Are we really thinking everything through?

[Uphill Battle]

I posted this in another discussion, which has since been ignored. I'd like some other perspectives on this, as I believe it bears discussing.

note that as it's possible the person I was speaking with wanted to abandon the line of thought, I have removed their name from THIS post, and only put in brackets the point they were making. I have not misrepresented them in any way.






you'll excuse my late reply, but this topic is one that raises my blood pressure greatly. I chose to wait until now instead of post hostile text against you, the poster, which is not warranted. My issue is with certain practices of the Church, not you personally.



(Catholic Doctrines should not affect you as you are not Catholic)

This is the crux of my complaint. The Catholic Church feels it has the right to say anything, and if anyone outside their organization complains, this is the standard response.

what you seem to miss is that their statements have far greater impact than that.

take for instance the recent hoopla regarding Benedict forwarding the churches' position on condoms, in aids stricken nations. It was an remarkably foolish statement, given what the pretext of anti-condom thinking is.

it's supposed to prevent lives being stopped through condom use, in the name of the sanctity of life, and instead, it condemns some to die, because of the rule that must not be broken.

on a more individual level, a couple who it was deadly to the wife to conceive, but when he sterilized himself so they could enjoy at least a mostly normal marriage, excommunication was the result.

the list could go on, but I hope you've seen the point I am trying to make.

rules come before common sense and critical thinking, and what was sought to be prevented, is actually acheived!

it is not sufficient to say "oh, it's just for us." If that's true, then don't say it. Send it only to your own, stop affecting everyone else with it.

this is on TOP of the fact that the position is flawed to begin with, in regards to contraception.

I agree with the RC's position on abortion, but I do not think that includes situations where death is the logical conclusion of the pregancy, either to the child, the mother, or both.

and the worst part is when they make these proclamations, they do so under the pretense that they speak soley for Christ. I have co-workers that before I corrected them, assumed I was as short sighted on matters such as contraception, because the Pope said it, and aren't you Catholic because you believe in Jesus?

fallout of actions go much farther than you pretend.



(Nobody has been tossed out of the Catholic Church for getting an abortion.)

you sure about that? never?

Abortion and Excommunication - Catholic Christian Article

"Any Catholic who obstinately denies that abortion is always gravely immoral, commits the sin of heresy and incurs an automatic sentence of excommunication. "


​

so either this is wrong, or you are. Kindly identify which.


(nobody on this thread knew anything about Catholic doctrine other than me.)

I do not believe that line. I don't buy in to the "if you don't agree, you don't understand." It's a halfhearted argument, that does not ring true.

​

(The Catholic Church always acts with compassion. Condoning sin is not compassion)

using the example regarding condoms in Africa, that is as far from compassion as you can stray. It puts no thought in to the matter at all. And unfortunately for the Catholic Church, it can't step back from a flawed perspective because it's claimed the rule as immutable.

​

(Scripture states that the Catholic Church is to guide Christianity)

indeed. Shepherds are to guide.

NOT rule.

guide. And when the shepherd is trying to make the sheep act like ducks, they aren't doing a good job of guiding.

I do not believe, nor accept, that scripture at all anywhere gives the Roman Catholic Church the authority it claims. I'd accept that they have the right to guide, any who believe that the Catholic Church is their chosen sect, and if they are convinced that the Catholic Magisterium should be their leaders.

but that is a far cry from a lineage of supposed overlords who's word is law.

Take the adulterous women for example. the rule? adultery=stoning. Did Christ not have the "right" to enforce that law, and see her stoned? far more so than the Magesterium claims they have in canon law enforcement.

however, he does not. And for no more reason than his own mercy! And those who claim to speak for him cannot be as merciful, even when there is good reason to do so?

I'm sorry, but I find that ludicrous.



now, I know I have likely offended you with this post, but understand, I do not have a bone to pick with Catholics. nor, with most of Catholic practice. THIS particular teaching, however, and a few others, are vinegar in my lemonade, so to speak, so forgive the offense, I merely speak my mind regarding the RULE and not you, or any other, as the individual.
​

 

[ProScribe]

Um . . . yea ok

 

[Uphill Battle]

Um . . . yea ok

I thank you for your timely and profound insight.

 

[Thaeoles]

This is very interesting. I would like to see a response from those that oppose these observations before I comment further.

