Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mobius on April 26, 2014, 08:25:42 am
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/opinion/dowd-a-saint-he-aint.html?referrer=
WASHINGTON — There were some disturbing elements to the Easter Mass I attended at Nativity, my childhood church.
The choral director sang “Amazing Grace” to the tune of “Danny Boy.” The pews were half-empty on the church’s most sacred day.
My sister reminisced about my christening, when the elderly Monsignor Coady turned away while he was dedicating me to the Blessed Virgin and I started rolling off the altar, propelling my gasping mother to rush up and catch me.
But it was most upsetting as a prelude to next Sunday. In an unprecedented double pontiff canonization, Pope John Paul II will be enshrined as a saint in a ceremony at St. Peter’s Basilica.
The Vatican had a hard time drumming up the requisite two miracles when Pope Benedict XVI, known as John Paul’s Rasputin and enforcer of the orthodoxy, waived the traditional five-year waiting period and rushed to canonize his mentor. But the real miracle is that it will happen at all. John Paul was a charmer, and a great man in many ways. But given that he presided over the Catholic Church during nearly three decades of a gruesome pedophilia scandal and grotesque cover-up, he ain’t no saint.
Sometimes leaders can be remarkable in certain ways and then make a mistake so spectacular, it overshadows other historical achievements. Lyndon Johnson deserves to be secularly canonized for his work on civil rights, but he never will be because of the war in Vietnam.
Just so, John Paul deserves major credit for his role in the downfall of Communism. Even though neocon Catholics who idolize and whitewash John Paul don’t like to dwell on it, he also directed consistent and withering moral criticism at the excesses of capitalism long before Pope Francis did. During his first tour of America as pope in 1979, the rock-star pontiff spoke in Yankee Stadium and warned about “the frenzy of consumerism.” (Although John Paul did encourage the royal lifestyle among his own cardinals.)
Perhaps trying to balance the choice of John Paul, who made conservatives jump for joy because he ran a Vatican that tolerated no dissent, the newly christened Pope Francis tried to placate progressives by cutting the miracle requirement from two to one to rush John XXIII’s canonization. That pope was known as “il papa buono,” the good pope. He reached out with Vatican II, embraced Jews and opened a conversation on birth control.
“This is a political balancing act,” said Kenneth Briggs, the noted religion writer. “Unfortunately, the comparisons are invidious. John opened up the church to the world and J.P. II began to close it down again, make it into a more restricted community, putting boundaries up.”
John XXIII, whose reign lasted from 1958 to 1963, comes out “free and clear,” Briggs noted, while John Paul has a “cloud hanging over his papacy.”
One of John Paul’s great shames was giving Vatican sanctuary to Cardinal Bernard Francis Law, a horrendous enabler of child abuse who resigned in disgrace in 2002 as archbishop of Boston. Another unforgivable breach was the pope’s stubborn defense of the dastardly Mexican priest Marcial Maciel Degollado, a pedophile, womanizer, embezzler and drug addict.
As Jason Berry wrote last year in Newsweek, Father Maciel “was the greatest fund-raiser for the postwar Catholic Church and equally its greatest criminal.”
His order, the Legionaries of Christ, which he ran like a cult and ATM for himself and the Vatican for 65 years, denounced him posthumously in February for his “reprehensible and objectively immoral behavior.”
The statement followed a United Nations report upbraiding the church for turning a blind eye to child abuse by priests and the sins of Father Maciel, who had serially abused adolescent seminarians, some as young as 12, and had several children with at least two women. His sons also claimed he abused them.
It is wonderful that John Paul told other societies, Communist and capitalist, to repent. But his tragedy is that he never corrected the failings of his own society, over which he ruled absolutely.
His defenders say that the pope was kept in the dark, and that he believed that the accusations were phony ones, like the efforts to slime the church in his homeland, Poland, during the Cold War.
Given the searing damage the scandal has done to so many lives and to the church, that rationalization doesn’t have a prayer. He needed to recognize the scope of the misconduct and do something, not play the globe-trotting ostrich.
The church is giving its biggest prize to the person who could have fixed the spreading stain and did nothing. The buck, or in this case, the Communion wafer, doesn’t stop here. There is something wounding and ugly about the church signaling that those thousands of betrayed, damaged victims are now taken for granted as a slowly fading asterisk.
John Paul may be a revolutionary figure in the history of the church, but a man who looked away in a moral crisis cannot be described as a saint.
When the church elevates him, it is winking at the hell it caused for so many children and young people in its care.
A big holy wink.
