News Englands a third world country?

chipper

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Jan 15, 2004
Messages
1,874
as an aside, i was commenting on the church in general, not the AIDS thing per se :)

and this is going to sound harsh, but there we go :

if the third world was fixed by tomorrow afternoon, there would not be enough petrol for cars, food for people, jobs, etc, to keep everyone in the luxury they are accustomed to. so it is in the interests of "the west" for people in places like africa to go on dying of nasty diseases, cos it stops us having to compete with them . so its not likely that this will ever be fixed. if it wasnt the catholic church,it would be Nestle or someone else :(

QFT
also while smoking is been heavily targetted and villianised (rightly so imo) in this country these companys are targetting the poorer nations because they know its an easy market where it will not be made an issue of its despicable but there we go thats what the human race is capable of.
 

noblok

Part of the furniture
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,371
Strange that new AIDS infections are falling massively where programs that challenge the catholic churches views have been put into place then eh?
On the other hand the countries with the highest number of catholics also appear to be the one with the lowest number of HIV positive people, so the issue isn't that clear-cut.

Either way noblok - how is the church's message that condoms cause AIDS "positive"?
That's not the church's message. I know of a controversy a while ago after the pope said that prevention programmes which focus solely on condom distribution don't help and may increase the problem, but that's hardly the same thing as saying 'condoms cause AIDS'. However: if anyone were to make the claim that condoms cause AIDs, that would obviously be wrong (scientifically and moral).

I do believe that if you're not sticking to the other rules regarding sex, you might as well use a condom too. I think in this case this could - in a christian/catholic view - be defended based on the doctrine of lesser evil. After all: 'thou shallt not kill' is also a pretty important rule one should adhere to.

Oh, and:
Another christian who refuses to believe that his church can do any bad, perchance?
Not really, I think the church has made mistakes in the past and still makes mistakes (the recent comparison of atheism with nazism was pretty bad). I also know the pope is not infallible.
 

nath

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,009
I do believe that if you're not sticking to the other rules regarding sex, you might as well use a condom too.


Question: Do you honestly think that if the church reversed its position on condoms and said "no sex before marriage, but practice safe sex" there would be no reduction in AIDS?

If you think there would be, do you think it's ethically sound for them to continue to come out against condoms*?





*In fact, if everyone was coming against condoms we wouldn't have this problem. HURHURHUR.
 

noblok

Part of the furniture
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,371
Question: Do you honestly think that if the church reversed its position on condoms and said "no sex before marriage, but practice safe sex" there would be no reduction in AIDS?
I'm not sure, because as I've said: I think there are other reasons why men don't want to use a condom and that they use the standpoint of the church only as an excuse to make it more acceptable. It would probably have an effect, but I'm unsure whether it would be positive or negative for HIV infections (because condoms are far too often used incorrectly and people could make of this statement that 'screwing around isn't that bad').

If you think there would be, do you think it's ethically sound for them to continue to come out against condoms*?
Yes, I do. The reason for this is that I understand why the church would choose not to speak of how to perform certain immoral acts. This is not the function of the pope: he focuses on the ideals. The more pragmatic ethics is a pastoral affair, a matter for priests who are faced with concrete cases. (This does mean that in most cases I'd think a priest should give the advise you prescribed: "no sex before marriage, but practice safe sex.")

I think this clear distinction between the moral ideals and the aknowledgement that human beings are imperfect creatures is interesting because it makes it harder for the ideals to be contaminated by pragmatic considerations. That's why I value this distinction and that's why I understand why the pope says what he says.

I must add though that the pope probably doesn't approach this issue with the best communicative strategy. I think it would be wiser to focus more on the positive value: sex in a married relationship, than on the negative: condemnation of condoms. Here is a shared responsibility between pope and media, though, because when the pope says "We think the approach of the HIV problem can't be solved without a thorough look at sexual behaviour (meaning prositution, premartial sex, etc.)," the papers would write "Pope says condoms are not the answer."
 

nath

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,009
If they're sticking to strict morals, why does there need to be ANY mention of condoms whatsoever? I'd be OK (to a certain extent) with them saying "no sex before marriage in our little club fellas", and simply saying nothing negative about condoms at all. That way the organisations that are saying "hey, rubber up - don't get aids" aren't fighting against what the pope is saying.