 

[Uphill Battle]

This is very interesting. I would like to see a response from those that oppose these observations before I comment further.

it won't happen. When critical thinking and infallible dogma collide, common sense must give way.

I don't see a willingness at all to address it on the part of those who adhere to infallible dogmas.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I can't say that I'm suprised that his has been ignored completely.

 

[judechild]

Mostly because we are tired. None of us do anything except communicate what we believe based on our trust in God's ability to guide His Church. But then someone comes along and says something like When critical thinking and infallible dogma collide, common sense must give way.

None of you are at all different from us; the more universalist thinker will say the same thing about any person who believes that Jesus is the only way to Heaven. It's just more rhetoric.

I'm sorry, but you don't want me to explain anything; you want me to respond in a manner so that you can try to rub something in my face. Mr. Critical Thinker, you are obviously mentally superior to all of us; is that what you want me to say? Poor me, who never thinks about the infallible dogma, but accept it with blind servitude...

Did you just hear that sound? That's the sound of my poor soul crying out to you: "save me from my irrationality Uphill Battle! Please, save me!"

On the Pope and condoms, what he said was true, that condom handouts will not stop the spread of AIDS; basic change in behavior must occur. But though the Pope was defended by people from Harvard, I'm sure you don't care for that; because I know how irrational and lacking of common sense I am.

So yes, we are tired. You wonder why people have ignored you; is it possible that you just really aren't super important? I will hold to the Church's teachings because I believe she is guided by the Holy Spirit; I'm sorry you don't like it, but I'd like to point you to the last line in Gone with the Wind.

 

[heymikey80]

I think the basic issue to me is that we don't think a combination of Christians, nor a particular head of the church (or churches) has really overwhelmingly more grasp of the truth than Christ passes on to us through His teachings and those of His Apostles.

We're all still beggars telling one another where to find bread. Churches make mistakes just like individuals do; even individuals as the Elder at Rome.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Mostly because we are tired. None of us do anything except communicate what we believe based on our trust in God's ability to guide His Church. But then someone comes along and says something like When critical thinking and infallible dogma collide, common sense must give way.

touchy, touchy. Did you overlook this part?

now, I know I have likely offended you with this post, but understand, I do not have a bone to pick with Catholics. nor, with most of Catholic practice. THIS particular teaching, however, and a few others, are vinegar in my lemonade, so to speak, so forgive the offense, I merely speak my mind regarding the RULE and not you, or any other, as the individual.

I'm sorry, but you don't want me to explain anything; you want me to respond in a manner so that you can try to rub something in my face. Mr. Critical Thinker, you are obviously mentally superior to all of us; is that what you want me to say? Poor me, who never thinks about the infallible dogma, but accept it with blind servitude...

Did you just hear that sound? That's the sound of my poor soul crying out to you: "save me from my irrationality Uphill Battle! Please, save me!"

I want someone to tell me how it's possible that ignoring the situation, is beneficial. That regardless of circumstance, God thinks the same thing repeatedly.

it turns God in to an automaton for a rule, as opposed to a compassionate God who looks at EVERY instance of EVERY life in the light of full knowledge.

and what do I want you to say? nothing. Not if it's going to be diatribe and whining, I wanted a discourse with someone who had something better to do with their time that post a three paragraph complaint. (who Ironically as tired as they are, had enough energy to spend on a post attacking the poster, and addressing almost nothing of the content of the post.

but goodnight to you, go get that sleep you needed.

On the Pope and condoms, what he said was true, that condom handouts will not stop the spread of AIDS; basic change in behavior must occur. But though the Pope was defended by people from Harvard, I'm sure you don't care for that; because I know how irrational and lacking of common sense I am.

nobody ever said it would stop the spread of AIDS. only that it would HELP. Which is true. Eductation, and access, could save lives. this is simple truth.

thank you for having ONE part of your post that was relevant to the topic.

So yes, we are tired. You wonder why people have ignored you; is it possible that you just really aren't super important? I will hold to the Church's teachings because I believe she is guided by the Holy Spirit; I'm sorry you don't like it, but I'd like to point you to the last line in Gone with the Wind.

Never claimed importance, I just figured in an online community of over 250 thousand people, someone who could rationally discuss the issue, without carping and moaning about someone challenging preconceived notions might be available.

all the best, go find something more to your liking.

