Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Pope UK visit mega discussion thread.
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
starbelgrade wrote: »There are several million things I can think of that are better than Tim Minchin.
Yes that may be but his "Pope Song" definitely sums up the way I feel about the Pope. Just my opinion though
0 -
-
-
Can anyone justify a guy going around and saying that condoms actually SPREAD HIV/AIDS?! I mean... what century is it?To put it in better context..
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/what_the_pope_really_said_about_aids_and_condoms/
Haha! This just gets more ridiculous 
The Vatican website published an edited text of the Pope’s comments the
day after a question-and-answer sesion on his flight to Cameroon. It was a
question from a French reporter that elicited an unqualified response about
condoms.
By introducing the word “risks” the Vatican softened the message. The
website at first also altered the Italian word the Pope used for condoms,
from “preservativi” to “profilattici”.
It is not clear whether “preservatives” — the usual Italian term for
condoms — was deemed too colloquial, or whether “prophylactics” was
considered not simply more polite but more general, since it could be taken
to encompass other forms of “safeguard against disease”. Subsequently
the word was changed back to preservativi.
All Vatican press conferences are conducted in Italian, which the
German-born Pope speaks fluently and which Vatican-accredited reporters
are also expected to speak. Reporters who recorded the interview on the
flight said the recordings showed that the Pope had used the word
“preservativi” and not “profilattici”.
In addition he had not said that reliance on condoms “risked” aggravating
the problem, as the amended version had it, but rather that it “even
aggravated it” or, as some media translated the word, “increased” it.
In Cameroon Father Federico Lombardi, the papal spokesman, continued to
defend the Pope’s remarks — in whatever form — saying that he was
merely continuing the line taken by his predecessors. He said the Pope
maintained that the distribution of condoms was “not in reality the best
way” to tackle Aids.
L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, said in a front-page
editorial that the media had reduced the Pope’s trip to just “one aspect”,
the controversy over how to combat Aids.
The Pope’s speeches and homilies as released by the Vatican are usually
regarded as sacrosanct. He is deemed to have delivered the officially
released written version even if he does not do so for any reason, or if he
omits parts of the written text.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5934912.ece
So basically you're taking an edited version of the pope's comments
and defending the church for changing his speech even though they
subsequently changed it back
If you read the link fully you'll see that the church changed some
of the words from the pope's original speech in order to minimize
damage. It doesn't change the fact that he made these outrageous
claims. Furthermore it speaks to the highest form of stupidity to say
anything even remotely like "condoms do not solve the problem alone"
when condoms do in fact halt the spread of aids. It's a simple case of
statistice which you can google for yourself.These studies found that even with repeated sexual contact, 98 - 100
percent of these people who used condoms correctly and consistently did
not become infected.
http://www.anytestkits.com/aids-condoms.htm
No matter what way you spin it, i.e. argue he meant abstinence
in concert with condoms, any mention whatsoever that condoms
do not solve the problem is of utter, utter, stupidity & this is why
the world made such a big deal of this.
You do realise it was the churches wish for no one to use
condoms, you do realise bishops in Africa, going off holy mandate,
are lying fabout condoms. I'm sure you know this & don't need me to
get the quotes from the bishops own mouths, I assure you I've used
them on boards before & if you can't google them I'll find them for you.
Furthermore, I'd like to see how you can justify a situation like this :
:eek:As a young physician, I often second-guess myself. In practicing medicine
such self-criticism is warranted, even obligatory, because a wrong
diagnosis can lead to misguided therapy and may end in death.
After working at a Catholic hospital in the small sub-Saharan country of
Swaziland, however, there is one diagnosis I pronounce with
uncharacteristic certitude: AIDS.
The typical patient is a young woman between 18 and 30 years of age.
She is wheeled into the examining room in a hospital chair or dragged in,
supported by her sister, aunt, or brother. She is frequently delirious; her
face is gaunt; her limbs look like desiccated twigs. Surprisingly, the young
woman is already a mother many times over, yet she will not live to see
her children grow up. More shocking still, she is married; her husband
infected her with the deadly virus.
This is the reality: a married woman living in Southern Africa is at higher
risk of becoming infected with HIV than an unmarried woman. Extolling
abstinence and fidelity, as the Catholic Church does, will not protect her;
in all likelihood she is already monogamous. It is her husband who is likely
to have HIV. Yet refusing a husband’s sexual overtures risks ostracism,
violence, and destitution for herself and her children.
Given these realities, isn’t opposing the use of condoms tantamount to
condemning countless women to death
You will remember that it's only pretty recently, i.e. 2008, when the
vatican softened it's policies on condom use. Beforehand we had madness
all over because of their official policies. So claiming their position was a
mix of abstinence and condoms is rich in 2010 after years and years of
them going by teachings such as those espoused in Humanae Vitae that
explicitly condemned artificial birth control. Lets not worry about the
fact that this policy was a death sentence for married women like in
the example above who faced death due to a husband with HIV and
a religious mandate for no condoms.
I'd be more cautious in defending the churches position when pulling
up official and edited PR by this corporation.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Ah, classic prinz answer, lacking any quotes or proof yet bold assertions
run rampant. Okay, you've convinced me I'm wrong by insulting my grasp of
history :rolleyes: Apparently me and a lot of demoralized atheists, the papers, and
even Richard Dawkins have got it wrong by reading the mans own quotes but
prinz, without any evidence but quick to utilize insults, knows better.
edit:You are, then again no suprise there. Trouble understanding a lot of things apparently. Not only have you failed to grasp his, you have failed to grasp mine, and have a weak grasp on history itself.
quoted before the ninja posting commences
0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,587 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 15332
sponsoredwalk wrote: »Haha! This just gets more ridiculous
So basically you're taking an edited version of the pope's comments
and defending the church for changing his speech even though they
subsequently changed it back
Without reading the full text of the condom comments, what you are saying is a technique the media have also played with most comments made by vatican officials in the media certainly over the last 10 years.
Im not trying to justify any comments made by the pope in relation to contraceptive but I am saying the door seems to swing both ways.
I recall an incident a few years ago when a Fr. Amorth (a senior priest in the Vatican) made comment on the Harry Potter books. Some media headlines ran a story claiming that the vatican have said that children reading harry potter run risk of become satanists.
Im sure the church had good intentions in whatever they were trying to say about contraceptives (from a catholic perspective) That certainly doesnt mean that anyone, religious or otherwise, has to agree or follow it. I wonder if the media have similar intentions with the stories they run?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement