Bill McCabe is pretty mad at the Pope. I left him a comment that I thought I'd expand upon and share here:
You have to accept the bad with the good from the Catholic church. This does not make them above reproach, by any means, but let's remember some things:
They were a major force in ending world Communism. They are one of the few outspoken voices on ending the international slave trade (which is still going strong by the way). They run more hospitals, orphanages, and charities in third world countries than any other force in the universe. They speak out about prisoner abuse and political prisoners everywhere. They were instrumental in ending the Apartheid regime in South Africa.
You can pick them apart for inconsistencies, be angry with them for things they stand for that you very much disagree with, call them to task for their sins, but name me a human institution that has stood for two thousand years that won't have those.
The fact that they are somewhat anachronistic is also one of their strengths: They will be here long, long, long after all of us are merely dust--still doing things to infuriate people, but also still feeding the hungry, nursing the sick, and speaking for the voiceless.
Viewed it as a whole, then, my personal urge to excoriate the Catholic Church as a group of evil and oppressive child molesters is pretty low. And my ability to say, "Okay, that's just what they think, I happen to disagree" is pretty good. I don't have to agree with them on everything to respect both their spirituallity and the enormous good they've done in the world. Especially since, with rare exception, they restrict themselves these days to giving opinions, rather than forcing anyone to do anything.
In other words, if you don't like what they say or stand for, there's an easy solution: don't be Catholic. Problem solved.
By the way, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Catholic church. Although I married a Catholic girl, and am damn proud of it. ;-)
Also by the way, Andrea has some excellent snarkage that relates to this, and folks (other than the Pope) who like to kick America around.
I support gay marriage, am pro-choice and supported the war to liberate Iraq. And my somewhat quixotic Quaker beliefs (problem with the war there obviously) tends against bishops and priests in general.
None of this prevents me from admiring the charitable mission of the Roman Church. I used to do street outreach with the Quakers in London. We always knew we might as well pack it in when the Catholics arrived. We had soup and sandwiches... they had a mobile kitchen! The generosity of the Church is only a reflection of the long tradition you describe. In addition, John Paul II has demonstrated himself to be a man of great dignity and moral clarity. I disagree with many of the conclusions he draws from those fundamental traditions we share but I respect him as a man.
There are serious issues that face Christians of whatever stripe in making sense of a very secular time. How to find ways of making common cause in advocating human liberty? How to address our disagreements over public policy when our most basic beliefs are at issue? Cheap shots about paedophilia do not advance the conversation and risk echoing centuries of religious conflict.
Criticize the Pope for being a hypocrite. Criticize the Pope for being a politician. Criticize the Pope for being inconsistent. Criticize the Pope for being European intellectual who has mostly stereotyped and mostly wrong ideas about Americans.
So long as you don't criticize him for being Catholic I don't much care. But don't dismiss the Pope. The Roman Catholic Church remains one of the largest organizations of any kind in the world and the Pope has very nearly unrestricted control over it.
Roman Catholicism is the large Christian denomination in the world and the largest Christian denomination in the United States. And it's continuing to grow. Like any other organization run by humans it does both good and evil. We can only hope that over time the good outweighs the evil. And, as Dean points out, it does a lot of good.
One way of explaining to non-Catholics how Catholics feel about the institutional Church is that the Church is like your mother. Even if your mother does something bad she's still your mother.
The Roman Catholic stand on contraception, and its attempt to sabotage efforts to promote condom use to halt the spread of AIDS is a major issue, probably a genocidal one.
JanH, do you know what the word "genocidal" means? I don't agree with this either, but to accuse the Catholic Church of trying to wipe out the human race through it's position on contraception is quite a leap.
While I think Bill's words are rather strong, on a rather small subject, I'd have to say he's absolutely correct that the Pope, and by proxy, the Catholic church, has become morally bankrupt, solely on the merits of his absolutely horrendous pro-AIDS projects in Africa.