 

[MrPolo]

What exactly is the question? It sounds like you don't like the way a particular Catholic worded his apologetic. Whose comment is whose, by the way? Are you UB the one who said keeping condoms from Africa is not compassionate? I would certainly disagree with that statement.

 

[Uphill Battle]

(and to add, it must be comforting to hold to the churches teachings, because you believe it's guided by the Holy Spirit.... you don't have to feel bad when it affects others negatively.)

 

[Uphill Battle]

What exactly is the question? It sounds like you don't like the way a particular Catholic worded his apologetic. Whose comment is whose, by the way? Are you UB the one who said keeping condoms from Africa is not compassionate? I would certainly disagree with that statement.

the question is the title.

I have bolded the Catholic points, but did not want to presume to copy them in full, as they probably wouldn't have wanted participation in this thread.

I'm the one that said making statements condemning giving Condoms to people in AIDS stricken countries was neither compassionate, nore using good judgement.

 

[judechild]

More attacks on my intelligence... which is okay because I obviously have none.

I was only responding to your repeated wonderings as to why you weren't getting a response. You don't even give us the possibility that we've thought about or had struggles with it. So no, I don't think my response was for the most part off topic, because the majority of your postings on this thread have been wondering why no one wants to go through another debate where we're assumed to be stupid creatures undeserving of respect.

I will get the sleep you recommend, though; thank you for so uncharacteristically caring for my health. I want to thank you for encouraging me to change my online behavior.

I also do want to apologize for the wording in the previous post, but I really am sick of the same old subjects...

If you want to honestly discuss whether condoms will help, you may want to compare sperm size to HIV size, and compare both to the pore-spacing of the average condom. That's all I have for this thread.

 

[MrPolo]

I'm the one that said making statements condemning giving Condoms to people in AIDS stricken countries was neither compassionate, nore using good judgement.

I'm not going to say everything every Catholic representative does is with compassion. But what is compassionate about abetting someone into sinning to preserve physical life? Scripture says be wary of the one who can destroy the soul and not just the body (Mt 10:28). Condoning condom use is the antithesis of compassion. Even from your own apparent viewpoint that artificial contraception is not a sin that could jeopardize one's soul, there are scientific studies that show condom distribution fosters sexual activity to a level beyond any help that condom use at normal levels would have helped. So from a Catholic or the viewpoint of some scientists, the Pope condemning condom use in Africa is the right call from any angle.

The rest of this thread is for your friend to respond and defend his own wording. For instance, in his comment on abortion and excommunication, could he have been referring to formal excommunication? If not, then he was mistaken, there can be automatic informal excommunication. But like I said, your issues are with him. If you have an issue with anything in the Catechism or something, let me know and I'll do my best to explain it.

 

[Uphill Battle]

More attacks on my intelligence... which is okay because I obviously have none.

mmm.... maybe more an attack on your motives. I think I was quite clear where my issue lies. Not with individuals. I invite you to reread and find what I truly have a problem with.

I

was only responding to your repeated wonderings as to why you weren't getting a response. You don't even give us the possibility that we've thought about or had struggles with it.

then why not discuss those? if it's not so easy to believe, why not state as such? Instead, you complain about supposed attacks on your intelligence, which has never come up? Hardly seems productive.

So no, I don't think my response was for the most part off topic, because the majority of your postings on this thread have been wondering why no one wants to go through another debate where we're assumed to be stupid creatures undeserving of respect.

your words, never mine. I do of course, invite you to stop posting in this thread if that is your perception. I'm not sure it's fair to fault me for your hackles being up for something that was never said.

I will get the sleep you recommend, though; thank you for so uncharacteristically caring for my health. I want to thank you for encouraging me to change my online behavior.

I also do want to apologize for the wording in the previous post, but I really am sick of the same old subjects...

then one wonders why you took the time to post at all. If it's such a distastful topic, you never should have bothered.

