Pope's Been Given Last Rites

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

Garrett W.,

[quote]Garrett W. wrote:
Millions of people in South America and Africa die of AIDs because they’re uneducated and don’t understand what diesese is or how its transmitted. Stupidity is killing them, not lack of rubbers. Most people in the Church use contraception for Christ sake, and over 80% of American Catholics think its completely fine. If people in Africa were educated of the risks and didn’t have rampant unprotected sex, there wouldn’t be the problem. Tracing it to the pope is so full of logical fallacies that… Bleh.[/quote]

I find it problematic to blame “the people in Africa and South America” for being uninformed, when one of the main sources for (moral and sexual) education (the catholic church) forbids them the use of proper methods to prevent especially HIV infections.

Let’s talk condoms for a minute - from the encyclica humanae vitae on the Vatican homepage: “Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation?whether as an end or as a means. … Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.” Humanae Vitae (July 25, 1968) | Paul VI

The encyclica forbids condoms (or any other contraceptive except Knaus-Ogino). Plain and simple. So using a tried, tested and easy to use manner to prevent unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases is simply forbidden, if you accept the encyclica - which many people in these countries do much more than “we”.

As often mentioned, for example here The pope who showed the church to the world | Catholicism | The Guardian , there is a strong divide between the northern and southern hemisphere churches (this cultural clash can also be seen in the Anglican churches), when it comes to moral issues. Technically the 80% in the US you mentioned, are ignoring a papal encyclica. I give you that it was not JPII but PIV who came up with this, but JPII did not use the many opportunities (and the rise of HIV) to make this ruling more flexible.

Rather unsettling I found the following passage I found in the guidelines for sexual education within the family: “Another important task for parents is following the gradual physiological development of their daughters and helping them joyfully to accept the development of their femininity in a bodily, psychological and spiritual sense. Therefore, normally, one should discuss the cycles of fertility and their meaning. But it is still not necessary to give detailed explanations about sexual union, unless this is explicitly requested.” The truth and meaning of human sexuality (8 December 1995)
Funnily enough, this was only directed towards girls…
This is found in the section on puberty, when girls can already get pregnant! That is really bad timing … ah, bad advice.

My point here is, that the church is not really helpful in tackling the real life problems of sexually awakening young people - and that is in the HIV/AIDS context very problematic. And - this falls under JPII’s rule, as the text is plastered with his comments (and is an interesting read).

My point? He was a great man, but on the side of tackling one of the most influencial parts of human existence (sexuality), he missed addressing the current challenges pretty much.

I guess you meant laughable, not laudable. :wink:

No one - who seriously engages in this topic - is belittling (?) his achievements. But as I wrote earlier, JPII, as any political or religious leader, made decisions that can and should be criticised. That does neither mean that everything he strived for (especially opposing certain wars and social injustice) should be regarded as failed, nor that his “mistakes” should be ignored.

In my personal opinion, a less conservative new pope might help unify the northern and southern churches and be more helpful in the fight against AIDS and overpopulation.

Makkun

82

Oh, I forgot another Roman Catholic theology: The holy spirit is present in Catholic marriage, except during the act of sex. I think this was Benedict or Augustine.

83

Whereas Chrisostom, who predated them AND who wrote the mass (which itself has since been made an abomination through liberal innovations) said that sex within the sacrament of marriage has two separate purposes-procreating, and to serve as a sacramental communion between the married couple.

84

[quote]makkun wrote:
Let’s talk condoms for a minute - from the encyclica humanae vitae on the Vatican homepage: “Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation?whether as an end or as a means. … Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.” Humanae Vitae (July 25, 1968) | Paul VI

The encyclica forbids condoms (or any other contraceptive except Knaus-Ogino). Plain and simple. So using a tried, tested and easy to use manner to prevent unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases is simply forbidden, if you accept the encyclica - which many people in these countries do much more than “we”.
[/quote]

At some point in school, one of my theology professors told us that one of the popes, a Paul or John within the last 50 years I believe, called up a huge conference to investigate the birth control issue, with theologians, scientists, experts in related fields. Their conclusion (this included input of high-ranking clergy) was that the then-contemporary stance on birth control should be changed (remember, no more homunculus) and that external b.c. devices i.e. condoms, should be permitted. And the pope listened to their findings and then condemned all forms of birth control outright.