You know? Where he blatantly lied to attempt to get people in a horribly AIDS-stricken area to stop using condoms? Yes, he lied. It was a blatant, inexcusably wicked thing to do. I wonder how many people will die or have died already as a direct result of the Pope's evil lies.
I'm not zealously anti-religion, you know, but if I saw the Pope walking down the street, I'd spit on him.
Lol, dowingba, I wonder what those Swiss guards would think of that?
The Catholic Church is everyone's favorite religious scapegoat. Muslim's get a buy on more stuff than Catholics do.
I read the blog that Dean refers to, and the article that Bill comments on. I see absolutely nothing wrong with what the Pope said to American Bishops. Nothing. At. All.
Anyone can leave the Catholic Church at any time if they disagree with the Church's teachings. The Pope's job is to guide the bishops on Catholic Theology.
What's the fuss?
Oh, great! Now I'm gonna have Zappa running through my brain all day!
The Catholic church forbids sex out of wedlock and birth control of any kind. If you follow their rules about sex then the condom use issue is moot. You can't blame the Catholic church if someone gets HIV if they only follow half the rules.
Cassandra,
Thank you. You said that better than I would have.
My response was gonna have a whole lot "fuck you's" and "kiss my asses" in it. ;-)
TC-LeatherPenguin: You and me, both.
"...with a tiny, little mustache."
So when the Pope claimed condoms couldn't even protect one from the HIV virus, he wasn't lying because he's Catholic and therefore doesn't believe in contraception? You know, they've been proven time and time again to effectively stop the transmission of the HIV virus. The condom issue is not moot, sorry. Go ahead, tell people that pre-marital and birth-controlled sex is wrong, but when an influential figure such as the Pope starts lying in order to deceive people into following his doctrine? Yeah, fucking, right.
You know? Where he blatantly lied to attempt to get people in a horribly AIDS-stricken area to stop using condoms? Yes, he lied. It was a blatant, inexcusably wicked thing to do. I wonder how many people will die or have died already as a direct result of the Pope's evil lies.
Give me a FUCKING BREAK! If he so fucking powerful to get people to NOT USE condoms, then he's powerful enough to GET THEM TO STOP FUCKING.
There is only ONE METHOD to guarantee NOT TO spread STD's = DON'T FUCK.
Adam,
"Genocide" does not refer to killing the entire human race. Even Hitler didn't want to kill good Aryan Germans. It refers to the killing of large groups of people.
Rosemary,
It sure is easier to stop contraception than it is to stop people fucking. In one, you fight a technology, in the other you fight human nature and 500My of evolution. Can't be done.
The argument that the RCC gets away simply by also forbidding extramarital sex is irrelevant. The RCC doesn't merely tell people who accept their doctrines to not use condoms, they use their power to legislate so nobody can get condoms. They use misinformation to scare people away. They use the economic and political power of the church to stop safe sex programmes. If they succeed, they will effectively kill millions.
And it's not as if the RCC has been as interested in stopping people (like priests) having sex as it has been in the outwards signs of obedience, like the ban on birth control.
Condoms REDUCE the spread of HIV but they don't eliminate the spread. That is the truth. They don't prevent unwanted pregnancy either. Condoms REDUCE unwanted pregnancy. Percentage of effectiveness doesn't change that. Condoms are not as effective in reducing the spread of other STDs (Herpes, Chlamydia, etc.). The truth is that there is only one method which is certain to reduce the spread of STDs.
Why are people so reluctant to want that truth told?
absolutely off point, but I must say, Cassandra, that be one mighty moniker!
I have talked a little before about the problems with the Catholic Church, and why they come about. The biggest problem is that of Institutional Decay. Like all institutions, the Church has over time built up a bureaucracy that has slowly warped the mission and structure of the Church. This is why the Chuch has such problems with the Priest abuse scandal. The bureaucracy, motivated by a desire to protect itself, has not done all that it can to solve the situation. They feared bad press, and thus covered up the abuse, rather than exposing it and dealing with abusive priests the moment word comes of them. They went into CYA mode, failing to realize the damage that it could do it the Church. But it doesn't matter to them, because they are safe in their institution.