As Rome gets overcrowded with an extra one million tourists expected for John Paul II and John XXIII's canonization (the Polish carrier LOT even planned charter service using their new B787s), somebody on the other side of the Atlantic writes a number of reasons why JPII shouldn't be referred to as a saint.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BmId4kfCEAAvUwL.jpg)
A man was crushed to death when a giant crucifix dedicated to Pope John Paul II collapsed and fell on him, ITV News reports. The accident came just days before a historic canonization that will see the late pope declared a saint.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/new-saints/pope-john-paul-ii-crucifix-falls-crushes-man-death-n89546
God is trying to give the Vatican the hint.
-
In the interest of fairness, here's the opposing viewpoint.
http://usccbmedia.blogspot.com/2014/04/remembering-man-who-told-modern-world_2.html
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/04/25/day-four-popes-expert-weighs-in-on-canonization/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vatican-set-to-canonize-revolutionary-pontiff-along-with-john-paul-ii/
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2002-04-21/news/0204200465_1_confutes-american-cardinals-mandatory-celibacy
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/vatican-study-on-sex-abuse-the-passion-s-casting-director
There apparently are clear cases of JPII taking action against the abuses in question.
Actually, the page Luis posted is quite interesting. Scroll down and you'll find a lot of articles from both sides, ranging from what Mobius said to this:
‘A great reformer’
George Weigel, NBC News’ Senior Vatican Analyst, disagrees. He doesn’t think John Paul II was made a saint too quickly, or wrongly. “John Paul II was a great reformer of the priesthood. And when he had the information he needed, he acted decisively in response to the crime and sin and clerical sexual abuse,” said Weigel.
“Hundreds of thousands of people were baptized or freely joined the Catholic Church at Easter; that suggests that reports of the church's ‘image problem’ are greatly exaggerated,” Weigel added. “Pope Francis has, among many other things, reminded the world that it needs a pastor, whether the world knows that or not.”
An estimated 1 million Catholics who share Weigel’s view have already arrived in Rome to celebrate the pastor John Paul once was, and the saint he is about to become.
-
Yeah, JPII, upon finding out about pedophilia and child abuse, took steps against them. However, keep in mind that while the Catholic Church is an absolute monarchy, it's also horribly bureaucratized. Cardinals do wield a lot of power, too, and it's incredibly difficult for one man, even the Pope, to make changes to something like that. Those things came to light under JPII's pontificate, but were hardly new phenomena. It's just that before, they were not even spoken about. The Church's way of handling this was pretty bad, but to say John Paul II did not take action against them would be unfair. He certainly did not endorse this, and did condemn that behavior.
Personally, John Paul II was a great Christian, and a great man overall. He famously forgave a man who nearly assassinated him, opened the Church towards other religions and brought it towards young people. He was the Pope during an incredibly difficult time, and had a very big role in fall of the Communism. We should not forget the great things he did just because he did not handle the pedophilia scandal as well as he could have.
I believe he is worthy of being a saint. He was not perfect, but neither were the other saints. Was he good enough, though? Well, the committee seems to think so, and they did investigate the matter closely, precisely because of the controversies. What can't be denied that he changed a lot, I think that mostly (but not exclusively) for the better.
-
What miracles did he perform, again? I could have sworn that "being a good man (or woman)", while not something to be disparaged, was hardly the defining requisite for sainthood.
-
Didn't he come from behind to beat the 1980 Soviet men's hockey team?
-
What miracles did he perform, again? I could have sworn that "being a good man (or woman)", while not something to be disparaged, was hardly the defining requisite for sainthood.
Healings. Most miracles these days are those. In his case, it was Sister Marie Simon-Pierre, cured of Parkinson's disease. Also, there was another case with Floribeth Mora Diaz, from Costarica, who was bed-ridden after a hemorrhage damaged her brain. She prayed very hard holding JPII's picture, and she got healed. It has been after his death (on the day of hie beautification, to be exact), but it was also attributed to him. IIRC, this was enough under Benedict XVI's new rules for declaring sainthood.
Miracles in general are a bit controversial topic these days, but Vatican's way of determining what is a miracle generally seems reasonable. Sainthood used to require two confirmed miracles, but Benedict XVI changed it to just one, partly because he really wanted to make JPII a saint.
-
So then the question remains does John Paul II deserve to be a saint? It took a rules change to make him eligible for it, so I still end up in the 'no' camp. Especially since one of the two miracles that would have qualified him happened after he was dead anyway.
-
Dragon, I think the end of the world is coming, because you're posting on GenDisc and I'm agreeing with the majority of what you're saying :P (I mean this in a friendly way, of course)
As for me, I'm a definite fan of Pope John Paul II, for a lot of reasons, most of which were already listed in this thread. I'm going to be watching eagerly tomorrow.
