saying effectively the Church works and condoms don’t.

    Conclusion: He doesn’t want Africans (or anyone) to use condoms).

    Now I do suppose that sex only in furtherance of conception within the bonds of matrimony would indeed prevent the spread of AIDS. But so do condoms. And the Pope is crossing a line here he has no business crossing in a modern and secular environment.

    But that’s the rub isn’t it? Africa is not, by and large, such an environment and thus it’s ripe for the soil on which the Eternal City’s internal city can rely for its bread over the next century or so in this era of an indifferent Europe and an increasingly (shock!) educated and prosperous Latin America

    Shadow boxing? Nay! Provide me with a real link. One in which the Pope acknowledges his error or disowns the quote attributes to him. Provide me with some substantiation of your assertion that it’s the Church that does the most for Africa.

    Or maybe even tell me why the official doctrine on sexual morality as advocated by this powerful and dark history’d institution run by celibates is somehow good despite the obvious purging of one of the fundamental joys of being alive.

    Marcus Aurelius once wrote that to lie with your lover is spiritual; he compared it to prayer. And then along came Constantine and ‘we were left darkling’.

  6. Posted April 1, 2009 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

    Marcus Aurelius was Roman, Adrien, and while the Romans could get pretty weird, we could still learn a thing or two from them. I’m firmly of the view that if there’d been no intervening meddling from Christian/Islamic morality (as LE knows, I’ve been doing reading on the Roman law of delict — civil wrongs — recently), we wouldn’t have had to put up with the spectacle of the President of the United States spending a year justifying when and where he didn’t put his dick. I’d give a lot to have had that particular spectacle pass me by.

    It’s the country. Ceiling Cat says, Run it.

    I do wonder if the Romans would have appreciated LOLCATS.

  7. Posted April 1, 2009 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    “Christians however, follow Christ.”

    No they don’t.

  8. Posted April 1, 2009 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

    Saint also strangely ignores the fact that Catholics regard Protestants such as himself as third class Christians, behind the Eastern Orthodoxy.

  9. Posted April 1, 2009 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    I must admit that after reading around some Roman Law, I realise what JC got arrested for. Religion was a fairly minor part of it; Pilate needed a crime, which of course (duh) was criminal damage, affray and multiple assaults (the bust up in the Temple, which is in all four Gospels, some of which add the detail that he armed himself with a whip and started beating the sh*t out of random bystanders).

    Calculated to go down really well in an unstable province. Not. No wonder Pilate (who, true to the role of the Judge in the Civilian system, has to find the truth, not just pick a winner) asked ‘Quid est veritas?’

  10. Posted April 1, 2009 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

    Very much property rules OK, along with a very strong sense of privacy (‘what I do on my property is my business, and anyone who has a problem with that can go and get f*cked’).

    I’d always interpreted Pilate (because he does get some very ‘modern’ lines in the Gospels) as a would-be secular humanist, but he’s not (always helps if you familiarize yourself with another culture’s legal system before looking at anything approaching trial records, natch). He’s a standard inquisitorially trained lawyer, and all his comments and questions indicate that.

  11. Posted April 1, 2009 at 7:33 pm | Permalink

    Adrien and Skepticlawyer on M. Aurelius Antoninus: aaah my hero. Power couldn’t corrupt.
    “Meditations” is my favorite bedside book when I only feel like a para or two.

    And yes, Constantine is detested by me and loved by Pell.

    (If there was a decent Flavian, it was Julian Apostate, who angered Christians by asking for religious tolerance, no sectarian violence, worse, made the churches give back stolen property, and worse still, had the temerity to be a pagan that was able to give the Persians and Germans what-for while God-bothering emperors couldn’t do doodly squate).

  12. Posted April 1, 2009 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

    Personally, I’d prefer all catholics to be better catholics: becoming priests or nuns with lives of perfect chastity.

    That would solve so many problems within a single lifetime.

    Dave Bath. Nice.

  13. Posted April 1, 2009 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

    Dave Bath also forgot how Julian Apostate was rather selective in his magnanimity and wasn’t averse to a bit of persecution himself. He really should check out the lives of the saints.

  14. Posted April 1, 2009 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

    #157 Ooo LE. I might be tempted to blog again to show how both those assertions (unitarians are Christian, Trinity a late concept) are positively false. Not to mention that unitarianism is theologically incoherent. 🙂

  15. Posted April 2, 2009 at 12:58 am | Permalink

    Hmm, what Quakers did next? Friends Ambulance Service, as for their more significant activities in WWII you might want to ask a Jew to fill you in. Maybe I’m just easily impressed.