As for HIV and contraception, that comes about from a misunderstanding of biology. IIRC, the Biblical verse that the Vatican relies upon to oppose contraception says that to throw away a seed is to commit a sin against G-d. However, contraception, or at least, condoms specifically, don't throw away "seed." Rather, what they do is prevent pollination, as Sperm is the biological equivlent of pollen, merely providing genetic material, and not in fact, a complete genetic code and thus viable "seed." I suspect that no one in the upper echelon of the Vatican is a biologist, and has thusly misinformed the Pope on the applicability of that Bible Verse. And at the same time, the Pope was misinformed about HIV. At his current state of health, I don't blame the Pope for that. But I do blame the upper levels of the Vatican for it.
Cassandra,
Of course nothing is 100% safe. D'oh. But condom use seriously reduces HIV transmission. Thus, sabotaging condom use kills. Is that very hard to understand?
Condoms is only one asset in the fight against AIDS, but it is a crucial one. Those who wilfully sabotage the fight against AIDS, are potentially (and after a while actually) murderers of millions, and should be treated accordingly.
Bullshit Jan.
The Pope preaches doctrine. People have free will and make their own choices. If you choose to listen to the Pope but only halfway - it's still YOUR OWN FAULT.
You can not lay blame on the Pope for being against Birth Control because the poor stupid people have no will power and can't keep their fucking legs closed.
It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Oh, great. Another must-read blog (qoae) to add to my daily crawl. There's only so much a guy can read in a day.
As for the Pope, it's his job to uphold Biblical standards. Even if many (most?) church-going Catholics ignore the teaching on contraception, for example, the teaching remains as a guidepost, a marker one can use to orient oneself in an age of moral relativism.
Don't ask, don't tell. It works every time it's tried. Yeah, I know, hypocrisy. I can live with it.
Abstinence works, too. In fact, it IS 100% safe. It is the only thing that is 100% safe. That is the total message the Pope is sending. If people pick out only a piece of it, that isn't the fault of the Pope.
Sodomy is a sin in the Catholic Church. Do you really believe that someone who has anal sex without a condom can blame the Pope for their getting HIV? It is something like a half a sin because they commited the sin of sodomy but didn't go all the way by using a condom? The Catholic Church is fairly consistant. There are no half sins. *Sins are sins. Sodomy is a sin. Condom use is a sin. Out of wedlock sex is a sin. Choosing one out of the three isn't one third of a sin. Can you see that disconnect? The Pope says, in essence, "do not sin." That includes all of the above. Isn't the Pope, by saying "do not do that" saying not to get HIV?
No one is to blame for the spread of HIV besides the individuals who practice behaviors that spread it. You cannot murder by proxy, which is what you are suggesting the Pope is doing. That's ridiculous.
*Regardless if they are venal or mortal.
So Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Hussein...they aren't murderers. I mean, all they did was create and influence legislation that led to the deaths of millions.
Technically, unless Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Hussein pulled the trigger, they aren't murderers. If they ordered someone to pull the trigger, the individual with the gun in their hand still had free will. You seem to be invoking the Nuremberg defense, "I was just following orders."
We commonly refer to tyrants as murderers, but in the conspiracy, not literal, sense.
Hussein pointing a gun at your daughters head with the threat that if you don't do as he says will result in her death is blackmail. If you get enough people to go along with you, as those tyrants did, then you get to the degree of genocide. In every case, however, individuals had free will to refuse. It may have cost them their own life to refuse, or the life of a loved one, but they chose to trade their life for another life.
Dowingba,
They are all murderers. Every one of them pulled the trigger more than once before and after they became powerful. Actually, Hitler pulled the trigger after but the rest were thugs from the start.
> Hussein pointing a gun at your daughters head
> with the threat that if you don't do as he
> says will result in her death is blackmail.
Actually, that would be extortion, but why quibble?
The Pope's main concern is not with physical death but with souls. To be a Christian means that you must try to aleviate physical suffering where you can, as a normal campassionate person. However, if a devout Christian is in a position to choose whether he is physically well or saved in Heaven, there is not supposed to be a question of which he chooses. The Pope *is* more concerned with formication/adultury which can damn you to Hell than he is with whether or not you die. As he should be; it's his job description.
I'm Christian but not Catholic, by the way.
I was born and raised Catholic.
Popes have consistently railed against contraception as somehow anti-life. Married Catholics, though, facing the prospect of yet another 18 years of child rearing, demurred. I got a vasectomy after my third child, and I don't regret it. Enough is enough, and I didn't want to live with my wife as brother and sister.
Sadly, other events intervened, and I now live alone. But that's beside the point.
Dowingba, when it comes to Catholicism, you are acting like a barking Moonbat.
Obviously, you are unable to distinguish between religious doctrine and orders to underlings to do away with people. There is a world of difference, Dowingba.
It's been many hundreds of years since a Pope sent people off to kill others.
He is simply encouraging that the Catholic Church's Docrine be followed by Catholics.
As to Janh - man, woman, get a life! You are basically allowing that no one in Africa has enough self-control or responsibilty to not have sex outside of marriage. I wonder how they would feel about your characterization of their intelligence, self-control and ability to think for themselves?
I know, I know, Jack T. Chick will say I'm the Devil, and it's true, but I'll say it anyway:
Whether you agree or disagree with it, whether you like it or not, no one has EVER to deny, doubt, or dispute that Catholicism has always had an extremely, excruciatingly excellent _STYLE_.
Exhibit A: The grand, glorious Gothic CATHEDRALS: Notre Dame, Chartres, Rheims, Mont St. Michel, etc., etc. -- exquisite symbols of the Western "Faustian" soul, longing for the Infinite, striving ever higher for the Divine.
Then there is the high, soaring, Divine MUSIC of the Catholic Mass, from the Gregorian Chants to Beethoven's "Missa Solemnis". I love the STYLE of the Mass. I'm a reactionary here: I would love to go back to the old Tridentine Mass.
Catholicism has produced a highly sophisticated and profound theology and philosophy from Anselm to Maritain. It has produced superlative writers from Dante to Chesterton. It inspired the knights of the Crusades. I has created extremely interesting doctrines and dogmas such as the holy dogma of Transubstantiation (Matthew 26:26-28), the theological foundation of the Sacrament of Holy Communion.
I love above all the Catholic veneration and elevation of the Virgin Mother Mary, the holy dogma of her Immaculate Conception, the holy dogma of her Assumption into Heaven, the holy dogma of her Coronation as the Queen of Heaven, as the Co-Redemptrix of the world I have even heard tell -- yea, verily, She is well nigh even like unto a Goddess, even like unto the Goddess Isis. I see the parallels very clearly.
Yes, the _STYLE!_ of it all! Even where I must most strongly disagree, even where I must most adamantly oppose, the Catholic church still has STYLE. I oppose their doctrines of prohibition against contraception, homosexuality, masturbation, lust. But even there I must say -- and call me a "Jehovanistic-style Gnostic" -- that the prohibitions, the inhibitions, the taboos, make sex all the more mysterious and exciting. Camille Paglia has often remarked on the high eroti cism created by Catholicism's unique mix of the ascetic and the aesthetic, the repressive and the sensuous. It is well-known that Catholic women are the sexiest and that Catholic men are the best lovers.
Yes, and the atheists, the blasphemers, the Satanists, the sadists, the libertines, rebelling against the Catholic church, reflect its STYLE. De Sade, Genet, Bataille, Huysmans. Satanists have the Black Mass -- not the Black Quaker Meeting. Catholicism has shaped even its fiercest enemies, even Jack T. Chick.
No one is to blame for the spread of HIV besides the individuals who practice behaviors that spread it.
The irrational cult of individualism gone mad raises its ugly head once again; a curious intersection of Randian libertarianism and Catholic theology.