Scotty, to answer your question, the requirements are pretty complicated. Admirable behavior in general is required, your writings (if any) need to conform to church teachings. Then you need to be declared "Venerable" (This happened to JPII a few years back.) Once you're Venerable, people can pray to you. If people pray to you and there's a confirmed miracle, you get Beatified, and if after you're Beatified, there's at least one more miracle, then you can be Canonized and become a Saint. The miracles are actually supposed to happen after you're dead, that's the point: to decide if the Church can safely declare you to be in Heaven. At any rate, despite the fast-tracking he appears to have satisfied the original requirements anyway.
-
I'd like to think that if the Catholic idea of heaven exists, John Paul II will end up there. And the definition of a saint, whether or not the Holy See canonizes someone or not, is simply someone being in heaven, right?
-
I'd like to think that if the Catholic idea of heaven exists, John Paul II will end up there. And the definition of a saint, whether or not the Holy See canonizes someone or not, is simply someone being in heaven, right?
That's correct. A "saint" (small s) is by definition anyone in heaven. The specific title "Saint", with a capital S, is something the Church gives to people who it believes it can confidently identify as being in heaven.
-
obligatory nuke the vatican.
nuke everything else too just to be fair.
-
Dragon, I think the end of the world is coming, because you're posting on GenDisc and I'm agreeing with the majority of what you're saying :P (I mean this in a friendly way, of course)
Probably so. :) Though here, I happen to be in the majority, which is a rare occurrence, especially when talking religious matters. In fact, the matter of his canonization was about the only thing I agreed with Benedict XVI about. Fitting, I suppose. :) John Paul II brought together people of different religions, ages and worldviews, prayed at mosques and buddhist temples, apologized for many historical wrongdoings of the Church and even forgave his would-be assassin. Few people did more for world peace than he did. This might be, in fact, his greatest achievement, rather than anything he did to the Church itself.
Regarding rule change, it is perhaps the most controversial part of his canonization, but in the end, it should only matter to religious people, shouldn't it? I don't believe in miracles, what I do believe in is placebo effect and that there are things medicine has yet to discover. JPII certainly had enough "mundane", but very tangible achievements to best most other saints canonized in the old days. This wouldn't be the first time rules were changed, and it all boils down to what you need to feed to the bureaucracy. It is a valid theological question, but remember that the rules were changed by a Pope. By definition, the current Pope is always right in matters regarding faith, so the rule change seems justified. On the other hand, this rule has to be officially invoked to count, I don't know if it was (if it wasn't it is still an open question).
-
Just out of interest, who was the last pope who didn't become a Saint?
-
John Paul II brought together people of different religions, ages and worldviews, prayed at mosques and buddhist temples, apologized for many historical wrongdoings of the Church and even forgave his would-be assassin. Few people did more for world peace than he did.
:nod:
Just out of interest, who was the last pope who didn't become a Saint?
Pope John Paul I, the pope before JPII. Not that he did anything wrong, he just died before he had the chance to do much.
There have been a lot of non-canonized Popes (and, quite frankly, some that the Church itself acknowledges as pretty bad).
-
Let's not forget JPII's lies about how condoms spread AIDS. How many Africans are dead because they believed his bull****?
-
Source? I don't remember him saying anything like that. I recall some cardinals holding this view, but I don't recall this being officially endorsed.
Also, even if he did said so, I think that he technically wasn't lying. He might've been wrong, but he wouldn't say such a thing without actually believing in it, too. That's a dumb thing to believe in, but he wouldn't be the only one, unfortunately. Nor the first, for that matter, such dumb myths have been springing up since AIDS came around, usually spread by people opposed to artificial birth control.
-
Let's not forget JPII's lies about how condoms spread AIDS. How many Africans are dead because they believed his bull****?
First of all, when and where did he say this? I don't recall hearing this. Second of all, depending on his words, this might not necessarily be a lie on his part so much as a misinterpretation. And finally, (again, depending on exact words) there ARE indirect ways in which birth control items can encourage the spread of STDs.
-
JP2 didn't personally claim these things, IIRC. People under his employ did (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS#Condom_controversy), and he certainly wasn't disapproving those messages. On the contrary, his stance on the topic of safe sex was definitely not helping to contain the spread of HIV and other STDs throughout Africa.
-
And finally, (again, depending on exact words) there ARE indirect ways in which birth control items can encourage the spread of STDs.
In much the same way as the existence of chemotherapy encourages smoking, yes.
-
Seriously? Do we have to explain this AGAIN? Some people have ridiculously short memories (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=87059.msg1740146#msg1740146).
-
Lets not go there again.