If you want to honestly discuss whether condoms will help, you may want to compare sperm size to HIV size, and compare both to the pore-spacing of the average condom. That's all I have for this thread.

ah! thankfully, your post had yet another nugget relevant to the topic at hand.

remember this: There is no assertion that that condoms in Africa would STOP aids.

only that it would help. And again, this is true. the whole "average pore spacing" argument is really a strawman argument... condoms can, and have prevented HIV infection. It is certainly not a 100% solution, nor is it forwarded as such.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I'm not going to say everything every Catholic representative does is with compassion. But what is compassionate about abetting someone into sinning to preserve physical life? Scripture says be wary of the one who can destroy the soul and not just the body (Mt 10:28). Condoning condom use is the antithesis of compassion. Even from your own apparent viewpoint that artificial contraception is not a sin that could jeopardize one's soul, there are scientific studies that show condom distribution fosters sexual activity to a level beyond any help that condom use at normal levels would have helped. So from a Catholic or the viewpoint of some scientists, the Pope condemning condom use in Africa is the right call from any angle.

The rest of this thread is for your friend to respond and defend his own wording. For instance, in his comment on abortion and excommunication, could he have been referring to formal excommunication? If not, then he was mistaken, there can be automatic informal excommunication. But like I said, your issues are with him. If you have an issue with anything in the Catechism or something, let me know and I'll do my best to explain it.

but interestingly enough, the dogma regarding contraception, is that it is sinful because it prevents life.

perhaps now you can see where the inconsistancy is seen by others?

and lets not pretend that condoms cause people to have sex. They seem to be doing just fine without them, hence, the rampant spread of HIV.

 

[MrPolo]

but interestingly enough, the dogma regarding contraception, is that it is sinful because it prevents life.

perhaps now you can see where the inconsistancy is seen by others?

No, it is not sinful because it prevents life (there are Catholic-approved methods to prevent pregnancy that are not considered sinful you know). It is sinful because it is a violation of the natural law and an affront to the gift of sexuality, frustrating a part of the giving of the self which sex is.

So at the end of the day, if using condoms was not a sin dangerous to the soul, then you would be correct (if we assume mass distribution of condoms doesn't actually result in more cases of HIV). However, if condom use is sinful, then the critics owe the Pope, who is charged to shepherd souls, an apology.

and lets not pretend that condoms cause people to have sex. They seem to be doing just fine without them, hence, the rampant spread of HIV.

That's not what the Harvard scientist found in my prior link. But whether mass condom distribution helps prevent HIV overall is only a peripheral anecdote I added based on the hypothetical that condom use was not sinful.

 

[Uphill Battle]

No, it is not sinful because it prevents life (there are Catholic-approved methods to prevent pregnancy that are not considered sinful you know).

yes, I know. I believe you know my opinion on that particular inconsistancy.

It is sinful because it is a violation of the natural law and an affront to the gift of sexuality, frustrating a part of the giving of the self which sex is.

exactly the inconsistancy to which I refer.

So at the end of the day, if using condoms was not a sin dangerous to the soul, then you would be correct (if we assume mass distribution of condoms doesn't actually result in more cases of HIV).

which is very safe to assume. More condoms =/= more HIV.

However, if condom use is sinful, then the critics owe the Pope, who is charged to shepherd souls, an apology.

I suppose that yes, if it were sinful, they would, as would I.

That's not what the Harvard scientist found in my prior link. But whether mass condom distribution helps prevent HIV overall is only a peripheral anecdote I added based on the hypothetical that condom use was not sinful.

one scientist?

and this is the attitude I find distastful... that if condom distribution in African countries helped prevent HIV, that it's a peripheral anecdote, and not something that should be undertaken to save lives.

 

[Yarddog]

I posted this in another discussion, which has since been ignored. I'd like some other perspectives on this, as I believe it bears discussing.

note that as it's possible the person I was speaking with wanted to abandon the line of thought, I have removed their name from THIS post, and only put in brackets the point they were making. I have not misrepresented them in any way.

Edward C. Green - Condoms, HIV-AIDS and Africa - The Pope Was Right - washingtonpost.com



The Pope May Be Right



By Edward C. Green
Sunday, March 29, 2009




When Pope Benedict XVI commented this month that condom distribution isn't helping, and may be worsening, the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa, he set off a firestorm of protest. Most non-Catholic commentary has been highly critical of the pope. A cartoon in the Philadelphia Inquirer, reprinted in The Post, showed the pope somewhat ghoulishly praising a throng of sick and dying Africans: "Blessed are the sick, for they have not used condoms."



Yet, in truth, current empirical evidence supports him.