Despite the fact the Pope's mendacious interventionism in the HIV policy debate will cause people who would have used a condom to not use a condom; people who wouldn't have contracted HIV to contract HIV; a miserable blight to be brought down upon the indiviuals concerned, and their families - despite it all, this irrational belief system tells us that the Pope is not to blame. Instead, we must blame the urges of these ill-educated Africans who do not control their baser instincts. Just like there is no poverty trap and little that the government can or should do about it.
It may cause anxiety among believers that the Pope is so woefully fallible on this issue - but it is true that he is fallible. As to the second issue, another time, another thread perhaps.
The Pope preaches doctrine.
Rosemary, the Pope could make occasional missives from the Vatican about contraceptives if he wished to do so. He could do a lot less to damage the campaign against the spread of HIV if he wished to do so. He could be a lot less proactive on the issue if he allowed some notions of basic humanism to influence him, insulated though he may be from the invidious calls of secularists in his Ivory tower of the Vatican.
Steven,
With your post, I'm beginning to feel at home after nearly a fortnight on the glorious green acres of Ireland. Glory to the angels and the saints. I'll be saying a prayer to St. Finbar for ye. And as well to St. Muiredeach. I'll be do it in gaelic for ye if you wish. I see a problem with the gays tinkin' the're the original anti-papists. Oh Well, I'll be havin' a Guiness. Slainte
Max,
the Pope could make occasional missives from the Vatican about contraceptives if he wished to do so.
No, he can't. It is against our belief. The Pope's job is the salvation of our souls. It is his job to teach about sin and how to avoid it. He cannot in good faith instruct anyone ***to sin***. Ever.
You misunderstand me Rosemary. I'm not saying he should advocate contraception - just that he should content himself with the occasional tepid anti-contraceptive missive. A don't ask don't tell kind of thing. Plenty of beurocratic manouevers towards a softly softly approach.
Catholic here. The contraception issue is moot for me since I can't conceive without massive medical aid anyway, but I'd like to point out something about the HIV/condoms issue.
I think people are misunderstanding: the Pope is not saying that there's no difference between unprotected sex and sex with a condom. But condoms are not foolproof - nothing is, except abstinence. The problem with using condoms is that people can come to rely on them more than they should, and sometimes when you think you have a safety net you'll do dangerous things that you wouldn't have otherwise. So if you're living in an AIDS-ridden part of Africa, and you've been assured that if you use condoms, you'll have a 98% chance of being safe with them (or whatever), it might lead you to *take* risks that you never would have taken without them. Thus you may end up getting infected - ironically enough, because you had the condom, and you slept with someone you would never have slept with unprotected, and the virus managed to slither through.
What he's saying is that condoms and pills make people lazy and can lead to problems they would never have had, had they not thought that they had a permanent safety net and could engage in behavior which even thirty years ago would have been considered insanely irresponsible. Where is it written that everyone has a right to unlimited screwing around? And yet people now complain that they're somehow being deprived some basic human right if they aren't getting any. It's baffling.
Well said. Thank you Sonetka!
Why is that conservatives always forget the C in their ABCs? :-) Abstain, Be faithful, use Condoms (running the risk here that someone'll correct me about the B but I think that was the message) One of the most successful anti-HIV programs tried in Africa, Uganda to be precise.
Sonetka, that's a lovely argument, but are you seriously arguing that the total number of HIV infections will rise if the use of condoms is taught in conjunction with abstinance and fidelity as opposed to abstinance and fidelity alone? There's a certain percentage of people who will have risky sex no matter what you say to them. A LARGE percentage of them could be saved if they are taught to use condoms. There is a certain percentage of people who will engage in riskier behaviour than otherwise if they have access to condoms, a very much smaller percentage, I would argue. A SMALL percentage of them will contract HIV.
Catch 22:
Thank you!
Max M wrote:
"The irrational cult of individualism gone mad raises its ugly head once again; a curious intersection of Randian libertarianism and Catholic theology."
Yes, that describes me well enough.
