Force 9 Quake Rocks Roman Catholic Dogma

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Link  Get a grip on something solid.  This article will rock every diocese in the Chruch.

[Empowered One 41]

I can imagine that the next headline probably reads: 'Imposter Pope okay'd the use of Condoms!' And while that headline is going around, religious fanatics start to scream: SATAN IS HERE!

I bet that this is more of an image-thing. I mean, In the Netherlands and Belgium, more and more stories about child-abusing priests, pop up almost every week.

[Duke87 1,070]

In a way, this isn't really a big deal since, for the average Catholic, nothing has changed. Special cases only.

The argument seems a bit fuzzy, though. Condoms are okay as a step "in the direction of moralization"? Condoms have nothing to do with "moralization", and using them will not help it. That is just a bad attempt to placate all the traditional Catholics who will not be pleased by this.

But at any rate, this is a welcome development.

[EyeofMobius 27]

I am very excited to be privy to this news. And I feel I will be following the news feeds for the next week to see what spins around on this.

I have many friends that I support very much who are activists against abstinence only education and the religious prohibitions of contraceptives. I am very pleased that a step in the right direction has finally been taken by the catholic church.

[Athanasius 0]

Okay then, i'll damper anyone's spirits on this issue

1, condoms are still "banned" though, if you're married and neither of you has HIV then it's a mortal sin

if you are married and you practicice infidelity then that's a mortal sin. if you contract HIV from them then that's even worse and to give it to your spouse is also a mortal sin.

like everything that eminates from the Vatican this will be bent, twisted and distorted - Vatican II was one of the most widely varying document in the world depending on who you read it from.

the message from Rome was entirely different to what actually happened (all these changes were done "in the spirit of Vatican II")

this statement (not ex-cathedra remember) is basically saying "if you've got AIDS don't go around spreading it and if you decided to practice infidelity, you might as well go ahead and use a condom.

use of contraception is still "sinful" though

as for an example of what happened after vatican II

"newly built churches may be built with a free standing (not against the wall) the only reason for this is to allow full incensing of the altar"

what happened "RIP OUT THE OLD WALL ALTAR AND PUT IN A FREE STANDING ONE "

Vat II "nothing is to happen with altar rails"

what actually happened "RIP THE ALTAR RAILS OUT NOW"

so don't beleive anything people start to say on this issue over the next 6 months.

but Vatican II is a different story for a different thread. the sheer contempt people had for their church after Vatican II would make you cry if you understood what it was they did

remember to watch the actual interview which gives details on this.

here is the BBC (better than the guardian) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11804943 this article is better since it gives more details of this it actually mentions what he meant by "moral responsibility" i.e. "if you've got HIV you shouldn't spread it around and blame it on the RCC"

i would like to actually see the "proof" that condoms prevent the spread of HIV since there are countries with low contraceptive use and low HIV rates (Uganda and the Philippines) but of course i'm an ignorant Pape

Thou art Anathemata

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Nihil obstat.

These words stamped on publications of persons controlled by the catholic church will still appear.  It means that the work contains no disagreements with current dogma.  It is within the authority of any bishop to forbid the publication of any tract over which he has control.  The above words are permission to publish, and are usually accompanied by the word "imprimatur" which means, effectively, "print it".

It will be interesting to see if any of the press reports are worthy of this declaration of proper holding to dogma.  Frankly, I think the French cartoonist got it right in his Obelisk series.  The dog is named Dogmatix.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[fukuda 351]

i would like to actually see the "proof" that condoms prevent the spread of HIV since there are countries with low contraceptive use and low HIV rates (Uganda and the Philippines)quote>

Ok, this made my day. I would like to see the proof that anti-cancer medications help fight cancer since there are countries with restricted access to this kind of medication and low cancer rates. (Thailand, Panama, Ecuador...)

How do I logical fallacy?

[Duke87 1,070]

The classic church argument here is that the availability of condoms serves to give people permission to be promiscuous and thus actually increases transmission rates since condoms are not 100% effective (especially if used improperly), and people won't always use them.

Not a completely absurd idea, although I've never seen any sort of study backing it up.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Considering that the hierarchy of the Church are all celebate (theoretically), they have a lot of nerve making rules for couples in any case, since they have only observational experience.  "You don't play the game, you don't make the rules".