There's obviously nothing about rubbers in the bible - is there anything about contraception at all? Either way, if they want to preach no sex before marriage - fine, but why have they got to go on the negative about condoms which clearly provide a massive bonus to STD protection.
 

noblok

Part of the furniture
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,371
I think that's a sensible critique (to a certain extent). It's what I also tried to say: it would probably be better if they did a little less condemnation and instead focussed on their positive ideals. (Although, as I said: I don't think the church is the only one to blame for this focus on condemnation.)

I'm not entirely sure on the biblical aspects of the whole contraception thing, so I'd just like to make a more general point: catholicism is about more than the bible. It's protestantism which focuses on sola scriptura. For catholicism the tradition is also very important.
 

nath

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,009
I'm not entirely sure on the biblical aspects of the whole contraception thing, so I'd just like to make a more general point: catholicism is about more than the bible. It's protestantism which focuses on sola scriptura. For catholicism the tradition is also very important.

That's all well and good but Catholicism pre-dates rubbers, if not birth control. The attitude to condoms must have come in later and as such it's reasonable to attack it as a ridiculous and dangerous stance given the current situation in parts of Africa.
 

noblok

Part of the furniture
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,371
That's all well and good but Catholicism pre-dates rubbers, if not birth control. The attitude to condoms must have come in later and as such it's reasonable to attack it as a ridiculous and dangerous stance given the current situation in parts of Africa.
The attitude towards condoms is because of the traditional view that the strong connection between children and sex is valuable and must be preserved. This can also be seen in the fact that you can't marry for the church if you don't want children. This connection doesn't mean that you can only have sex for the express purpose of having kids (natural family planning is accepted), but condoms are simply a step too far for the catholic church.

(And as I said: I'm not convinced it's that ridiculous and dangerous a stance.)
 

nath

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,009
(natural family planning is accepted), but condoms are simply a step too far for the catholic church.

(And as I said: I'm not convinced it's that ridiculous and dangerous a stance.)

So why is "natural family planning" accept and not condoms, and why is that not a ridiculous and dangerous stance? Care to elaborate on your position?
 

noblok

Part of the furniture
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,371
So why is "natural family planning" accept and not condoms, and why is that not a ridiculous and dangerous stance? Care to elaborate on your position?
Because condoms are seen as a more active intervention. It actively stops the reproduction which would otherwise have happened. This isn't (so much) the case with natural family planning. I know you could argue that this is only a gradual difference, but it's where the church draws the line.

I don't think I can elaborate any more than I've already done. I'm simply not convinced the stance of the church leads to more HIV infections. The reasons for that can be found in the posts above.
 

chipper

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Jan 15, 2004
Messages
1,874
yes it is an active intervention that stops reproduction. are you saying you cant have sex unless you plan on having a child?

a condom is an active intervention and thank GOD! we have them. you know you may have heard of STD's?

the church says dont use condoms, yet they are a excellent way to prevent spreading STD's? do you agree? how is saying there use is evil a good thing?
what is wrong with trying to stop over population and the spread of STD's? seriously how can any sane person defend such a stance?
 

throdgrain

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
7,197
Oh, and one more thing, to go back to my first comment about rape in South Africa.

Have a read of this.

A recent trade union report said a child was being raped in South Africa every three minutes with the vast majority of those cases going unreported.

I supose those are all done by Catholics ;)

One in four men admit to having been involved in rape. What are the statistics for HIV infection? I'd say that rape must have a huge part in spreading AIDS, no matter what some people on here might want to think. Unless you're saying that the rapists might have used condoms if the Pope hadnt told them not to :confused:
 

nath

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,009
I don't think anyone is suggesting that AIDS would simply cease to be if the pope said "rubber up folks!" just that cases would potentially drop.