In case anyone is confused, here is what we're talking about.
I'm not arguing doctrine here. Believe what you want; same goes for the pope. But don't make up lies in order to deceive people into following your doctrine.
People are going to have sex. The WHO asserts that "Consistent and Correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%. That's 90% less HIV being spread, if people use condoms.
Gee whiz. Individual responsibility, eh? Tell that to the fucking Catholic church, please.
There is more on this story than that.
Here are a few more sources:
Global Policy
Pope's statements
It is important to keep in perspective that the Catholic priests are speaking to a Catholic audience, or those who seek assistance from Catholic charities. Non-Catholics would be hearing a different message.
In a typical Guardian bias, they've managed to locate priests who give out incorrect information and spin that as an indication of what everyone is saying and doing. Those are not the official words of the Pope. What some Ugandan Priest says to his parish not the official voice of the Catholic church.
AIDS is at its worst in South Afica, among black South Africans. The vast majority of black South Africans are Anglicans or Zionist-Christians. They don't listen to the Pope. If you can't blame the Pope for the spread of HIV in South Africa, who are you going to blame next?
Yes, that describes me well enough.
Yeah, so you say, though I you aren't irrational, no? I appreciate the allure of both credos and subscribe to parts of them. I was educated in a Catholic school although my family was irreligious, and used to say prayers to Mother Mary before I slept although I never really believed.
Catch 22: Ca bhfuil tu? Ta daoine as mo chlan ina a chonai i mBaile Atha Cliath agus Cill Mhantain agus chuaigh me ar turus cupla uaireanta. If you're blufing about the Gaelic or mine is really crap, Where are ya; I've got relatives in Dublin and Wicklow and I've been a few times. Love the place.
I meant to put a smiley in after the bit about bluffing, Catch 22 :-)
Max,
Only mi priest knows the fookin language. As they say you don't learn it; you either hav it or you don't hav it. I don't hav it. But in Bantry, they say the Our Father in gaelic. That's good enough for me.
fookin'. Hah. Man, its been a while...
dowingba,
You do, from time to time, just piss me off.
From the CDC website:
"The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.
For persons whose sexual behaviors place them at risk for STDs, correct and consistent use of the male latex condom can reduce the risk of STD transmission. However, no protective method is 100 percent effective, and condom use cannot guarantee absolute protection against any STD. Furthermore, condoms lubricated with spermicides are no more effective than other lubricated condoms in protecting against the transmission of HIV and other STDs. In order to achieve the protective effect of condoms, they must be used correctly and consistently. Incorrect use can lead to condom slippage or breakage, thus diminishing their protective effect. Inconsistent use, e.g., failure to use condoms with every act of intercourse, can lead to STD transmission because transmission can occur with a single act of intercourse."
In other words, the Pope is telling the truth, your linked article to a bullshit, scandal-sheet newspaper is lying just to make an anti-Catholic point.
Having promiscious sex using a condom for 'protection' is like playing Russian roulette...oh, its not as bad as playing with a six-shooter...its more like playing the game with a sixty-shooter...but just to get an orgasm, would you play that game? No...but for some people, just getting a chance to get laid seems to be more important than, well, living.
You go Mark Noonan! While it is incorrect for anyone to say that ALL condoms have holes through which HIV can pass, it is absolutely correct to say that a certain percentage of them do. The failure rate of condoms in the U.S. is between 1% and 2%. And this is in a country where people are highly educated about condom usage. In Africa, the education level is way down low. I read in National Geographic about 10 years ago that a lot of people in Africa believe that urination after intercourse will flush out and HIV you may have contracted. Giving these people condoms and telling them they are protected is the worst thing you could do. Telling them that condoms never work is probably the second worst thing.
The best approach would be sexual education, strong support of abstinence, and freely available condoms. It's worked well in the United States... the odds of a low risk group person getting AIDS here are really really low.
I'm not Catholic. I have serious disagreements with some teachings. Some things the Pope has said recently have irritated me. The Catholic Church has an absolute right to teach as it chooses. As does any church or other religious organization.
