[karajorma]

Pardon me for interjecting, but what's all the commotion about in this thread? The Catholic Church seems to be transitioning from an outdated view on sexuality to a less outdated one. How could this possibly be bad when the alternative is sticking to  the outdated views? 

The point Nemesis was making is that this is too little, too late.

Bear in mind that the Catholic Church hasn't actually moved in their position on contraception. They've basically said "We don't think everyone who has sex with someone with AIDS/HIV should catch it and die"

Not exactly a great leap forward. It's progress but at this rate it will be over a hundred years before they manage to catch up with the 20th century.

And then you Goodwin'd the thread.

No he didn't. The pope Godwin'd himself when he compared atheism to Nazism. Since this is a thread about the pope and his pronouncements it is perfectly on topic to bring it up as an example of how far out of touch the pope actually is.

[iamzack]

Well it's not. The Catholic church has a lot of money and power, and they tend to use it for evil instead of good. They have a lot of **** to make up for. They should be dropping boxes of condoms all over southern Africa, not muttering "yeah, fine, I *guess* you can have sex without the threat of death looming overhead..."

[Polpolion]

There's hardly been a commotion at all. It has been asserted that this move is not good enough.

Well there you go. Anyway, of course the change isn't good enough. How do you expect such a conservative institution to change so much of its principles so suddenly? The Church will always lag behind in things like these and expecting them to do anything else is very nearly like expecting them to throw out their fundamental dogma.

[Nemesis6]

Edit: Was gonna explain, but Karajorma pretty much beat me to it.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

If I heard the news correctly the context this was in related to male prostitutes.  Think they might be trying to tell the priests to use them to hide the eveidence when molesting kids? 

[Mongoose]

Um...no?

(I have to say, watching the angst in absentia was far more satisfying than providing it myself. )

[Grizzly]

Well it's not. The Catholic church has a lot of money and power, and they tend to use it for evil instead of good. They have a lot of **** to make up for. They should be dropping boxes of condoms all over southern Africa, not muttering "yeah, fine, I *guess* you can have sex without the threat of death looming overhead..."

But that won't work. Many africans seem to have the idea that 'we've been in a relationship for so long, we can do without condoms'. That idea, plus polygamy being common = Problems.

[Polpolion]

Well it's not. The Catholic church has a lot of money and power, and they tend to use it for evil instead of good. They have a lot of **** to make up for. They should be dropping boxes of condoms all over southern Africa, not muttering "yeah, fine, I *guess* you can have sex without the threat of death looming overhead..."

All things considered, though, the church doesn't quite share the same views of good and evil as you. Those of us that actually do respect not only their right to hold those beliefs but a group's right to spend money how they deem fit just have to let them do what they're doing.

Many africans seem to have the idea that 'we've been in a relationship for so long, we can do without condoms'.

That's a pretty bold statement.

[iamzack]

Well it's not. The Catholic church has a lot of money and power, and they tend to use it for evil instead of good. They have a lot of **** to make up for. They should be dropping boxes of condoms all over southern Africa, not muttering "yeah, fine, I *guess* you can have sex without the threat of death looming overhead..."

But that won't work. Many africans seem to have the idea that 'we've been in a relationship for so long, we can do without condoms'. That idea, plus polygamy being common = Problems.

A lot of Americans have that idea, too, actually. That's why STD rates are so high. We're just lucky our prevalent STDs are things like HPV instead of HIV.

[Qent]

Well it's not. The Catholic church has a lot of money and power, and they tend to use it for evil instead of good. They have a lot of **** to make up for. They should be dropping boxes of condoms all over southern Africa, not muttering "yeah, fine, I *guess* you can have sex without the threat of death looming overhead..."

But that won't work. Many africans seem to have the idea that 'we've been in a relationship for so long, we can do without condoms'. That idea, plus polygamy being common = Problems.

A lot of Americans have that idea, too, actually. That's why STD rates are so high. We're just lucky our prevalent STDs are things like HPV instead of HIV.

Huh, how does that work? Long relationships seems to suggest a lack of promiscuity, which in turn suggests less transfer of STDs.