85

Why deride another person’s religion?

Why not practice your own and just do the right thing…in your own mind.

The church doesn’t allow pre-marital sex. Why would they encourage the use of condom’s if they don’t allow the act, under their doctrine.

I am catholic and always used birth control. It’s a choice. I think it is OK, the pope didn’t, but he’s the boss not me so what he says goes ,as far as the faith goes.

Right, wrong or indifferent nobody makes you practice catholicism. It’s a choice.

86

Hey master blaster, it looks like I hit a hot button with you? Why should I have to go someplace else? You can rant on about how great the guy is, but I can’t provide evidence to the contrary?
THESE ARE PICTURES OF REAL PEOPLE, NOT CONCEPTS AND THEORIES AND FIGMENTS OF MY IMAGINATION THAT I PULLED OUT OF MY BUTT.
THESE ARE REAL PEOPLE WHO ARE REALLY DYING OF AIDS DUE IN PART TO THE CHURCHES DELIBERATE BACKWARD STANCE ON AIDS AND CONTRACEPTION.
I didn’t make this up to be sensational, this is for real. Just as my post obviously made you sick, your glorification of this man makes me sick. These are real people and not nice neat moral concepts. The pope sits up on high in his pimped out crib wearing his bling bling while these people breathe the exhaust of his backward policies.
I must admit that I have no proof that the church uses the aids crisis in africa as a backdoor way to “recruit” members through a “you need me to survive” relationship. However, I find it impossible to believe that the Pope has never met these people or has never seen these photos. To have done either and still continue his purposeful stance on contraception and safer sex is the policy of a fool or a madman.

87

The comment on Jesuits seems very interesting. Since Jesuits are insanely liberal, to the point of me wanting to vomit on myself liberal.

Yeah, laughable, not laudable. Gotta keep my vocab in line.

I think trying to pull the birth control issue apart from the entirety of the Chruch’s view on sex is pointless. The arguments are all inter-related and deal closely with one another. A couple points were touched on. Procreation and celebrating the sacrament of marraige. Also the condemnation of pre-marital sex. The Church also condemns sexual practices that don’t lead to procreation or in the context of marriage. To use birth control is to prevent procreation and violates one of the two basic princeples of why God intends people to have sex. Seems pretty cut and dry to me from a theological point of view.

Do I use birth control? Hell yeah. Do I violate numerous other Church doctrines I disagree with? Yep. You still gotta make your own personal choices.

And on the topic of AIDs. Sucks to be those little orphans or that lady dying of AIDs. I just don’t care about them.

88

I think the Church’s stance on birth control is the result of a bunch of guys who are cranky because the swore to never have sex, so they figure if they have to be miserable, then the rest of us shouldn’t enjoy sex either. I’m not kidding. As I mentioned, make these guys live in the real world where they would need to support a family and pay a mortgage and I guarantee that you would be hearing a different tune.

89

While reading these posts, a thought occurred to me:

“Yes, religion in general is quite full of shit, but this guy could have done a lot worse with what he had.”

JPII was not perfect. What a friggin’ surprise. He’s dead… honor his memory or shut the hell up. You guys are jerks.

90

[quote]Garrett W. wrote:
Millions of people in South America and Africa die of AIDs because they’re uneducated and don’t understand what diesese is or how its transmitted. Stupidity is killing them, not lack of rubbers. Most people in the Church use contraception for Christ sake, and over 80% of American Catholics think its completely fine. If people in Africa were educated of the risks and didn’t have rampant unprotected sex, there wouldn’t be the problem. Tracing it to the pope is so full of logical fallacies that… Bleh.

On the topic of the Church being pimped out and being attractive. Wasn’t it Jesus himself that had no qualms about accepting perfume that could’ve been sold to feed the hungry while letting himself get his feet washed and annointed? I don’t know about you, but if it was good enough for Jesus, well its good enough for me.

Women in the Church, or priests marrying? Its fairly clear you don’t have a very rudimentary knowledge of how the Church works (Not that mine is advanced in any degree). Things take time to develop. Vatican II changed things that had been brewing for hundreds of years. The Church moves in a cautious, methodical way. It does not change on whims or feelings of generations. When there is sound scholarly proof on why women should be priests or they should marry then there will be a response to it.

