logician
Well-Known Member
The official stance of the Catholic church matters greatly, and in this case consistently has caused untold misery in the form of suffering, hunger, and poverty on a grand scale.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pope states condoms aren't the answer to HIV
- Thread starter challupa
- Start date
The official stance of the Catholic church matters greatly, and in this case consistently has caused untold misery in the form of suffering, hunger, and poverty on a grand scale.
Something else occurred to me. I'll throw it out here and see what people think:
The Pope isn't just a religious figure. He's also effectively the CEO of a major NGO that actively provides all sorts of vital services to people in need. With that in mind, here are some questions to consider:
- does this role that the Pope and the Church have taken on carry with it some sort of moral duty or social contract? If so, what is it?
- is the Pope using the Church's influence as a quasi-NGO to promote religious and doctrinal matters? If so, is this appropriate?
The Pope isn't just a religious figure. He's also effectively the CEO of a major NGO that actively provides all sorts of vital services to people in need. With that in mind, here are some questions to consider:
- does this role that the Pope and the Church have taken on carry with it some sort of moral duty or social contract? If so, what is it?
- is the Pope using the Church's influence as a quasi-NGO to promote religious and doctrinal matters? If so, is this appropriate?
Stellify
StarChild
I think it's irresponsible and unreasonable, personally.
I see why not changing church doctrine just because it would be easier is important, but....When the Pope making a statement like this, or having beliefs like this, leads to the kind of lies that have been mentioned earlier in this thread (condoms don't work, the condoms themselves are laced with HIV, etc)....that's just irresponsible on the part of the Church to 1)allow it and 2) not do something major about it now that it has happened.
There is a HUGE difference, IMO, between condoning an act and educating people on it. The church could educate people on the uses of condoms, without ever saying it was acceptable or telling people to use them. Or, at the very least, they could avoid lying about it....that seems so...childish and petty to me.
To flat out lie to people about the benefits of condom use, when so many lives could be saved, is unforgivable. And, considering that the Pope is the leader for the body that is responsible for spreading those lies in this case, I think it is his responsibility to stop the misinformation being spread around by his church.
But it is utterly unrealistic for the RCC to completely ignore the multitudes that will not follow the path of abstinence.
It's not like it's only the completely virtuous that matter, is it?
Shouldn't the church do what it can for those who will make mistakes here and there?
At the very least, if the church isn't going to look out for them, it should at least not deliberately make things worse, don't you think?
Smoke
Done here.
Because they are stupid, immoral, and cruel.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Just for clarification here from the Christians....where is the sin? Can anyone show me where sex, without procreation, is a sin? This is the RCC's stand behind all of this. No condoms, no birth control, no vasectomy.... Where is the sin????
You can find the Vatican's case in the Papal Encyclical Humanae Vitae ("on Human Life").
I personally don't think it's a very good argument, so I'm probably not the one to give you a summary.
linwood
Well-Known Member
The RCC doesn`t rely on Biblical Christian authority to make this stance.
The RCC has a catechism that allows support for a lot of dogmatic edicts that have no basis in Biblical authority.
In other words the authority of the RCC to make this stance at least within their own sect is verifiable if not Biblical.
The RCC a long time ago put their own authority above the Biblical gods concerning many things, sin being one of them.
This is ultimately what caused the Protestant schism.
It really ****** Martin Luther off.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
If this is the case then the RCC, and the standing Pope are personally responsible for the deaths of millions of children and innocents, and I am not talking about the Crusades.
Comicaze247
See the previous line
What I'm going to say is going to sound pretty morbid, but . . .9-10th's quote said:
Well, since they're professing that people with AIDS not have sex, they're basically also saying they should not reproduce (understandable, of course). Isn't that just a slower way of waiting for all AIDS patients to die unless a cure is found?
Not that I would support any the latter of what I'm about to say, but I think the only ways to eradicate AIDS/HIV are either somehow find a cure, or kill all who are infected. Then just don't have sex with monkeys
linwood
Well-Known Member
This is the case.