[Athanasius 0]

Originally posted by: Duke87

The classic church argument here is that the availability of condoms serves to give people permission to be promiscuous and thus actually increases transmission rates since condoms are not 100% effective (especially if used improperly), and people won't always use them.

Not a completely absurd idea, although I've never seen any sort of study backing it up.

quote>

well, up until about 70 years ago. people didn't "go out on the pull" (i don't know of a better term for it) once you turned 16 you looked for a spouse and/or a job no fun playtime between 16-25, because it was common knowledge that you'd get a woman pregnant at some point and then you would be ostracised by the community if you abandoned them and women knew this. condoms/the pill mean you can "go out on the pull" and (theoretically) never get a woman pregnant. hence the increase in promiscuity.

there was of course always some promiscuity but that's existed since the first monkey wanted food

and people get drunk and it's not easy to put on a condom with beer goggles etc.

A Nonny Moose: some people can't see the wood for the trees. celibates can think of it objectively without their own emotions etc. getting in the way. Also they were part of a family and most would have some friends who married - they aren't entirely clueless.

Fukuda: i'm not doubting what you think i'm doubting. i'm doubting that widespread condom availability doesn't change behavioural patterns.

if condoms didn't change behavioural patterns then why did the "sexual revolution" take place when it did?

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Athanasius

if condoms didn't change behavioural patterns then why did the "sexual revolution" take place when it did?quote>

There's a cart-horse issue here. Did people become more promiscuous because condoms became available, or did condoms become available because people became more promiscuous?

Let's also not forget that use of condoms does not necessarily imply promiscuity. A perfectly faithful monogamous married couple has plenty of use for birth control, after all.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Athanasius

if condoms didn't change behavioural patterns then why did the "sexual revolution" take place when it did?quote>

Condom usage is not responsible for the "sexual revolution."  Rather, it was the result of the widespread availability of cheap, effective birth control coupled with a relative lack of fear concerning STD's.  Together, those two things gave many people the impression that sex was virtually a risk free activity.  This all changed when HIV burst on the scene and everyone freaked out about the new, horrifying disease.  Even when HIV paranoia was at its peak, condom usage was only around 35 percent.  Research suggest that it has taken till the 2000-2010 time frame for many people to consider condoms a normal part of sexual intercourse.

Condoms have certainly made it easier to have sex without suffering negative physical consequences, but they most certainly didn't cause the current attitudes towards sexual activity.

[Athanasius 0]

medical dictionaries revised the term "safe sex" rather it is "safer sex" it's never safe not really.

whilst i do not actually have any scources, i remember my Social Studies teacher (that's the subject with don't get into debt etc.) always correcting herself during sex education she'd always say something like".. safe sex sorry safer sex."

again i'm not an education expert but i suspect she had to go to a boring seminar that all teachers have to go to and that

was what the seminar was talking about. (this was in a state comprehensive school as well)

now i'll shut up

[Ocram's Razr 964]

In the order of perceived importance.

1. This indeed has no affect on many Catholics.

a) This includes the entire Seattle Archdiocise, which keeps on suggesting ways to turn all the negative press about Catholicism into learning lessons, and holds a more progressive view. Most of the "all boy schools" and "all girl schools" have a level of tolerance for homosexuality (and in some cases, there are more homosexuals in "all boy" Catholic High Schools than in Public High Schools).

2. Condoms in some form or other have existed since before the founding of the United States of America so contraceptives are older than America, the birthplace of the sexual revolution.

3. History Channel had a special about the 60s and 70s that pretty much said that many hippies left their significant others to seek spiritual enlightenment so the counterculture was mostly celibate while the mainstream culture became more promiscuous. A dumped girlfriend would hook up with a dumped boyfriend on the rebound. So you had the conservative Christians who thought that sex was evil, the radical hippies who thought that sex was unimportant, then most everyone else who thought that sex was a new freedom and started the Sexual Revolution.

4. I think that it was very ironic that condom use was very low during the height of the HIV scare. I find it funny if people paranoid of catching HIV had promiscuous sex without a condom then having their paranoia confirmed.

Merry Christmas! May your yuletide be merry, gay, and bright. Glad Tidings of comfort and Joy!