As for AIDS, condoms will not stop AIDS. Knowledge will stop AIDS if it is to be stopped. Blaming the Pope for the spread of AIDS is sort of silly given that there are relatively few Catholics in the crisis area.
I have one plea for those who are Catholic. Anti Christian organizations, like the ACLU, are in full attack mode. So far the legal community has resisted the impulse to weaken the first Amendment. But if the Church does not crack down severely on the pedophiles in the Priesthood, the government will. Please urge your Church to act strongly and quickly, before outsiders do.
K, I'll take it slowly since it obviously didn't register with the Catholic Apologists the first time (or perhaps the strawman was easier to deal with).
If the Pope or his representatives believe that contracpetion (including condoms) is a sin, that is their problem. These old men don't have sex anyway, except maybe with altar boys.
When they use the church's economic and political power to prevent even non-catholics from using condoms, by for example making laws banning them entirely, then they clearly cross a line, and they risk being guilty in mass murders.
Also, when they spread stories claiming that condoms have tiny holes to allow HIV viruses to come through, and even worse, that condoms are pre-infected with AIDS to scare people from using them, then this is deception and in fact one of those lies that God hate according to the Bible.
Obviously, religion is a very emotional issue, which is why otherwise rational people here post defences that are anything but.
If you can't see even the most obvious errors in your own religion or party, you have an unhealthy secterian mindset.
I'll bet whipping adulterers would reduce HIV deaths. But you don't see anyone who opposes THAT being called genocidal.
Cassandra,
Zionist Christians???
If only.
"You have to accept the bad with the good from the Catholic church."
I accept neither.
Mark and Ken,
No, short of an unlikely vaccine, only abstinence would stop AIDS...ergo, AIDS wont be stopped. But this does not controvert the truth of the Pope's statements on the matter.
Zionist-Christian Churches (aka Spirit Churches) is what they are called. They are the largest Christian Church in South Africa.
They wear a strip of green felt on their lapel, with a small silver star on it.
Each year they make a pilgrimage to a site in the northern part of South Africa. Typical attendance is more than 10 million people.
More
I am always amazed at the absolute hatred people have towards the Catholic Church. No one makes anyone stay Catholic.
The Catholic Church believes in free will - do you?
Beth,
My view is that those who most virulently attack the Church suffer from guilty consciences...there's really no other explanation for it; the Church must be a standing indictment of their lives, they know it and they want the Church to either change its views to affirm their sinful ways, or they want the Church to disappear.
Beth,
I view things a bit different from Mark. I don't think that people who attack the church suffer from guilty consciences at all, quite the opposite in fact - they think they are right. Remember, no army has ever marched into battle thinking the Creator had sided with their enemy. People are idiots, they have a tendency to blow things way out of proportion. I have my own disagreements with the Catholic Church, but when it's purely a religious disagreement I live and let live - they can believe what they want. The Church is an easy thing to attack - it's big, it's been around for a while, it has had it's share of wrongdoings in history(like most long lived, big organizations), and it really can't fight back. Also, people just can't distinguish that the organization today is not the same organization that was present during the Dark Ages, but people can't seem to seperate the past and present. In this sense, some of the hate goes back to the split between the RCC and the various Protestant denominations - religious groups tend to hate eachother, even if their differences are but minor ones. I also think people have a need to attack something, something to fight against to justify their existence to themselves. With this, I leave you with a couple of quotes:
"Wizard's First Rule: People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People's heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all easier to fool." - Terry Goodkind, 'Wizard's First Rule'
"Wizard’s Seventh Rule: Life is the future, not the past. The past can teach us, through experience, how to accomplish things in the future, comfort us with cherished memories, and provide the foundation of what has already been accomplished. But only the future holds life. To live in the past is to embrace what is dead. To live life to its fullest, each day must be created anew. As rational, thinking beings we must use our intellect, not a blind devotion to what has come before, to make rational choices." - Terry Goodkind, 'The Pillars of Creation'