If they want to give JP2 a post-humous honorary paladin level of achievement or whatever they call it... who is anyone else to say no? Make him a saint, a double saint, a triple mega-super-sayan saint, whatever rocks your boat dear fellow christians. :yes:
-
Yes, that thread was nobody's finest hour.
First off, there's an inherent contradiction in saying that people who are unconcerned enough about Catholic teaching to exhibit behaviors that put them at significant risk for the diseases in question are going to care enough about Catholic teaching for Catholic policy regarding condoms to be relevant.
Second, to be fair, the Catholic Church does have an effective solution to the problem, aka abstinence till marriage. Yes, many people aren't going to follow it, but I don't think you can blame the Catholics for that.
Third, this is something of a derail.
-
Second, to be fair, the Catholic Church does have an effective solution to the problem, aka abstinence till marriage. Yes, many people aren't going to follow it, but I don't think you can blame the Catholics for that.
Abstinence only works in an environment where everyone practices it, which you won't find anywhere on Earth. So no, it doesn't work, and its secondary effects (like promoting ignorance about sex) do way more damage than good.
-
Second, to be fair, the Catholic Church does have an effective solution to the problem, aka abstinence till marriage. Yes, many people aren't going to follow it, but I don't think you can blame the Catholics for that.
Abstinence only works in an environment where everyone practices it, which you won't find anywhere on Earth. So no, it doesn't work, and its secondary effects (like promoting ignorance about sex) do way more damage than good.
It works for the individuals who practice it. And no, it does not promote ignorance.
-
Abstinence by its own practical definition is abstinent. In b4 nazi pope.
-
Abstinence by its own practical definition is abstinent. In b4 nazi pope.
Question. Why is this kind of trolling allowed? I was told there was no double standard in this regard.
-
Second, to be fair, the Catholic Church does have an effective solution to the problem, aka abstinence till marriage. Yes, many people aren't going to follow it, but I don't think you can blame the Catholics for that.
Abstinence only works in an environment where everyone practices it, which you won't find anywhere on Earth. So no, it doesn't work, and its secondary effects (like promoting ignorance about sex) do way more damage than good.
It works for the individuals who practice it. And no, it does not promote ignorance.
Talk to the ignorant kids having anal sex because they think they are still virgins and they won't get STDs. Telling young people to just not have sex in lieu of providing meaningful sexual education is a recipe for failure.
-
Abstinence is the perfect non-solution to the safe-sex problem. The idea that everyone is going to wait until marriage to have sex is silly, but it gets absolutely asinine in places that have terrible sex education (or none at all). Try telling your kids not to eat unhealthy food without telling them what unhealthy food is and see what happens. This is the same problem.
-
Second, to be fair, the Catholic Church does have an effective solution to the problem, aka abstinence till marriage. Yes, many people aren't going to follow it, but I don't think you can blame the Catholics for that.
Abstinence only works in an environment where everyone practices it, which you won't find anywhere on Earth. So no, it doesn't work, and its secondary effects (like promoting ignorance about sex) do way more damage than good.
It works for the individuals who practice it. And no, it does not promote ignorance.
Talk to the ignorant kids having anal sex because they think they are still virgins and they won't get STDs. Telling young people to just not have sex in lieu of providing meaningful sexual education is a recipe for failure.
Teaching people how these things work and teaching them to limit their use of them are not mutually exclusive, and I've personally watched the Church do both.
-
Second, to be fair, the Catholic Church does have an effective solution to the problem, aka abstinence till marriage. Yes, many people aren't going to follow it, but I don't think you can blame the Catholics for that.
Abstinence only works in an environment where everyone practices it, which you won't find anywhere on Earth. So no, it doesn't work, and its secondary effects (like promoting ignorance about sex) do way more damage than good.
It works for the individuals who practice it. And no, it does not promote ignorance.
Talk to the ignorant kids having anal sex because they think they are still virgins and they won't get STDs. Telling young people to just not have sex in lieu of providing meaningful sexual education is a recipe for failure.
Teaching people how these things work and teaching them to limit their use of them are not mutually exclusive, and I've personally watched the Church do both.
Well I've seen them not, YMMV.
-
Teaching people how these things work and teaching them to limit their use of them are not mutually exclusive, and I've personally watched the Church do both.
It's not strictly a Catholic problem. I went to a Catholic middle school and received adequate education, but the real problem is when you have a handful of moronic parents petitioning the school board to delay sex education until 12th grade. This happens in a lot of places, not to mention places where there are no real schools and the extent anyone hears about this is in church on Sunday, where they sure as hell aren't going to give you a lecture on safe sex.
-
Abstinence by its own practical definition is abstinent. In b4 nazi pope.
Question. Why is this kind of trolling allowed? I was told there was no double standard in this regard.