[iamzack]

cheating, having an STD beforehand without knowing it (i think there's still no HPV test for men), getting an STD through some non-sex means..

[Bobboau]

Huh, how does that work? Long relationships seems to suggest a lack of promiscuity, which in turn suggests less transfer of STDs.

because what you think is happening and what is really happening not the same thing.

[Polpolion]

Huh, how does that work? Long relationships seems to suggest a lack of promiscuity, which in turn suggests less transfer of STDs.

because what you think is happening and what is really happening not the same thing.

Well you've pointed out why he's asking how that works, but not much else. 

[karajorma]

All things considered, though, the church doesn't quite share the same views of good and evil as you. Those of us that actually do respect not only their right to hold those beliefs but a group's right to spend money how they deem fit just have to let them do what they're doing.

Yes but when "how they deem fit" include outright lies then it does become much harder to justify. The Vatican's position in condoms in Africa was not to simply tell people that God wanted them to not use condoms (Which is a stupid position but one that at least is a religious one) but instead to categorically state that condoms did not prevent or reduce the risk of catching AIDS because the HIV virus could pass through the latex barrier.

That is wrong. They had no science to back up that position and it is obvious that they spread those lies because it suited their goals. A lot of people have died because of their actions. More will do so in the future because this statement will take many years to filter down to Africa and cancel out the previous position.

 So yeah, I agree with Iamzack, a change of position isn't good enough. They should actually do something to redress the balance even if it means doing something they'd usually go against.

[Polpolion]

Yes but when "how they deem fit" include outright lies then it does become much harder to justify. The Vatican's position in condoms in Africa was not to simply tell people that God wanted them to not use condoms (Which is a stupid position but one that at least is a religious one) but instead to categorically state that condoms did not prevent or reduce the risk of catching AIDS because the HIV virus could pass through the latex barrier.

That is wrong. They had no science to back up that position and it is obvious that they spread those lies because it suited their goals. A lot of people have died because of their actions. More will do so in the future because this statement will take many years to filter down to Africa and cancel out the previous position.

 So yeah, I agree with Iamzack, a change of position isn't good enough. They should actually do something to redress the balance even if it means doing something they'd usually go against.

That makes a lot of sense, but I still don't think I'd hold the Church any more responsible for deaths than any large institution that's capable but unwilling to help out. But I can't say it helps their credibility much as a religion, though. As I've said earlier the Church is perfectly at liberty of saying whatever they want. If it's wrong, then don't believe it, as we're doing here. Even if the Vatican had previously accepted that condoms can prevent HIV, by no means are they obligated to help with the HIV crisis in Africa. And if followers of Catholicism didn't help out on the sole basis that the Vatican said that condoms don't prevent HIV transmission, then I'd say that blind adherence is equally to blame for help not being given.

Still, I'm a bit hazy on what you're saying here that "they spread those lies because it suited their goals." I honestly can't say for a fact whether they were intentional lies or they were just being stupid, but my point would just boil down to whether or not it's worse to be mean or stupid, neither of which would affect anything but blame. But what you mean  by "goals' here is big too, because there is a difference between trying to kill all Africans by tricking them into giving each other HIV and trying to stick to what they believe (in some form). Or alternatively they have some much more sinister goal here, of which I am unaware.

On the other hand, it's hard to charge a Church with criminal negligence so I don't exactly know what we'd do to hold them accountable. Is lying even against international law in this case? But I digress, I doubt any of you are arguing anything other than the fact that they should do something more (which is what you explicitly said, too, Kara). No doubt that they should do more, in much the same way that North Korea should stop being a dictatorship and people should stop polluting and people should stop murdering each other.

[karajorma]

That makes a lot of sense, but I still don't think I'd hold the Church any more responsible for deaths than any large institution that's capable but unwilling to help out.

Sorry but I couldn't disagree with you more. It's not that they were capable and unwilling. They were perfectly willing to do something. There is a big difference between doing nothing and actually expending effort to make the situation worse.

As I've said earlier the Church is perfectly at liberty of saying whatever they want.

No they aren't. If they are sticking to dogma that's one thing. But to flat out lie about something is irresponsible and dangerous.

If it's wrong, then don't believe it, as we're doing here.

