What are your thoughts on this?

Ekancone

Saw this in after hours:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7014335.stm
Has anyone heard this?
Apparantly a Catholic Bishop in Mozambique has said that European condom producers are intentionally lining the condoms with HIV in order to wipe out the African race and colonise the continent.
Is this just another ploy by the Catholic church to attempt to eradicate the use of condoms, in a place where there use is seriously needed, in order to enforce its views on family planning and contraception?
Whatever the reason, it seems to me an outrageous claim. And indeed one that could cause a serious amount of damage if taken seriously by the people of Mozambique....

Im interested to see how this horrible action can be defended in the name of christ. Thoughts?

Fallen Seraph

I think it's a rogue priest with his own preconceptions/agendas/serious personal issues espousing a bat**** insane point of view that has only the most superficial of relations to the church.

It's a worse reflection on the selection stanards for the clergy of the catholic church than it is on the teachings of the church.

Ekancone

Why do bishops even say this? Where in the bible does it say you cant use condoms or whatever the problem is?

Fallen Seraph

I've always been quite confused about this myself.

It's either something to do with the sacredness of life, or a blantantly intentionally misinterpreted passage of the bible.

I can't remember the reference offhand, but there's an OT story where some woman's husband dies and god orders the husband's brother to give the widow children. The brother doesn't want to, so every time he copulates with her he spills his seed on the ground. God promptly smites the guy for disobeying him.

i've seen this cited as proof against it before. But, since I feel that a reasonable interpretation of this passage indicates condoms/masturbation are okay with god, I suspect that there exists other reasons to disapprove of condoms.

PDN

Fallen Seraph wrote:

I've always been quite confused about this myself.

It's either something to do with the sacredness of life, or a blantantly intentionally misinterpreted passage of the bible.

I can't remember the reference offhand, but there's an OT story where some woman's husband dies and god orders the husband's brother to give the widow children. The brother doesn't want to, so every time he copulates with her he spills his seed on the ground. God promptly smites the guy for disobeying him.

i've seen this cited as proof against it before. But, since I feel that a reasonable interpretation of this passage indicates condoms/masturbation are okay with god, I suspect that there exists other reasons to disapprove of condoms.

Onan (Genesis 38:8-10) is the guy you're thinking of - hence the word 'Onanism', meaning masturbation or coitus interruptus. The command came from his father, Judah, rather than directly from God. He died because of his refusal to provide a son for his dead brother, so it would appear to a serious case of biblical illiteracy to use this as justification for the prohibition against condoms.

PDN

daithifleming wrote:

Im interested to see how this horrible action can be defended in the name of christ. Thoughts?

I just read the link. This guy is not just a rogue priest. He is the archbishop over all Mozambique! In my opinion he should be charged with manslaughter.

Ekancone

PDN wrote:

I just read the link. This guy is not just a rogue priest. He is the archbishop over all Mozambique! In my opinion he should be charged with manslaughter.

More like genocide!

MooseJam

sex is for procreation it's not for fun so condoms are bold, thats the church's view anyway

PDN

MooseJam wrote:

sex is for procreation it's not for fun so condoms are bold, thats the church's view anyway

Please insert the word 'Catholic' before church.

MooseJam

indeed, sorry

robindch

PDN wrote:

In my opinion he should be charged with manslaughter.

An interesting viewpoint. In addition to this chap, do you believe that all religious people should be held to account for the results of what they teach?

I'm thinking here -- to pick an example from this week -- of Warren Jeffs, the FLDS leader who, according to prosecutors, told a 14-year old that she would burn in hell if she didn't marry her 19-year old cousin. Jeffs was convicted on Tuesday of being an accomplice to rape. But he was not tried upon a charge mental abuse, which according to recent research (see here, for example), can be just as damaging as physical abuse.

So, accountable -- yes, no, depends?

PDN

MooseJam wrote:

indeed, sorry

No problem! I just happen to be one of those Christians who think sex was one of God's greatest inventions. However, I have no wish to have a tribe of brats filling up my house.

PDN

robindch wrote:

An interesting viewpoint. In addition to this chap, do you believe that all religious people should be held to account for the results of what they teach?

I think any religious figure who uses dishonesty, manipulation or threats to abuse or endanger others should be subject to the law to the exact same extent as if religion were not a factor.

While I strongly disagree with the Roman Catholic prohibition against contraception, I believe that most Catholic leaders hold sincere opinions. So, if a Bishop teaches that contraception is sinful then I don't believe that is grounds for prosecution. After all, they also teach that sex outside of marriage is sinful, so Catholics who obey the entire code of restrictions are not, for the most part, likely to cause an AIDS epidemic.