Trying to belittle the Pope’s achivements is laudable. As been said before, anyone can find a plethora of good works this man has done for humanity. Why don’t we start belittling Ghandi’s works next?[/quote]

Ok, i am happy that you feel my comments are laudable…ie praise worthy.

91

[quote]hedo wrote:
miniross wrote:
hedo wrote:
miniross wrote:
juice

Please feel free to educate me on this. Persuade me that i am wrong, and demonstrate his accomplishments. i have a sense of history, i am english!

A history of intellectual cosmopolitanism perhaps.

Hasn’t it got you Brits in enough trouble over the years.

The man lived an accomplished life. Trying to tarnish it with silly comments diminishes you, not him.

This is not answering my question.

i have no reputation to tarnish, it is shit anyway.

I am not trying to tarnish it, just make valid points that differ from yours.

also, who hasn’t had an accomplshed life, especially if you have children. tha is all there is, you know. everything else counts s fluff.

Miniross

Haven’t you denied or attempted to refute everything that has been said to you…I mean what’s the point.

Many of us admire the man. Many of us have children, and it is a great accomplishmnet no doubt. However, what is annoying is that the pope is generally well thought of as a great leader and man of conviction. All admirable qualities. Except by you for some reason. That is why you draw attacks from all quarters.

It may not be politcally correct or popular among the liberal classes and most Europeans but many of us find it OK to admire people for fine leadership and an accomplished life.

[/quote]

Firstly, not all quaters. and i am fine with that. The opposers of the points i have levelled have just conceeded and no longer wish to discuss, stating that a continued ignorance means that they have given up. very lacking in conviction me thinks.

And it is ok to admire someone, i just think that many of the good deeds are outshaddowed by innaction over some increadibly important issues. this, on balance makes me think that some of the admiration is misplaced.

this is my opinion, based of facts as they have been presented to me here and elsewhere.

92

[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
miniross wrote:
dear jackzepplin.

i am not being ignorant, you are blinkered. as far as not wanting to educate me, then thats fine, but you cannot level that insult at me.

As far as i see, you are unquestioning of your faith or whatever it is…

…this can only lead to ignorance.

Ahhh Grasshoppa, keep trying. You’re not convincing anyone here that you’re anything other than what I’ve leveled against you.

Faith and admiration of a man are different things.

I can assure you that the Church is in order, except for some of the arrogant Westerners that think they can do it on their own.

Have a good life. If you want to talk fitness, then feel free to address me. As for discussing your opinion of the Pope or the Catholic Church, I’m through with you.[/quote]

I can now sleep at night knowing that the chuch is in order.

93

[quote]juice20jd wrote:
miniross wrote:
juice20jd wrote:
miniross wrote:
juice

Please feel free to educate me on this. Persuade me that i am wrong, and demonstrate his accomplishments. i have a sense of history, i am english!

you are wrong. end of story.

trying to educate or persuade someone who obviously has ill-founded opinions based on pure ignorance/lack of knowledge/intelligence is a complete waste of my time.

i’ll leave it to those with more patience and tolerance.

have a nice day.

See this is just a cop out. i have the conviction to stand and make conversation, this is just demonstrating that you have a lack of knowledge. This attitude would be best demonstrated by those that follow any sort of dogma, and follow blindly and do not question.

not a cop out, just the simple truth. its not my fault that you are obviously mentally/intellectually challenged…and you are definately WITHOUT conviction.

and don’t insult me by assuming that my attack on your ignorance concerning the pope and his life acheivements represents a “blind follower of dogma”. what basis do you have for an idiotic assumption like that??? you have used that moronic statement to try and cover-up and divert attention from the fact that you are in over your head on a subject you have obviously little if no applicable/useful knowledge to contribute.

where in any post did i contend that i was catholic? or a follower? a believer? faithful? the answer is nowhere. the points made were based on history and facts…tangible things.

again i maintain my position on your ignorance, as many others have echoed.

my guess is you have used your statements as a lure to go trolling for people to disagree and have arguments with. me thinks you get off on it…

and…i’m out.

[/quote]

If we are talikng about the first instance of mud slinging, i believe that initially called “ignorant”. and then had my attempts to be convinced by a reasoned argument ignored.

There was an assumption that you were following a dogma, so i was off line there.