He's not trolling. He's pointing out that these discussions have a history of resulting in discussions of Pope Pius XII.
-
Teaching people how these things work and teaching them to limit their use of them are not mutually exclusive, and I've personally watched the Church do both.
It's not strictly a Catholic problem. I went to a Catholic middle school and received adequate education, but the real problem is when you have a handful of moronic parents petitioning the school board to delay sex education until 12th grade. This happens in a lot of places, not to mention places where there are no real schools and the extent anyone hears about this is in church on Sunday, where they sure as hell aren't going to give you a lecture on safe sex.
A valid point. It can be hard, I suppose, to decide on the best age for this kind of education (you don't want to teach them before they're mature enough to control themselves, but you don't want to delay too long either.) Ideally the parents would decide when their children were mature enough, but not all parents are willing to take the responsibility on themselves the way mine were.
-
Abstinence by its own practical definition is abstinent. In b4 nazi pope.
Question. Why is this kind of trolling allowed? I was told there was no double standard in this regard.
He's not trolling. He's pointing out that these discussions have a history of resulting in discussions of Pope Pius XII.
Wait, what?
Oh never mind...
-
That's why you provide them meaningful sexual education, then tell them not to have sex and explain why (if they haven't figured it out already from the lessons).
In general, you're confusing two things: willing abstinence and ignorance about sex. Indeed, a hypothetical "proper" Christian would, after getting the whole thing explained, come to the conclusion that abstinence is the best (from religious standpoint) option. Spreading ignorance has an effect of enforcing abstinence, up to a point where ignorant people "re-discover" sex, then it breaks down. On the contrary, proper sexual education would cause the need for birth control to become immediately obvious. For someone who follows Christian rules, abstinence is the only choice of birth control. In fact, I think that once it's not a big, forbidden unknown, resisting the urges would be a lot easier. Of course, this is all assuming an intelligent person who is also a devout Christian. For unintelligent ones, no amount of education will ever work (you'll always get a few idiots who just won't listen, whether it's sex ed, driving lessons or mandatory first aid training), and a non-devout Christian would just use a condom.
JP2 didn't personally claim these things, IIRC. People under his employ did (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS#Condom_controversy), and he certainly wasn't disapproving those messages. On the contrary, his stance on the topic of safe sex was definitely not helping to contain the spread of HIV and other STDs throughout Africa.
So this is what I meant, and the clarification I asked for. It can't be said those were his lies, though he might have believed them (as evidenced by him not disapproving of them). In general, sexual matters might be the area in which the Church has the most to learn. JPII could have definitely done a lot more to modernize the Church in this area, but at the same time we should not expect one man to fix everything.
I think that despite places where he failed, he still done enough to deserve Sainthood. Also remember that openness about sexuality and STDs is mostly a modern idea, and most of his pontificate was in times before it became as common as we take for granted. We should remember that he died about a decade ago. Maybe now that times are different and Pope Francis is at the helm, we'll see some advancement in that area.
EDIT: Talk about ninja'ed... Well, looks like I'm agreeing with InsaneBaron again. :) Anyway, whether sex ed is done at all and how highly depends on the clergy in the region. "The Church" has been teaching people about why abstinence is a good idea in some regions, where in others it just told people "if you have extramarital sex you'll go to hell". This is because it doesn't seem to be clearly regulated from the top, it's mostly up to individual priests, and they're a diverse lot.
-
That's why you provide them meaningful sexual education, then tell them not to have sex and explain why (if they haven't figured it out already from the lessons).
That's sorta what I was driving at, with the reservation that you don't want to teach kids till they're mature enough to understand.
EDIT:
EDIT: Talk about ninja'ed... Well, looks like I'm agreeing with InsaneBaron again. :)
Ninja'ed back :P
-
Actually, I think that sex ed should start very early, but be tailored to the child's age. That way it's never something alien and forbidden "just because". We're so overloaded with sexuality these days that it's impossible for even the youngest children not to encounter it, despite all the laws. So it should be made as clear as possible early, and the education should continue to adulthood. That would probably also help smooth out relationships between different genders a bit.
-
I will consider abstinence an effective contraceptive method when it demonstrates that it can be an effective contraceptive method. So far it has not. Whether this is because of external influencing factors (poor sex ed) or not, the case remains that abstinence is not an effective contraceptive method in the modern world.
-
Which makes expecting it to effective in the developing world where people have even less understanding of the issues rather foolish.
First off, there's an inherent contradiction in saying that people who are unconcerned enough about Catholic teaching to exhibit behaviors that put them at significant risk for the diseases in question are going to care enough about Catholic teaching for Catholic policy regarding condoms to be relevant.
No there isn't.