This was just posted above
Papal Encyclical Humanae Vitae ("on Human Life").
I believe that document falls under the category of inspired Papal decree.
That means it is as good as if from the very mouth of god to a Catholic.
Please correct me if I`m wrong.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
And the only person in the RCC who could change this is the Pope, as other decrees have been reversed or dropped in the past, so can this. I still hold the RCC, and the Pope, as Gods mouthpiece on earth, responsible.
I keep forgetting about this... my apologies...
As you may know, the Church doesn't accept "ends justify the means" philosophy... Benedict isn't going to proclaim "Because you in this way, that makes it ok by me to sin in this other way"...
For an admittedly absurd in severity comparison, nobody would be ok with killing everyone with AIDS, it would stop the spread, it would ease food problems, both things that would be good, but nobody would be ok with the method... The Pope can't be ok with a 'wrong' way of dealing with the issue... even if the 'right' is less effective...
"it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it"
I think that war is not nessecarily 'wrong', it just has a certain(I'd say very limited) window in which it is acceptable...
I'm not asking you to accept that it does...
The Pope has a moral duty to lead the Church in being the "pillar of truth", and leading the Church in right and wrong... that is his primary duty, after that is physical needs...
The Pope is the head of a religion. It would be absurd to demand that he not promote the Church's doctrine to the people he leads...
From what I understand, it was abuses, and not doctrine that caused Luther to split...
It is currently considered dogmatic... but I believe there is a minority that dispute that...
The Pope must have a wicked sense of humor.
Wait - I agree that the Church doesn't generally take the position that the ends justify the means, but I think they do acknowledge that results do matter; bad ends aren't justified just because they were arrived at by "good" means.
I know that you picked this as an absurd example, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. A big part of the problem of AIDS in Africa is the effect of the disease on the social framework of whole nations. If a country is in a food crisis because so many of their farmers have been incapacitated with AIDS, I don't think it would really solve anything in the long run to kill them outright.
Two thoughts:
- I think that's a pretty accurate description of what the Church is doing here: they're doing evil (i.e. following a policy with a definite and significant cost in human life) for what they consider to be "good" (i.e. furtherance of doctrine).
- in the relationship between a service provider (and by this, I'm referring to the Church's role as a quasi-NGO, not painting salvation as a "service") and the society it serves, who is the proper judge of "good" and "evil"? For non-religious NGOs, I personally think that they should take into account the values of the societies they serve... and I don't see a reason to make an exception to this for religious ones.
If I understand the Church's position on war, it's that it is sometimes justified to give up something valuable such as life (both innocent and not) of the cause is great enough. What makes other arguably valuable things, for example doctrine on contraception, immune to this tradeoff?
I know. My point was just that there's not even a moral dilemma in the first place unless you accept certain religious positions. There's more than one way of looking at the issue, and I think that if we cast it as a certain dilemma, we lose sight of this.
I mainly wanted to get that out there in case the discussion narrowed to Catholic doctrine alone.
I meant the moral duties of the head of an NGO delivering aid and services to people in need. Basically, what are the moral duties that go along with being an NGO in general? Are the Church's religious duties in conflict with them?
But that's not his only role. He's also a head of state and the leader of an aid organization. These sort of roles have duties as well, and I don't think it's absurd at all to ask that an NGO supposedly helping a people not actively harm them at the same time.
Last edited:
Ozzie
Well-Known Member
There must be virtue in a wank.He's irresponsible.
He's out of touch with reality.
Essentially, he's an old prude. A closet wanker.
This is a weird response to the discussion, to use condoms to continue in sin (not repenting ) is the way that Salvation is lost, the fastest way to salvation is repentance, actually is the only way. Death does not equal Salvation, where do you get this weird notions from?
Strangely this is correct, the Pope is responsible in the discharge of his office, more than a billion and a half souls Salvations depend on it.
Mar 8:36 For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?
Encouraging people to continue in their sins is evil and unloving, and not fitting of a Christian, encouraging them to virtue is beneficial and loving, these are the characteristic that this man is showing us.