We liberals who work in the fields of global HIV/AIDS and family planning take terrible professional risks if we side with the pope on a divisive topic such as this. The condom has become a symbol of freedom and -- along with contraception -- female emancipation, so those who question condom orthodoxy are accused of being against these causes. My comments are only about the question of condoms working to stem the spread of AIDS in Africa's generalized epidemics -- nowhere else.



In 2003, Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California conducted a condom effectiveness study for the United Nations' AIDS program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa. UNAIDS quietly disowned the study. (The authors eventually managed to publish their findings in the quarterly Studies in Family Planning.) Since then, major articles in other peer-reviewed journals such as the Lancet, Science and BMJ have confirmed that condoms have not worked as a primary intervention in the population-wide epidemics of Africa. In a 2008 article in Science called "Reassessing HIV Prevention" 10 AIDS experts concluded that "consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa."






Let me quickly add that condom promotion has worked in countries such
as Thailand and Cambodia, where most HIV is transmitted through commercial sex and where it has been possible to enforce a 100 percent condom use policy in brothels (but not outside of them). In theory, condom promotions ought to work everywhere. And intuitively, some condom use ought to be better than no use. But that's not what the research in Africa shows.



Why not?



One reason is "risk compensation." That is, when people think they're made safe by using condoms at least some of the time, they actually engage in riskier sex.



Another factor is that people seldom use condoms in steady relationships because doing so would imply a lack of trust. (And if condom use rates go up, it's possible we are seeing an increase of casual or commercial sex.) However, it's those ongoing relationships that drive Africa's worst epidemics. In these, most HIV infections are found in general populations, not in high-risk groups such as sex workers, gay men or persons who inject drugs. And in significant proportions of African populations, people have two or more regular sex partners who overlap in time. In Botswana, which has one of the world's highest HIV rates, 43 percent of men and 17 percent of women surveyed had two or more regular sex partners in the previous year.


These ongoing multiple concurrent sex partnerships resemble a giant, invisible web of relationships through which HIV/AIDS spreads. A study in Malawi showed that even though the average number of sexual partners was only slightly over two, fully two-thirds of this population was interconnected through such networks of overlapping, ongoing relationships.



So what has worked in Africa? Strategies that break up these multiple and concurrent sexual networks -- or, in plain language, faithful mutual monogamy or at least reduction in numbers of partners, especially concurrent ones. "Closed" or faithful polygamy can work as well.



In Uganda's early, largely home-grown AIDS program, which began in 1986, the focus was on "Sticking to One Partner" or "Zero Grazing" (which meant remaining faithful within a polygamous marriage) and "Loving Faithfully." These simple messages worked. More recently, the two countries with the highest HIV infection rates, Swaziland and Botswana, have both launched campaigns that discourage people from having multiple and concurrent sexual partners.



Don't misunderstand me; I am not anti-condom. All people should have full access to condoms, and condoms should always be a backup strategy for those who will not or cannot remain in a mutually faithful relationship. This was a key point in a 2004 "consensus statement" published and endorsed by some 150 global AIDS experts, including representatives the United Nations, World Health Organization and World Bank. These experts also affirmed that for sexually active adults, the first priority should be to promote mutual fidelity. Moreover, liberals and conservatives agree that condoms cannot address challenges that remain critical in Africa such as cross-generational sex, gender inequality and an end to domestic violence, rape and sexual coercion.



Surely it's time to start providing more evidence-based AIDS prevention in Africa.



The writer is a senior research scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health.

 

[MrPolo]

this is the attitude I find distastful... that if condom distribution in African countries helped prevent HIV, that it's a peripheral anecdote, and not something that should be undertaken to save lives.

You find it distasteful that I or the Pope, who in all honesty before God believe condom use jeopardizes one's soul, should be considered acting in distaste for considering the souls of others? That makes no sense. Did you not read the Scripture I posted earlier that the one we should fear is the one who can destroy body and soul...not just body? I see condom use as sinful, and from my view, I see you concerned only with the body and not the soul. Shall I find your approach distasteful? Or should I rather from my view think your heart is in the right place, but your conclusion is where you err? I'm afraid you are going to have to escape the cage of assumption that Catholics, like you, have to find mass-distribution of condoms a-ok.

Oh, and if you find the Church's teaching on contraception "inconsistent" you are free to hold that view. I certainly can't stop you.