You're missing the point that in a place like Africa, Catholic education might be the only education someone gets. So if the education they get is "You shouldn't use condoms" or quite simply "Don't have sex until you are married" and they never hear any reasons why they should use condoms, they're quite simply not going to use condoms.
-
That's sorta what I was driving at, with the reservation that you don't want to teach kids till they're mature enough to understand.
No, you want to each as early as possible. That doesn't mean you want to teach everything, but you need to get the information out there.
Actually, I think that sex ed should start very early, but be tailored to the child's age. That way it's never something alien and forbidden "just because". We're so overloaded with sexuality these days that it's impossible for even the youngest children not to encounter it, despite all the laws. So it should be made as clear as possible early, and the education should continue to adulthood. That would probably also help smooth out relationships between different genders a bit.
Exactly this. I may be biased because that's how it was done with me, but to be honest, I like the way I was taught sex ed. Not by the moronic school system, though...
-
I always point to the statistics regarding the Netherlands and the early and proactive sexual education they provide and the fact that (last time I checked anyway) they have the lowest teen pregnancies in Europe.
Knowledge is power. Sexual education basically sucks in the UK, and so it's no surprise that the teen pregnancy rate sucks too.
-
Same with me, my parents were pretty open with me. And it is parents' job, because the only thing school system can do with sex ed is to screw it up like it did with just about everything else (same as with teaching kids basic manners...). Not to mention that by the time kid's in school, it's a bit late already, the earlier you start, the better. Of course, that doesn't mean they need to be told everything at once. You don't teach 6 year olds integration and differential equations, either, as useful as they might be.
I will consider abstinence an effective contraceptive method when it demonstrates that it can be an effective contraceptive method.
Well, it can definitely be an effective contraceptive method if you stick to it. It's hard to have kids without having sex, despite what they might say about Mary. Still, the biggest problem is that people are, generally, not good at sticking to it. Because sex is fun, and this fact is naturally coded into our brains. It's an evolutionary adaptation (people who didn't find sex fun didn't reproduce), and overcoming that requires resolve people don't have. Bad sex ed, or lack of it, doesn't help. So it can be argued it's not a problem with the method itself, but with people not sticking to it.
Still, setting your faith's standards that high just isn't going to work, especially in Christianity in which you can always be forgiven for almost all sins. Preaching abstinence was good where there were no such things as condoms (it was poor contraception vs. no contraception), but now times are different.
-
You don't teach 6 year olds integration and differential equations, either, as useful as they might be.
Well, actually, I found myself wishing Calculus was taught much earlier, as well... ;)
-
The threshold for teaching sex ed is set not by subjective bickering but by biology. It should obviously happen before puberty or during its early stages, so around grade 5. Of course, in age appropriate form. Which does include contraception and condoms.
-
If the problem with abstinence is the people, it is still a problem with the method. Any method that is ineffective is ineffective. Literally, that is the tautological definition of the situation. Obviously, for actually effective contraception, an effective method needs to be used, or else abandon the cause altogether (hint: that's a bad idea).
-
I will consider abstinence an effective contraceptive method when it demonstrates that it can be an effective contraceptive method. So far it has not. Whether this is because of external influencing factors (poor sex ed) or not, the case remains that abstinence is not an effective contraceptive method in the modern world.
"Abstinence movements" always strike me as a classic case of futilely banging your head against a wall of human nature, empirical evidence and common sense.
Optionally add "blaming sinners/weak minds" in order to make yourself feel morally superior and try to justify ignoring any empirical evidence about it's ineffectiveness.
-
If the problem with abstinence is the people, it is still a problem with the method. Any method that is ineffective is ineffective. Literally, that is the tautological definition of the situation. Obviously, for actually effective contraception, an effective method needs to be used, or else abandon the cause altogether (hint: that's a bad idea).
Abstinence is the smartass response to the safe-sex question. It's not that it's ineffective (though it is), it's that it doesn't even address the crux of the issue: sex is a thing that people will do whether you approve or not. Telling them that abstinence is a good method of birth control and prophylactic is like telling the Army the best body armor is pacifism.
-
Same with me, my parents were pretty open with me. And it is parents' job, because the only thing school system can do with sex ed is to screw it up like it did with just about everything else (same as with teaching kids basic manners...). Not to mention that by the time kid's in school, it's a bit late already, the earlier you start, the better. Of course, that doesn't mean they need to be told everything at once. You don't teach 6 year olds integration and differential equations, either, as useful as they might be.
It's certainly the parents job, although unfortunately the parent's don't always live up to it. I think part of the problem is determining the right age to teach the right concepts. I would probably wait longer than most people are suggesting here, but it comes down to individual maturity, the requirements of the child's environment, and parental judgement, which the school system can't adapt to effectively. So I won't advocate any one cut-and-dried age chart.