As far as no coviction. well thats AMOO. i say i have, you say otherwise.

What is important here is that the passion on both sides i think shows how polarising this has been, and as pposed to brining people together, it shows in sharp relief the + and - that have/have not been achieved.

94

Don’t confuse admitting defeat with boredom!

95

[quote]miniross wrote:

Firstly, not all quaters. and i am fine with that. The opposers of the points i have levelled have just conceeded and no longer wish to discuss, stating that a continued ignorance means that they have given up. very lacking in conviction me thinks.

And it is ok to admire someone, i just think that many of the good deeds are outshaddowed by innaction over some increadibly important issues. this, on balance makes me think that some of the admiration is misplaced.

this is my opinion, based of facts as they have been presented to me here and elsewhere.[/quote]

You talk of conviction, but the facts are that I have a life. I don’t have the time or energy to deal with your weak arguments. You’ve given us NOTHING more. The fact is, my conviction is in my work. Since my last post, I’ve spent time working (lawn work, garage work, family time, etc.).

I don’t find any of the arguments on this thread worth discussing. The AIDS arguments have been the most heated and the most ignorant yet.

You guys can enjoy yourselves in talking trash, but I choose to rise above your nonsense and do things in my life that have meaning. Educating you has no meaning; therefore, I will take my conviction elsewhere.

Now, I must get ready for Church and spend the rest of the day with my family. You know, the important things in life (cleaning the vehicles, cooking out, playing with my two year old, sleeping with my three-week old, etc.). It’s obvious that many of you have nothing better to do than try to spread your hate for a man who has obviously changed the world and spent a lifetime trying to make it a BETTER place.

96

wow, you are increadibly productive.

since seeing all of the things you do has really made my life seem like the worthless pile of turd that it must be.

and again, it is not hate, i dont hate the man. i dont agree that he was as wonderful as is being made out.

ironically, you did seem to have the time to reply to this thread, so what that is saying, well i dont know.

im not here to compare dicks and say "i am far busier than you. leveling a weak and personal attack, as opposed to replying to posts specifically gets you no browny points.

I hope you have a fantastic day. i have.

97

Show me where I ranted on abot how great he was?
And I never said you couldn’t or shouldn’t do whatever you want, I simply asked you politely to not be such a shit about it here, now.
Please, go start your own thread to put all that stuff in…I’ll even come over and tell you what a putz I think you are for it, okay?
Thanks.

98

No problem Master Blaster, I will take your advice wholeheartedly.
You can call me a putz anyday!
sincerely,
mkshank

99

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
While reading these posts, a thought occurred to me:

“Yes, religion in general is quite full of shit, but this guy could have done a lot worse with what he had.”

JPII was not perfect. What a friggin’ surprise. He’s dead… honor his memory or shut the hell up. You guys are jerks.[/quote]

Why would you honour the memory of someone whose policies you did not agree with and who you did not like?

100

here you go, miniross, here’s what the “lank haired paddy” had to say.

Bono: Pope Was Catholic Church’s ‘Best Front Man’
DUBLIN (Reuters) - Pope John Paul II was the “best front man” the Roman Catholic Church ever had, U2’s own front man Bono said Sunday.

The men, both named as nominees for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, campaigned together to end world debt. The lead singer of the Irish rock band once famously gave the Pope his trademark wraparound sunglasses to put on during a meeting, dubbing him “the first funky Pontiff.”

“A great show man, a great communicator of ideas even if you didn’t agree with all of them, a great friend to the world’s poor which is how I got to meet him,” Bono said in a statement.

“Without John Paul II its hard to imagine the Drop the Debt campaign succeeding as it did,” Bono said, referring to an activist movement which seeks to convince wealthy nations to cancel the debts of the world’s poorest countries.

The Pope met Bono, along with other pop stars, aid workers and economists, in 1999 to push for rich nations to write off third world debt by the year 2000 and demanded to know why the West was dragging its feet.

“How could you turn this man down?” Bono said at the time.

A fan of popular culture, the Pope once invited Bob Dylan to perform for him at a church congress in Bologna and joined the Eurythmics, Alanis Morissette and Lou Reed at a concert in Rome in aid of debt reduction.

In January last year at the Vatican, the pontiff even presided over a performance of breakdancers from his home country of Poland.