Ongoing religious scandals

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

@Irlandese Thank you for the long post but I wanted to know if there's a more effective way or ways of tackling the problem.



I have no ideological attachment to any acronyms and I certainly haven't claimed ABC as my own. If I see something that works better I'm happy to support that, better is better. Or if you prefer BIB;WINB;TSINB;WLB*


*Better Is Better; Worse Is Not Better; The Same Is Not Better; We Like Better :P

Way off thread, man. You already admitted same. Respect that.
Probably not deliberate but start a new one if this is what lights your candle.
The main thread is too important to be side-tracked, deliberately or not.

PDN wrote: »

It's not a case of arguing over what the Pope meant. It's a case of you claiming he's said one thing and then, when asked to back it up, you link to him saying something entirely different.

You said, "The Pope saying they don't protect you from contracting Aids is not going to help."

The Pope said, "You can't resolve it (the AIDS epidemic) with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, it increases the problem."

Now come on, you'd need an absolute brass neck to try and equate those two statements.

In fact, it reminds me of arguments I've had with American friends about gun control.

I say, "Widespread gun ownership creates a more violent society." (a sociological argument looking at society as a whole)

They reply, "Having a gun in the house makes you safer if someone breaks into your home." (a practical argument referring to an individual's circumstances).

In fact, both statements are probably true. Having a gun in your home may well make you safer in the event of a break in, but that does not alter my position that widespread gun ownership actually creates more violence in society-thus actually increasing the risk of you getting killed in your home.

What would drive me up the wall would be if my American friends accused me of saying that owning a gun will not make you safer if someone breaks into your home. In fact, if they said that, I would conclude that they were either dishonestly twisting my words or else they had a stunningly bad grasp of the English language.

Now,the Pope's argument is a sociological one. He is saying that widespread condom distribution may promote a more liberal approach to sexuality which will actually result in more people engaging in unprotected sex - thus increasing the AIDS problem. He is not saying that condoms provide no protection for Babatunde against AIDS if Babatunde decides to shack up with a prostitute in a Lagos brothel.

You may disagree with the Pope's argument (I certainly disagree with it) but it is a sociological argument that cannot be dismissed out of hand.

But misrepresenting that argument (to pretend that the Pope has said that condoms don't provide protection against AIDS) as I have seen posters do on this forum and on the Christianity forum, contributes nothing to sensible discussion, and I think the debate on AIDS deserves better.

This post seems way off thread, just maybe unintentionally??
Why don't people start a new thread on the relative merits of different health education strategies for preventing HIV infection, if they are really interested in that, as opposed to de-railing the thread? Am I being too suspicious? Spent too long in another forum, have I ??
Some facts, from my own relevant health professional background which included relevant research in the UK, USA, Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and France. The evidence from extensive research, widely available in the literature, in the netherlands et al is that good health education and introducing the thorny subject of condom use into the debate between consenting aadults raises the intellectual level of decisions about sexual activity and in general results in lower rather than higher levels of incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. The pope's opinion is a biased, ideologically driven scientifically incorrect one and most professional observers know this. So do the people who shove the incorrect opinion out, but their interests have little to do with infection control, just as the Pope's interventions into child abuse were about damage limitation to the church, not protecting children abused by priests. That is the only connection between the two topics as examined here. It should go to a new thread if they are really sincere.
Lets please stay on thread about " ON-GOING CHURCH SCANDALS"

PDN wrote: »

It would be pretty bad if people were able to ascribe false or misattributed quotes etc, but that any corrections or clarifications were forbidden because they were off topic.

I was merely responding to claims made in this thread.

Sorry, this appears to be addressed to me, but I think how long you spend where is your business not mine. I am merely responding to a thread in this forum - not any other.


Sorry, now I'm confused. You've just posted a whack of text about something that you're saying is off-topic and shouldn't be posted here?

I will only respond to the last bit, people: Last para was just correcting the earlier posted nonsense written about condoms actually supposedly making the situation worse. One should not let dangerous nonsense like that, that might affect lives go un-challenged, once it was popped in here.
But I am not discussing it again here. It is off thread.

Irlandese wrote: »

PDN's, here, off-topc, yesterday at 12.31 was just the most recent I spotted;
"The Pope said, "You can't resolve it (the AIDS epidemic) with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, it increases the problem."

Now I hope you are not just tricking me into going off-topic again ! !
Ha ha !

I just see todays Irish Times very important and un-deniably authorative comment from the great and long officially church-silenced Christian Theologian, Dr. Hans Kung:

"Pope engineered cover-up of child sex abuse, says theologian.
THE POPE has been accused by a leading theologian of engineering a worldwide cover-up of clerical child sex abuse in the Catholic Church and of having made worse everything that is wrong in the church.

The accusations have been levelled by Pope Benedict’s longtime critic and former colleague, Swiss theologian Fr Hans Kung, in an open letter to the Catholic bishops of the world, published in this newspaper today.

It is devastatingly critical of the pope and urges the bishops not to be silent where the current church crisis is concerned but to set about reform and call for another Vatican council.

Timed to coincide with the fifth anniversary of Benedict’s election as pope next Monday, Fr Kung says in the letter “there is no denying the fact that the worldwide system of covering up cases of sexual crimes committed by clerics was engineered by the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger (1981-2005)”.

He continues: “During the reign of Pope John Paul II, that Congregation had already taken charge of all such cases under oath of strictest silence. Ratzinger himself, on May 18th, 2001, sent a solemn document to all the bishops dealing with severe crimes ( epistula de delictis gravioribus ), in which cases of abuse were sealed under the secretum pontificium, the violation of which could entail grave ecclesiastical penalties.

“With good reason, therefore, many people have expected a personal mea culpa on the part of the former prefect and current pope.Instead, the pope passed up the opportunity afforded by Holy Week: On Easter Sunday, he had his innocence proclaimed urbi et orbi by the dean of the College of Cardinals [Cardinal Angelo Sodano].”

Fr Kung says that “when it comes to facing the major challenges of our times, his [Benedict’s] pontificate has increasingly passed up more opportunities than it has taken”.

Such missed opportunities included, he says, “rapprochement with the Protestant churches”, “reconciliation with the Jews”, “the opportunity for a dialogue with Muslims”, and “reconciliation with the colonised indigenous peoples of Latin America”.

Also missed was “the opportunity to help the people of Africa by allowing the use of birth control to fight overpopulation and condoms to fight the spread of HIV” and that of making “peace with modern science by clearly affirming the theory of evolution and accepting stem-cell research”.

He says that “with a return to pomp and spectacle catching the attention of the media, the reactionary forces in Rome have attempted to present us with a strong church fronted by an absolutistic ‘Vicar of Christ’ who combines the church’s legislative, executive and judicial powers in his hands alone. But Benedict’s policy of restoration has failed.”