Pretty easy to say when you have easy access to the truth. But it's pretty blinkered thinking to imagine that people in Africa have the same access to information that we do. Priests are a trusted source of information. If a priest is saying "Condoms don't do anything to prevent AIDS" there is going to have to be a mountain of evidence to overcome that, especially as most people affected by this would prefer not to use one anyway.

Still, I'm a bit hazy on what you're saying here that "they spread those lies because it suited their goals."

I would have thought it pretty obvious. The Catholic Church doesn't want anyone using condoms. Saying that they are useless against AIDS means less people use them.

I honestly can't say for a fact whether they were intentional lies or they were just being stupid, but my point would just boil down to whether or not it's worse to be mean or stupid, neither of which would affect anything but blame. But what you mean  by "goals' here is big too, because there is a difference between trying to kill all Africans by tricking them into giving each other HIV and trying to stick to what they believe (in some form). Or alternatively they have some much more sinister goal here, of which I am unaware.

I'm not saying the plan was to kill Africans. Their plan was to prevent condom use cause that is what they believe. And they didn't give a **** what damage was caused in preventing the use of condoms.

On the other hand, it's hard to charge a Church with criminal negligence so I don't exactly know what we'd do to hold them accountable. Is lying even against international law in this case? But I digress, I doubt any of you are arguing anything other than the fact that they should do something more (which is what you explicitly said, too, Kara). No doubt that they should do more, in much the same way that North Korea should stop being a dictatorship and people should stop polluting and people should stop murdering each other.

No. I'm saying they should do more to make up for the fact that they made the situation worse. As I said above this isn't a case of them doing nothing. They caused a bigger problem than there would have been if they had done nothing. This means that they are responsible for cleaning it up, not simply making some tiny pronouncement that they aren't going to keep making things worse.

You don't applaud a man because he announces he's going to quit sticking his dick in a blender. He never should have done it in the first place. Similarly while stopping their idiotic stance on AIDS is a step in the right direction, I'm not going to applaud the Catholic Church for stopping spreading lies and dogmatic nonsense that they never should have been spreading in the first place.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

A good start would be taking every penny the Vatican has and putting it to either research for a cure or drugs for those they lied to. 

[Bobboau]

if you don't reward lessening of negative behavior you will never get positive behavior.

[Nemesis6]

Vatican, awaaaaaaaaaaayyyy!

Vatican clarifies pope's condom comments: Nothing's changed

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Benedict XVI says in a new book that male prostitutes seeking to stop HIV, might use condoms but the Vatican rushed on Sunday to clarify there is nothing "revolutionary" in his statements.
The pontiff made the comments in a book-length interview with a German journalist, Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times, which is being released Tuesday. The Vatican newspaper ran excerpts on Saturday.

Church teaching has opposed condoms because they're a form of artificial contraception although it has never released an explicit policy about condoms and HIV. The Vatican has been harshly criticized in light of the AIDS crisis.

After the Vatican paper jumped the gun on an embargo on the book's text on Saturday, chief Vatican spokesman Rev. Frederico Lombardi told media Sunday this does not reflect any doctrinal change in the Catholic view forbidding artificial contraception.

Benedict said that for male prostitutes — for whom contraception isn't the central issue — condoms are not a moral solution. But he said they may be used "in the intention of reducing the risk of infection."

He called it "a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way of living sexuality."

Benedict drew the wrath of the United Nations, European governments and AIDS activisits when he told reporters en route to Africa in 2009 that the AIDS problem on the continent couldn't be resolved by distributing condoms.

"On the contrary, it increases the problem," he said then.

Journalist Peter Seewald, who interviewed Benedict over the course of six days this ummer, revisited those comments and asked Benedict if it wasn't "madness" for the Vatican to forbid a high risk population to use condoms.

"There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility," Benedict said.

But he stressed that it wasn't the way to deal with the evil of HIV, noting the church's position that abstinence and marital fidelity is the only sure way.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-11-20-pope-condoms_N.htm

[karajorma]

if you don't reward lessening of negative behavior you will never get positive behavior.

They're getting the reward of us not constantly calling them evil bastards for doing said behaviour.