Speaking in general, no method is effective on people who don't practice it, and abstinence (in this sense) doesn't mean permanent virginity but rather committing to a partner without cheating on them or starting before you're ready to commit. So when effective education is provided, it's extremely effective at making sure children are born into stable homes and limiting the spread of disease. If people reject the method, what happens to them is not an indicator of the method's effectiveness.
Having said pretty much everthing I have to say, I'm calling it quits with this debate because of real-life issues. I'll be off HLP for about a week.
-
If people reject the method, what happens to them is not an indicator of the method's effectiveness.
When it comes to abstinence, this is the only indicator of the method's effectiveness, because the method crucially fails at either disincentivizing sex, or incentivizing safe sex. Essentially, if people reject the method, the method is flawed.
-
Who said anything about deincentivizing? It's not about removing an incentive to do something bad, it's about learning when and where to do something that is, in fact, good. Either you're mistaken about the nature of chastity/abstinence as advocated by Christianity (and to be fair, there are multiple definitions of these words, so it's an easy mistake to make) or you assume that a responsible, committed marriage is beyond the ability of most humans. I don't think human nature has fallen that far.
Ultimately, the method works for those who adopt it, therefore I practice it myself and encourage others to do so. And that's essentially the Pope's line of reasoning as well.
-
In order for a method to be effective, there must be either incentive or disincentive. If you think that people are going to magically comply with abstinence because by golly they learned about it then I have a bridge to sell you.
Remember, the target audience for abstinence based contraceptive methods are teenagers. You know, that group of the population who's decision making cortexes have not yet fully formed and are notoriously bad of judgment? Expecting them to behave like a rational, logical adult on the subject is building your house on the beach at low tide. It won't work, and you'll be stuck wondering just what went wrong.
-
In order for a method to be effective, there must be either incentive or disincentive. If you think that people are going to magically comply with abstinence because by golly they learned about it then I have a bridge to sell you.
Remember, the target audience for abstinence based contraceptive methods are teenagers. You know, that group of the population who's decision making cortexes have not yet fully formed and are notoriously bad of judgment? Expecting them to behave like a rational, logical adult on the subject is building your house on the beach at low tide. It won't work, and you'll be stuck wondering just what went wrong.
1. Stable marriages seem like a pretty good incentive to me.
2. Given that this is a community comprised heavily of teenagers... moving on. I don't think teenagers in general are as bad as that, but at any rate no one is going to ever be able to act like a responsible adult if they're not taught how. I'm advocating teaching them how.
-
Abstinence is the perfect non-solution to the safe-sex problem. The idea that everyone is going to wait until marriage to have sex is silly, but it gets absolutely asinine in places that have terrible sex education (or none at all). Try telling your kids not to eat unhealthy food without telling them what unhealthy food is and see what happens. This is the same problem.
it has a horrible side effect of causing people to get married early before they have fully developed into functional adults. some years down the line after they have kids, **** hits the fan and they get divorced. let em practice safe sex and get it out of their system, then they can get an education and enter the workforce without creating a generation of messed up children.
Actually, I think that sex ed should start very early, but be tailored to the child's age. That way it's never something alien and forbidden "just because". We're so overloaded with sexuality these days that it's impossible for even the youngest children not to encounter it, despite all the laws. So it should be made as clear as possible early, and the education should continue to adulthood. That would probably also help smooth out relationships between different genders a bit.
early sex ed needs to have the sole purpose of preventing sexual abuse of children. no need to teach kindergarteners how to put on a condom, thats more of a junior high subject. the slideshow of diseased dicks can probibly wait till the second year of high school. its probibly a bad idea to aim younger just to educate the few extreme edge cases that you would end up with anyway. such as 9 year old mothers and prepubescent boys with aids. from a biology standpoint, how babies are made should be told to the kids when they ask, rather than be given a pile of horse ****, though the anatomy diagrams can probibly wait till 4th grade. its likely the kids would have played doctor by then anyway.
-
how babies are made should be told to the kids when they ask.
Heh. I was asking this from the age of three.
And I knew the babies were inside the mothers, so they couldn't fob me off with
(http://wecanbeaoriginal.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/BabyStork.jpg)
I wonder what it's like to be chastised by one so young. I can't tell you, but I can recall making them squirm. :D
-
1. Stable marriages seem like a pretty good incentive to me.
It really isn't. Wishing for a stable marriage is an adult wish, an adult concern, not something Joe Average Teenager thinks about.