  16. Gummo Trotsky
    Posted April 2, 2009 at 5:38 am | Permalink

    Oh, those Albigensians – another fine bunch of pseudo-Christian whackos with daddy issues…

  17. Gummo Trotsky
    Posted April 2, 2009 at 5:47 am | Permalink

    Oops – forgot to mention they were all girly-men too…

  18. Posted April 2, 2009 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    #170 – Indeed if nearly 2000 years of hospitals, orphanages, universities, schools, poor houses, prison aid etc etc didn’t impress you (or that fact that even Pope Pius had up to 2000 Jews hiding in his own summer residence at one stage not to mention all the churches and convents and monasteries that sheltered Jews or helped to arrange their escape etc etc, extarordinary efforts that so many converted after the war), what’s an ambulance service supported by British Quakers? Did they invent the wheel too?. Supported at arms length mind – because too many of their members’s consciences told them that sitting around in a circle while the Germans were bombing the shit out of you wasn’t going to help anyone so they had to do something. The British Quakers had to stop their members running off to join the army – no room for that sort of conscience and if it kept up, they would have had noone left. And yes JW’s, SDA’s all sorts of conscientious objectors participated. And people like you Deus, can only brag about them today, in English and not say in Japanese, thanks to a soldier.

    But that too says something again about you. So happy to help Jews yet happy to promote selective breeding and intergenerational slavery of the worst possible kind through contraception.Like it’s OK if you don’t have gas ovens. Maybe you too should move in with Mel and Dave.

    #171 Very droll Gummo. I note that once again, like all good lefties, you are very selective with your barbs. When someone puts a religious cloak on your lefty ideology you are happy as a clam and clam up. As long as people are pro-left that’s all that matters to you. That’s all that lefties stand for – not for people, not for women, not for justice, not for life – just being pro-left. Thank you for illustrating my point again so starkly.

  19. Posted April 2, 2009 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

    Skeptic – we wouldn’t have had to put up with the spectacle of the President of the United States spending a year justifying when and where he didn’t put his dick. I’d give a lot to have had that particular spectacle pass me by.

    No but the guy would never’ve got that far on account of not being master of his own domain so to speak. (At least in the Republican ethos; in the era of the Imperium things got regularly pear-shaped).

    And Jesus was done for busting up the money-changers. They had to blame it on that toady Caiaphus. After all when you’ve got a choice between attacking the world’s most powerful state and one that no longer exists what do you do?

    One thing you don’t do is get between an Italian and his money – ever. 🙂

  20. Posted April 2, 2009 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

    Ah Saint – now you’re resorting to the other bit of the standard staunch Catholic book of rhetoric. First let’s laud 2000 years of Catholic niceness. We’ll selectively refer to those few Catholics who helped the Jews and ignore the many more who relished their demise. We’ll crap on about ambulance services and forget about indulgences.

    And of course there’s the old favourite Outright Hypocrisy – you are very selective with your barbs.

    You are very selective with your reality. Forget you. You aren’t capable of actually engaging in debate. The Jesuits would be ashamed.

    The Quakers might not run an ambulance service but I can’t think of any of them that ever used their religion to crush anyone. When it comes to Holy Mother Church I haven’t the space.

  21. Posted April 2, 2009 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

    Dave – Nice essay. On the plus side Constantine gave good statue. I’ve had the misfortune of knowing one of the Pells (ex-girlfriend of friend).

    Arse. Hole.

  22. Posted April 2, 2009 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    Adrien

    I can’t think of any of them that ever used their religion to crush anyone.

    Except their own. You need to read some Quaker history. Even that by Quakers and ex-Quakers themselves. They nearly died out in the 18th century for good reason. That they are fractured into so many camps and then some says something about kumbayah religion. And do check out some of their extracurricular activities today.

    By the way, I know that you are yet another one who likes to spit your anti-Catholic venom around the blogs, but I am not and have never been a Catholic.

    The irony of course too, is that people like you who like to spout your hatred of Catholics or Christians in general are also dependent on a Judeo-Christian conception of religion to do so. Hec, you wouldn’t even understand irony with a Judeo-Christian world view either.

  23. Posted April 2, 2009 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    Dave – Nice essay. On the plus side Constantine gave good statue. I’ve had the misfortune of knowing one of the Pells (ex-girlfriend of friend).

    Arse. Hole.

    Ah yes, the epitome of nice. Gentleman is obviously not a word that would ever be ascribed to you Adrien.

  24. Posted April 2, 2009 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    Hec, you wouldn’t even understand irony with a Judeo-Christian world view either.

    What the hell does that mean?

    And how does understanding irony have anything to do with an Abrahamic world view. There is no irony on my being ‘dependent’ on an Abrahamic conception of religion.

    Firstly because I am not so dependent. Secondly because my ‘venom’ is legitimate criticism that thus far you have failed to address. Thirdly because there’s no irony whatsoever. What’s the slightest bit ironic about requiring something that I object to in order for me to object to it?

    The Church is not strictly speaking a Jewish invention. It more resembles Roman paganism institutionally. And religion as an institution that curtailed thought, repressed facts, headed truth off at the past and generated misery and suffering all in the name of some hocus-pocus about Supernatural Rewards and Punishments predates Jesus and Moses by, um thousands of years if not at least! And here’s the news: That ain’t what Jesus was on about!

    And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others

    Still I’m sorry. I may stand corrected on various points of 18th century Quaker history (if any’d actually been made). But so…

    This is the second time in ten minutes I’ve been accused of ‘hating Catholics’. This is in both instances emitted by doctrinaire defenders of the Church (whether or no they actually belong). I don’t hate Catholics. I am one. I don’t even criticize the Church entire. Like other human endeavours there’s a tapestry of the good, the bad, the ugly and the beautiful.