[EyeofMobius 27]

An on topic blog article from a Christian Pundit: CAUTION this point of view may infuriate you.

http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147500830

Unfortunately I see far too much of this type of stuff going on on the parts of the web that qualify as published content. A severe lack of citation for statistics at the core of an arguement. Web forums I am ok with not seeing refered source all the time but fortunately Simtropolis members are pretty good. Sure this author posted a link to another opinion based article but the most appalling statistics have no backing. Please stop publishing "truth" backed by false and/or unproven research. /endrant.

On the article itself and content I disagree on the causes of his opinion and most of his desired outcomes. I do feel that the funding for HIV may not be being spent in the best way. I think that most of the focus of the attention on HIV should go towards healthier sexual practices and a proper sexual education system. Lets do away with abstinence only education and teach everyone all the ways to have healthy sex and not just the ones blessed by faith.

Still thumbs up for the Pope for condoning the use of condoms to restrict the spread of HIV

edit: the supporting article is almost as predjudiced as the initial article.

[sneakeypete 16]

I Didn't get past the first sentence.

However, the golden rule of the net, one of the first thing's about it (in an academic context) i was ever told is that 99% of it is unreferenced opinion.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Make that 99⁴⁴/₁₀₀%.  The Internet is the antithesis of Ivory Soap.

[Athanasius 0]

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

a) This includes the entire Seattle Archdiocise, which keeps on suggesting ways to turn all the negative press about Catholicism into learning lessons, and holds a more progressive view. Most of the "all boy schools" and "all girl schools" have a level of tolerance for homosexuality (and in some cases, there are more homosexuals in "all boy" Catholic High Schools than in Public High Schools).

quote>

i happen to know a thing or two about the Seattle diocese, the bishop squandered loads of Diocesan money on remodelling the cathedral which merely needed maintainaince. He employed "seating in the round", moving hiding the tabernacle, removing the altar rails and crucifix and people don't kneel during the consecration (the one point you MUST kneel unless your too old etc.) theologically speaking these actions speak volumes about his beliefs that the focus of church is people and not God. and these also speak of his personality  he'll do whatever he likes with his cathedral and his diocese - not the best quality in a bishop. he's also flying in the face of the Pope who has said there needs to be a "reform of the reform" - people got carried away and did loads of stuff they really shouldn't have like smashing wall altars - something that hasn't happened since the 1500s

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/usa/seattle-st-james-cathedral.htm

i digress, unlike the vast majority of the people on this website, this issue actually affects me and i have a little more than an internet assembled viewpoint and understanding of the Church etc. most of the people who've read this will not be affected in the slightest by this. i'm also waiting to get  copy of the "the light of the world" and read it myself which none of you will do since ou'll hve forgotten ll about this in about 3 months

[Ocram's Razr 964]

As a modern, progressive, Seattle Catholic, I never really cared about the dogma. Currently, I am barely considered Catholic. I experienced confirmation but my views are not reflected by the views of the Pope. As such, I am a full member that does not participate as much as many half-members (did not experience as many sacraments). I affiliate with Our Lady of Fatima church, the Magi Project, and St. Vincent de Paul and I volunteer my spare time for service learning with Christian (and Disability) Non-Profit organizations. My morality is based on Christian morality as well as scientific and legal morality. My beliefs are complex, contradictory and weak (to sum things up, I do not fully disbelieve anything).

Off-Topic paragraph below, highlight if you wish to read it.

My belief, morality-wise, is that minor moral and immoral actions (venial sins and virtues) cancel each other out often and it is important to do at least 2x as many major moral actions than major immoral actions (mortal sins and great virtues) plus be honest about immoral actions (confession), suffer the consequences of immorality (crime and punishment/sin and penance), and seek forgiveness for immorality while not seeking praise for morality. I love mathematics so I created a system of using various equations to compute this.

My definition about morality is as much a legal definition as a religious one.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: EyeofMobius

An on topic blog article from a Christian Pundit: CAUTION this point of view may infuriate you.quote>

Heh. Well, he's right about this much: if people never shared needles and only ever in their entire lives had one sex partner, AIDS (and other STDs) would have little means of spreading and would die out. But are those seriously realistic things to expect of all humanity? The former is not so long as hard drugs remain illegal (provide them with clean needles, then they won't need to share). The latter is not... ever, under any circumstance.