Speaking of child abuse in SA - if you want to watch one of the most painful/uplifting/distressing/horrific/powerful documentaries in quite some time - check out "Rough Aunties". It's about a group that looks after kids who've suffered abuse and tries to prosecute the offenders. Pretty shocking stuff.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,397
I must add though that the pope probably doesn't approach this issue with the best communicative strategy. I think it would be wiser to focus more on the positive value: sex in a married relationship, than on the negative: condemnation of condoms. Here is a shared responsibility between pope and media, though, because when the pope says "We think the approach of the HIV problem can't be solved without a thorough look at sexual behaviour (meaning prositution, premartial sex, etc.)," the papers would write "Pope says condoms are not the answer."

Why? Where's the moral argument that sex in a married relationship is more acceptable than outside marriage? You do understand that the only reason why the church takes this stance is because it keeps people within the pyramid scheme? "Marriage" is just another artificial institution that is completely meaningless if you examine it closely. So long as there's no coercion (and as an aside, marriage has been a coercive act against women for centuries, especially catholic women, who had no redress against abusive husbands because the catholic church also says divorce is a sin), then sex, in any circumstance, is not immoral, its normal and natural.
 

throdgrain

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
7,197
I don't think anyone is suggesting that AIDS would simply cease to be if the pope said "rubber up folks!" just that cases would potentially drop.

Speaking of child abuse in SA - if you want to watch one of the most painful/uplifting/distressing/horrific/powerful documentaries in quite some time - check out "Rough Aunties". It's about a group that looks after kids who've suffered abuse and tries to prosecute the offenders. Pretty shocking stuff.

I'd say a lot of posts in this thread suggest that exact thing mate. Yet again we see a lot of very well-meaning individuals projecting thier own thoughts and standards onto situations and people that are so far away from them they're barely even on the same planet.

We had much the same conversation on the subject of capital punishment - people just couldnt accept that there are people who will kill for rage, or just because they dont care, and will feel little remorse and barely any guilt at all. They must be ill! etc etc.
 

noblok

Part of the furniture
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,371
Why? Where's the moral argument that sex in a married relationship is more acceptable than outside marriage?
The argument is that there's a certain value in sharing this kind of intimacy with only one person. Marriage is the promise of this exclusivity forever. I believe the idea is that this intimacy becomes somewhat less intimate in a way when it's experienced with many different people.

Another argument is based on the link with reproduction. In a catholic view having sex with someone means that in principle you're prepared to have children with them. This asks some kind of long-term commitment to one another, as you'll have to raise your children together.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
Lots of stuff

Throddy. Yes, rape figures in Africa are astounding (as are many other crime figures). But you can't seriously be suggesting that rape is the primary cause of HIV spreading?

The primary cause is unprotected sex between consentual partners. The catholic church's teachings increase the infection rate. Areas where the teachings of the catholics are challenged and condom use promoted (which, thankfully, are on the increase) have dramatically falling rates of infection.


This isn't "personal opinion" - science shows this :)



The argument is that there's a certain value in sharing this kind of intimacy with only one person. Marriage is the promise of this exclusivity forever. I believe the idea is that this intimacy becomes somewhat less intimate in a way when it's experienced with many different people.

Another argument is based on the link with reproduction. In a catholic view having sex with someone means that in principle you're prepared to have children with them. This asks some kind of long-term commitment to one another, as you'll have to raise your children together.

For a start, I've had a few long term relationships (I'm a serial monogamist) and I've been increasingly intimate with each subsequent partner. I used to feel (in my christian past) the same way - but experience has taught me that that christian ideal is bullshit.

Also, I've never wanted kids. Ever. Not sure that I ever will. Am I supposed to never have sex because of this? << I'd really like you to answer this noblok.


Christian morality is a false morality. It causes more pain and suffering than it alleviates.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,397
The argument is that there's a certain value in sharing this kind of intimacy with only one person. Marriage is the promise of this exclusivity forever. I believe the idea is that this intimacy becomes somewhat less intimate in a way when it's experienced with many different people.