    The Pope basically says: condoms don’t work religion does.

    Condoms do work. He’s free to say don’t use ’em. People are free to be orthodox Catholics. But there’s a line and he’s crossed it.

    To date you haven’t been able to actually address these actual points. Nor have you gone near the various points about the actual material results of Catholic codes viz sexual morality.

    No instead we have ‘DEM isn’t a real Christian ’cause Quakers are bad and don’t have ambulances and apparently did rude things to each other 200 years years ago.’ And with these standards you have the temerity to accuse others of being hateful or facile or ignorant?

    <blockquoteWhy do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.

    (Whatever you do don’t mention the Medici Popes I did once but I think I got away with it).

    I don’t have a problem with religion as faith and creed provided that a. It’s not an excuse to be a self-righteous hypocrite and b. It is in no way made compulsory for people.

    Unfortunately I suspect many people don’t actually have any faith. Instead they are desperately clinging to Dogma like the drowning clutching at floating wood and they think if only I can force everyone to think the same and do the same and be the same then…

    IT WILL BE TRUE!

    Fact is that those religious persons with real insight and faith know good and damn well that it ain’t about the condoms it’s about the Mystery

    You who build the altars now
    To sacrifice these children
    You must not do it anymore
    A scheme is not a vision
    And you NEVER have been tempted by demon or God

    You who stand above them now
    Your hatchets blunt and bloody
    You were not here before
    When I lay upon a mountain
    And my father’s hand was trembling
    With the beauty of the Word

    Leonard Cohen
    Story of Issac

  25. Posted April 2, 2009 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    Saint – Gentleman is obviously not a word that would ever be ascribed to you Adrien.

    Actually it has been and does because it is.

    A gentleman is not obliged to let women walk all over him nor is he obliged to maintain some falsely positive view of her character. He need not even be perpetually courteous. Altho’ he should never be rude – unintentionally. And should he be he should apologize.

    I endeavour to manifest this ethos and sometimes I even succeed.

    These days one is a Modern Gentleman. And in the modern era ladies are not mere weaklings who must be pandered to with condescending insincerities viz their ‘virtue’. They enter the Arena wherein there is no law and take their blows as men have.

    And give as good as they get. And, this century I suspect, better.

    Ms Pell was not a very nice person, she has that and more coming. And this gentleman may call an arsehole an arsehole regardless her gender but he does not advocate a return to the era when women were livestock for popping sprogs. 🙂

  26. Gummo Trotsky
    Posted April 2, 2009 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

    saint,

    the reason I’m selective with the barbs has nothing to do with my being pro-left. It’s a professional courtesy between one banderillero and the rest of the toreadors.

  27. Posted April 2, 2009 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

    Adrien – let’s review your contribution

    .#104

    What also contributes is that African men seem to be a showers of pricks. Generally speaking.
    .
    It’s been said several times that if you could nix the boys Africa would improve overnight.

    Charming.

    #105

    “The Pope’s point is stupid” …”Bollocks” “the idealistic principles set down by St Paul (the Great Prude) and his celibate followers. ”

    (displaying hardly a sign of having even read the Pope’s comments, much less even understood Paul was neither a prude and merely following Jesus’ own teaching on marriage )

    #136 Bactracking a bit but still wrong about Paul

    Well I’m not certain we can say for certain that Saul of Tarsus was a prude. But he appears very much to believe that a sex-free life is the virtuous one.

    Gosh did it ever occur to you Paul’s contribution to the NT was a series of letters addressed to certain people/churches often in repsonse to specific questions? Nah. Or that the church – Eastern or Western has never developed a theology of marriage or sex from a couple of sentences from Paul alone? Nah. Ever looked at what Jesus said about marriage? Nah. Think Leviticus is a rule book? It’s actually part of a narrative that starts from near the end of Exodus and ends near the start of Numbers, a narrative itself part of another stretching from Genesis to Deuteronomy. Leviticus, first book most Hebrew children learn to read, and most Christological book in the Old Testament. Talks a lot about priests, and sacrifices, no doubt the holiness code in there must have you in a tiz.

    #137 Python

    #147 More Monty Python and

    My view on this issue is that, whilst the Church is entitled to adhere to its version of sexual morality it has no business making distorted statements about the capacity of condoms to prevent HIV infection

    Again as pointed out to you later, what was the question posed to the Pope and what did he answer? Where have you demonstrated he made “distorted statements about the capacity of condoms to prevent HIV infection”?

    etc etc

    As for your gentlemanly side. Is Ms Pell a public figure? Even if she were, Is it a matter of public interest that she was once one of your friend’s girlfriend, of whom you disapproved? Why do you feel compelled to identify her as “one of the Pells?” Frankly if Catholics have a bad name as you assert, it can only be because of self-professed “Catholic” “arseholes” like you.

  28. Posted April 5, 2009 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    Saint – That’s just sad and silly. I won’t bother.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*