As for the association it with homosexuality... well, yes, the occurance rate has been higher among gay men because that seems to be where the disease originated. And yes, due to certain mechanics which I will refrain from elaborating on, it is a little bit easier for gay men to spread it to each other than it is for heterosexual couples (lesbians, on the other hand, have a lower risk).

But nonetheless, it is ridiculous to say that homosexuality "causes" AIDS (just use protection...), and ridiculous to expect gay people to not be gay. Besides, the risk to heterosexual couples is far from dismissable.

Still thumbs up for the Pope for condoning the use of condoms to restrict the spread of HIVquote>

Just to clarify: the Pope has not said that it's okay to use condoms. All he has done is acknowledge that it can be done with good intentions.

One amusing analogy: we acknowledge that Darth Vader threw Emporer Palpatine down the pit with good intentions, but that does not mean that we condone throwing people down pits. Similarly, the church acknowledges that if someone uses a condom to prevent spreading an STD, they have good intentions in doing so...  but that does not mean that they're saying it's the right thing to do (the right thing to do, according to them, would be to abstain from sex).

TLDR: using a condom is a lesser evil than not using one

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Originally posted by: Duke87

[snip]

TLDR: using a condom is a lesser evil than not using one

quote>

Thank you for providing an abstract. Half of the posts on the social thread go over my head half way through reading. If more people posted abstracts on long (esecially single paragraph) posts, I would be able to contribute without sounding ignorant or repetitive. Your post, however, was neatly organized into several paragraphs (unlike the block text I end up ignoring).

[Yonk 2]

Originally posted by: Duke87

One amusing analogy: we acknowledge that Darth Vader threw Emporer Palpatine down the pit with good intentions, but that does not mean that we condone throwing people down pits.

quote>

Ah, yes, but Darth Vader would still go to hell for killing someone, regardless of how many lives it saved, right? 

- Yonk

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Yonk

Originally posted by: Duke87

One amusing analogy: we acknowledge that Darth Vader threw Emporer Palpatine down the pit with good intentions, but that does not mean that we condone throwing people down pits.

quote>

Ah, yes, but Darth Vader would still go to hell for killing someone, regardless of how many lives it saved, right? 

- Yonk

quote>

Well, yes and no.  Darth has a lot more to answer for, starting with the slaughter of the innocents in the Jedi Temple.  Insanity through indoctrination might be a defense before the Throne, it all depends on what your intentions are when you pass.  If I believed in hell, Palpatine would be swimming in the middle tail race of Dis for eternity, but Darth may yet escape after a few millennia in Purgatory (I know, I know, the Church says it doesn't exist.  What do they know?).

[GMT 389]

in fact, the whole starwars comparisons are rather funny yet close to the matter at hand.

concerning the latter, I do intend the following (albeit censored) pun: about *****ing time this happens!

a cardinal from round the corner said it pretty well. the church has to live up to the peoples lives, not the other way around. This accounts for both the church's position concerning such things as condoms aswell as their anticipations in terms of (religious) morality; so that it's about time to get some shades of gray rather than the oldfashioned black&white thinking, and the end of the condom-ban thingy is one of the steps towards this.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

But do recall the Pope said that condoms might be used for prevention of disease.  (Subjuntive voice).  The church is still four square agains recreational sex.  Sex is for procreation and nothing else.  The approved Rhythm Method is a manual on how to get pregnant, not how to avoid it.

[Easy Bakes 253]

The Cathloc church is still miffed they were not able to squelch the printing press in 1440

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

The Cathloc church is still miffed they were not able to squelch the printing press in 1440

quote>

Naturally.  Its an outfit that plans in millennia and operates in centuries.  The nearest thing to a geologic human event set we have.  If they were around long enough it would be epochs.

[GMT 389]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

The Cathloc church is still miffed they were not able to squelch the printing press in 1440

quote>

I would take this even further:

They still (after a couple hundreds of years) can't handle having lost almost their entire secular might thanks to printing, enlightenment and reformation.

Must still hurt like hell not being able to pull the stings anymore.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: GMT

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

The Cathloc church is still miffed they were not able to squelch the printing press in 1440

quote>

I would take this even further:

They still (after a couple hundreds of years) can't handle having lost almost their entire secular might thanks to printing, enlightenment and reformation.

Must still hurt like hell not being able to pull the stings anymore.

quote>

Oh, they still pull strings, but only to tune their violins before playing Hearts and Flowers.  They are now in the propaganda business.