A value judgement (and a pretty poor one) that has nothing to do with God or the Bible.

Another argument is based on the link with reproduction. In a catholic view having sex with someone means that in principle you're prepared to have children with them. This asks some kind of long-term commitment to one another, as you'll have to raise your children together.

I know what the argument is, but its flat wrong isn't it? Why should having sex with someone imply you're prepared to have children with them? Its a bizarre argument that's at the root of all catholic-fucked-upness about sex. And secondly, you don't need a piece of paper to have long-term commitment or raise children.
 

noblok

Part of the furniture
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,371
For a start, I've had a few long term relationships (I'm a serial monogamist) and I've been increasingly intimate with each subsequent partner. I used to feel (in my christian past) the same way - but experience has taught me that that christian ideal is bullshit.
Apparently it's bullshit for you, but I also know of some people - not all catholics - who regret having had sex with a certain partner in their past. Not because they were coerced, but because the relationship didn't last. Some people don't like the idea that they have given their virginity to someone who they now no longer love. Even though this is an artificial construction, it doesn't change that some people do feel this way.

Also, I've never wanted kids. Ever. Not sure that I ever will. Am I supposed to never have sex because of this? << I'd really like you to answer this noblok.
I find this a hard one, but as you'd really like me to answer it, I'll try to formulate an answer. So: I think that ideally in any sexual relationship there's at least an openness for children. This doesn't necessarily mean that these people should want children right now, but at least that they don't in principle object it.

However, that's the ideal. This might not be attainable for everyone. Some people may find it too hard to abstain from sex even though they don't want children. Here comes in the pragmatical approach of pastoral ethics. I don't know your specific situation well enough to talk about it, but in general I'd say that people can have meaningful sex without wanting children, even if it's not ideal.

A general remark to go with all of this, though: I think it's really counterproductive of Catholics to try and enforce their morals on non-catholics. I think it's better to try and show why Catholics think something is valuable and maybe then someone else might see the same thing. I don't wish to pass judgement over you. To me it only makes sense to explain to someone how they should act according to catholic doctrine if there's a certain openness for it.
 

nath

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,009
We had much the same conversation on the subject of capital punishment - people just couldnt accept that there are people who will kill for rage, or just because they dont care, and will feel little remorse and barely any guilt at all. They must be ill! etc etc.

I remember the conversation and that's actually kind of missing the point.

Some people may find it too hard to abstain from sex even though they don't want children.

Why on earth should they try?
 

noblok

Part of the furniture
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,371
A value judgement (and a pretty poor one) that has nothing to do with God or the Bible.
Of course it's a value judgement, you asked me for a moral argument. I can't do that without appealing to values. I also disagree that it has nothing to do with God and the Bible. Adultery is condemned in the ten commandments. It makes sense to deduce from this that exclusivity is valuable for sexuality. Also, as I've said to nath: Catholicism is about more than just the Bible.


I know what the argument is, but its flat wrong isn't it? Why should having sex with someone imply you're prepared to have children with them? Its a bizarre argument that's at the root of all catholic-fucked-upness about sex. And secondly, you don't need a piece of paper to have long-term commitment or raise children.
I don't think it's wrong. You may not experience it that way, but Catholics do experience an intimate connection between those two things and they feel something is lost if you disconnect them. On your second point: I agree.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,397
Apparently it's bullshit for you, but I also know of some people - not all catholics - who regret having had sex with a certain partner in their past. Not because they were coerced, but because the relationship didn't last. Some people don't like the idea that they have given their virginity to someone who they now no longer love. Even though this is an artificial construction, it doesn't change that some people do feel this way.

I'd argue they only feel that way because the value system imposed on them since childhood makes them feel that way. There's nothing intrinsically sacred about one's virginity.

I find this a hard one, but as you'd really like me to answer it, I'll try to formulate an answer. So: I think that ideally in any sexual relationship there's at least an openness for children. This doesn't necessarily mean that these people should want children right now, but at least that they don't in principle object it.