However, if a clergyman spreads lies like in the above link (or spreading nonsense like claiming that the AIDS virus can pass through condoms) then they should be prosecuted.

I also believe that Catholic aid agencies refuse to distribute condoms then that is their choice. But if they try to prevent other agencies doing so, or put pressure on governments to restrict condom imports, then that should be dealt with by the law.

As for other religious figures, I believe many, if not most, TV evangelists should be investigated for racketeering due to their deceitful and manipulative fund raising tactics.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Please insert the word 'Catholic' before church.

I thought it was Paul / St. Paul who outlined that Sex should only take place within marriage. Most Christian churches think this way.

I am not sure of the exact references and where the Christian Churches differ.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

I thought it was Paul / St. Paul who outlined that Sex should only take place within marriage. Most Christian churches think this way.

I am not sure of the exact references and where the Christian Churches differ.

I was not responding to a post questioning whether sex should only take place in marriage. I was responding to a post that spoke of the Church as teaching that sex was for procreation, not fun, hence the ban on condoms.

Most churches, other than Roman Catholicism, teach that sex was intended for fun, not just for procreation. They also teach that sex is a gift to be enjoyed within marriage, and would expect their members to adhere to this standard. Therefore condoms (or any other form of contraception) are essential to any married couple who aren't trying to have so many children that they end up in the Guinness Book of Records.

As for the use of condoms outside of marriage, I think they are a very good idea. I don't expect non-Christians to adhere to Christian standards of morality, and if people are going to fornicate with each other I'd rather they did it while wearing condoms and so lessen the spread of HIV, STD's and reduce unwanted pregnancies.

JimiTime

PDN wrote:

As for the use of condoms outside of marriage, I think they are a very good idea. I don't expect non-Christians to adhere to Christian standards of morality, and if people are going to fornicate with each other I'd rather they did it while wearing condoms and so lessen the spread of HIV, STD's and reduce unwanted pregnancies.

A rhetorical question PDN. If an unmarried couple came to you and said, 'we are going to have sex tonight, could I have a condom'? What would you do?

I am married myself and use contaception, and don't have a problem with it. However, I'm not sure if giving condoms to people who you know are being promiscuous advocates? Its like saying, well its immoral and wrong, but here, just in case. I'm not sure about it myself, so it would be good to hear another Christian view on it.

PDN

JimiTime wrote:

A rhetorical question PDN. If an unmarried couple came to you and said, 'we are going to have sex tonight, could I have a condom'? What would you do?

I am married myself and use contaception, and don't have a problem with it. However, I'm not sure if giving condoms to people who you know are being promiscuous advocates? Its like saying, well its immoral and wrong, but here, just in case. I'm not sure about it myself, so it would be good to hear another Christian view on it.

It's a very rhetorical question since I don't walk around with condoms in my pocket ( a vasectomy 15 years ago has turned out to be a lot cheaper).
However, in the unlikely event of such a thing occurring I would give them the condom.

I view it the same as someone breaking the speed limit on their motorcycle. They shouldn't do it, but if they are going to do it then I'd prefer them to be wearing a crash helmet.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

It's a very rhetorical question since I don't walk around with condoms in my pocket ( a vasectomy 15 years ago has turned out to be a lot cheaper).
However, in the unlikely event of such a thing occurring I would give them the condom.

I view it the same as someone breaking the speed limit on their motorcycle. They shouldn't do it, but if they are going to do it then I'd prefer them to be wearing a crash helmet.

Would you trust the theory of vasectomy more than the theory of evolution ?

JimiTime

PDN wrote:

It's a very rhetorical question since I don't walk around with condoms in my pocket

( a vasectomy 15 years ago has turned out to be a lot cheaper).

Ouch!

However, in the unlikely event of such a thing occurring I would give them the condom.

I view it the same as someone breaking the speed limit on their motorcycle. They shouldn't do it, but if they are going to do it then I'd prefer them to be wearing a crash helmet.

good analogy. I'd have to say its still a bit of a grey area with meself. i wouldn't condemn or encourage it under my current knowledge. Thanks for the precise answer though.

BrianCalgary

Tim Robbins wrote:

Would you trust the theory of vasectomy more than the theory of evolution ?

The vasectomy is no longer a theory, it is a practice that works very well and can be demonstrated as such, by the millions of men who have consented either by choice; or a conspiracy between wife and family doctor.:D

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote:

The vasectomy is no longer a theory, it is a practice that works very well and can be demonstrated as such, by the millions of men who have consented either by choice; or a conspiracy between wife and family doctor.:D

Evolution has also been demonstrated, not by millions of men, billions of men

BTW How's life these days? Football coaching etc? Have you made it to Ireland yet?