2. Given that this is a community comprised heavily of teenagers... moving on. I don't think teenagers in general are as bad as that, but at any rate no one is going to ever be able to act like a responsible adult if they're not taught how. I'm advocating teaching them how.
No, this community is actually mostly older. At least the people who you interact with here in GD are generally well out of their teens.
And yes, teenagers are that bad, through no fault of their own. They can't make the risk evaluation more experienced people can do. They don't know what "a stable marriage" means for them.
-
And yes, teenagers are that bad, through no fault of their own. They can't make the risk evaluation more experienced people can do. They don't know what "a stable marriage" means for them.
Not to mention the fact that every teenager is a psychopath.
-
everyone should go read lord of the flies. children are evil horrible creatures. also go watch the killing fields, i love that little asian girl who is always killing and torturing people.
-
1. Stable marriages seem like a pretty good incentive to me.
I am not legally allowed to get married in my home state. Where does that leave me? What incentive is there for me to stay abstinent? The correct response is "to not get STDs", but there are other, infinitely more fun ways to get around that particular problem. Abstinence does not have a significant benefit above another method of contraception.
-
Posted twice by mistake, see next page.
-
Abstinence does not have a significant benefit above another method of contraception.
Of course it doesn't. That's why we have those new methods. The only "benefit" of abstinence is that it is "right" from the Church's POV. If you don't care about that (many don't), then there's no point in debating about it.
For me, it's rather simple. You either listen to the Church, and in that case you should actually practice abstinence until marriage, or you don't and use a condom. Anything else is foolish and dishonest, if you don't use a condom "because the Pope says so", but don't listen to him on the matter of extramarital sex, then you're dishonest with both yourself and the Church. It's common stance, but people who do that only lie to everyone around, including themselves. Either denounce the Church, or stick with what it says.
Teenagers are going to have sex, but for them, whether Pope endorses condoms or not is rather meaningless, because let's face it, most teenagers don't give a fig about what the Priest says, and only go to the mass if the parents force them. Any changes to Church policy on sex should be considered in context of gaining those teenagers back, not actually altering their behavior, because the Church hardly has any say in it anymore.
-
Ok, here's the deal. I can't really continue the debate any further, simply because of RL issues: I need to take a week off from HLP to finish my academics for the year. At any rate I've said my piece already.
But before I leave, I want to clarify one thing, because debates like this sometimes get mistaken for enmity. I don't have any grudges/complaints against people for debating me, and in fact some points were raised that I want to learn some more about, like Lorric's comment about the Netherlands. If nothing else I've learned reasons why people disagree on the issue, which is all to the good.
EDIT: Oops, posted this twice by mistake. My bad.
-
1. Stable marriages seem like a pretty good incentive to me.
I am not legally allowed to get married in my home state. Where does that leave me? What incentive is there for me to stay abstinent? The correct response is "to not get STDs", but there are other, infinitely more fun ways to get around that particular problem. Abstinence does not have a significant benefit above another method of contraception.
:wtf:
any particular reason why?
also, on the topic of birth control and sex related things in general, i find that the people who are supposed to be celibate, are the least qualified people in the world to talk about anything in that matter.
-
Abstinence Only sex ed makes about as much sense as Ten Commandments Only Policing.
Sure, if everyone followed it those teachings, you wouldn't have any thefts or murders and wouldn't need police. But expecting everyone to do that and making no provisions for the fact that there are plenty of people who won't is a level of denial I find hard to comprehend.
The main reason it exists is because the people who do advocate it seem to believe that because it works for them, it should work for everyone. But the sad truth is even that isn't correct. The number of people having unsafe sex who made virginity pledges, etc usually turns out to be higher than those who didn't. We hear a lot about this sort of thing from teenagers precisely because most of those same teenagers have already abandoned abstinence only by the time they are in their mid twenties.
-
1. Stable marriages seem like a pretty good incentive to me.
I am not legally allowed to get married in my home state. Where does that leave me? What incentive is there for me to stay abstinent? The correct response is "to not get STDs", but there are other, infinitely more fun ways to get around that particular problem. Abstinence does not have a significant benefit above another method of contraception.
:wtf:
any particular reason why?
The state of Kansas does not recognize same-sex marriage. It is still illegal and/or null in the eyes of the state.
-
1. Stable marriages seem like a pretty good incentive to me.
I am not legally allowed to get married in my home state. Where does that leave me? What incentive is there for me to stay abstinent? The correct response is "to not get STDs", but there are other, infinitely more fun ways to get around that particular problem. Abstinence does not have a significant benefit above another method of contraception.
:wtf:
any particular reason why?
The state of Kansas does not recognize same-sex marriage. It is still illegal and/or null in the eyes of the state.
ah, wasnt aware of that :)