Why? Seriously, why does sex have to be intrinsically linked to procreation?


However, that's the ideal. This might not be attainable for everyone. Some people may find it too hard to abstain from sex even though they don't want children. Here comes in the pragmatical approach of pastoral ethics. I don't know your specific situation well enough to talk about it, but in general I'd say that people can have meaningful sex without wanting children, even if it's not ideal.

Look at the language you use, "the ideal", "not attainable for everyone". Never has the phrase "holier-than-thou" been more apposite. When in reality, you're displaying unthinking adherence to your religion or a more deep-seated psychological dislike of sex itself. There's nothing morally superior about celibacy.

A general remark to go with all of this, though: I think it's really counterproductive of Catholics to try and enforce their morals on non-catholics. I think it's better to try and show why Catholics think something is valuable and maybe then someone else might see the same thing. I don't wish to pass judgement over you. To me it only makes sense to explain to someone how they should act according to catholic doctrine if there's a certain openness for it.

But its OK for catholics to enforce their morals on other catholics? Catholics who usually had no choice in the matter about being catholic in the first place? Catholics think "something is valuable" because that's what they've been indoctrinated to think.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,397
Of course it's a value judgement, you asked me for a moral argument. I can't do that without appealing to values. I also disagree that it has nothing to do with God and the Bible. Adultery is condemned in the ten commandments. It makes sense to deduce from this that exclusivity is valuable for sexuality. Also, as I've said to nath: Catholicism is about more than just the Bible.

Adultery isn't the same thing as sex outside marriage. Therefore your deduction is in error. And don't get me started on the 10 Commandments, you know, the ones that punish the children for the iniquity of their parents and condone slavery? Great set of standards.

I don't think it's wrong. You may not experience it that way, but Catholics do experience an intimate connection between those two things and they feel something is lost if you disconnect them. On your second point: I agree.

I bet if you asked 99.9% of "catholics" if that were the case, they'd disagree with you. The true believers are pretty thin on the ground.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,185
Any consideration of sexual morality must remember that it should be applicable to Gelgameks as well as humans.
 

noblok

Part of the furniture
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,371
Look at the language you use, "the ideal", "not attainable for everyone". Never has the phrase "holier-than-thou" been more apposite. When in reality, you're displaying unthinking adherence to your religion or a more deep-seated psychological dislike of sex itself. There's nothing morally superior about celibacy.
I'm afraid that's a problem of forum-based-communication in a language which isn't my mother tongue. I can see why you'd think I'm taking the 'holier-than-thou' approach, but I really don't feel holier than anyone. Obviously it's up to you to decide whether you believe this or not.
I don't simply adhere unthinkingly to my religion either. There are cases where I disagree with the official doctrine, but in this case I think they have a point. Here too you can choose to believe me or not, I can't prove this to you.

But its OK for catholics to enforce their morals on other catholics? Catholics who usually had no choice in the matter about being catholic in the first place? Catholics think "something is valuable" because that's what they've been indoctrinated to think.
No, it isn't OK to enforce them on fellow Catholics either. I think it only makes sense to follow moral rules if you really believe they're right. Adhering to rules you don't actually value, just because 'they're the rules' is - in my opinion - meaningless.

Not everyone who feels this way has been indoctrinated to think so. At least for me this wasn't the case. I also think it's somewhat meaningless to say someone 'just has been indoctrinated to think that way'. I could say the same thing about you, but that wouldn't really help the discussion forward, would it? Fact is that people do feel this way and that's what we have to work with.

DaGaffer said:
Adultery isn't the same thing as sex outside marriage. Therefore your deduction is in error.
I realise it doesn't follow from it stricto sensu, but I think it makes sense to interpret it that way (especially considering the writings of Paul).* It's also how it has been interpreted in the tradition for a long time. About the Bible offering a bad set of standards: that's a completely different kettle of fish. You said it had nothing to do with the Bible or God: I simply showed you it has.

* (I realise you probably don't like Paul either, but as I said: I'm simply answering your point that it has nothing to do with God or the Bible.)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom