BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 11:07 AM

I agree with everything you say, Ed. ;-) I just didn't type long enough to cover every possible contingency in detail, but was speaking in a sort of general sense about how human nature usually tends to work.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 02:59 PM

11,876? Rather a lot of late arrivals...

Oops! 1,876.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 09:36 PM

Fionn continues to insist that

Joe's usual defence that a church is not its hierarchy but its people still doesn't work for the Catholic church.

Nonetheless, Joe's "usual defence" is correct. I think that we humans, as a race, put far too much faith in our institutions. I think we need to accept the fact that any organization with more than 2,500 people, is completely ungovernable unless it is ruled by an absolute monarch. Therefore, we should expect any organization of over 2,500 people to be profoundly fucked up. Well, there are a few large cities that seem to work, but they are rare exceptions. For the most part, most cities, states, nations, and large religious denominations and social organizations are profoundly fucked up. That is their nature.

But to take the Catholic Church as an example, let me say that I have never belonged to a "bad" Catholic parish. I've thought for years about why this is my experience. The only conclusion I can come to, is that I will not allow my parish to be anything less that wonderful. The fact that I have eight years of seminary education is helpful - I know the game, and I know it very well. When I move into a new parish, I quickly identify talented people of integrity, and I form strong friendships with them. I was in a parish in the Sacramento area for twenty years, and I was Parish Council President within five years. People often said that I "ran the parish," even though I had no official position in the parish after I was there ten years.

I moved to a new parish in a semi-rural area outside Sacramento in 2002. By 2004, I was selected to serve as the parish representative at the diocesan synod; and I was hired as an adult education (RCIA) teacher in 2005. A new (alcoholic and paranoid) pastor was appointed in 2005, and he terminated my job under false pretenses, citing budgetary problems. I kept my master key to the parish buildings until he changed all the locks this year, but he still hasn't stopped me. He has referred to the class I teach as "Joe's fucking bible study," and I regularly cause him to have fits of irrational anger - but he can't touch me, because I am surrounded by a good number of intelligent people of integrity.

So, despite the fact that the pastor hates me, I'm still very much a center of power in the community - and eventually, I'll win out. And he knows he can't do anything TOO wrong, because he knows that I'll stop him.

Now, I'm not the only one responsible for making sure that this parish doesn't go too far wrong - a number of us have joined together, and there's no way that anybody can get any shenanigans past us for very long. And this is a group of people who love each other intensely - and because of that mutual love and respect, we are infinitely powerful. I think that's the basic message of Jesus Christ - that love conquers all.


Now, some of you may look to the Pope to clean up the mess that is the Catholic Church, but the fact of the matter is that the Pope is a powerless figurehead who can do very little. Joe Offer is far more powerful in the Catholic Church than the Pope is.

And the same goes for all institutions. It's little people in little communities who make a difference - not the heads of huge entities. How much power does Barack Obama have? He's an amazingly talented man of absolute integrity, and Americans should be proud to have him a President - but people have lost faith in him, because they believed he could heal all the nation's ills.

Well, it hasn't happened - and it can't happen. If we want to accomplish anything, we have to do it within relatively small communities.

More later.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 10:08 PM

"Joe Offer is far more powerful in the Catholic Church than the Pope is".
Well, Joe. If you have such power (I suspect also directly from the rock Peter)greater than the pope, can you make some changes in making women RC priests:)

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 11:40 PM

I agree with Little Hawk's postings, esp. the one of 22nd at 1001a and PeterK(Fionn's) of 22nd 1032a.

Joe, you know I care about you and respect you, but there is plenty the pope could do for Catholics in South America and other (third world) countries by telling them is it OK to use condoms, practice birth control, and NOT to follow the church and its priests with blind faith IF it goes against their own conscious, BUT you and I know he never will and you, as powerful as you may think you are, cannot effect them either and those are the countries in which there are so many RC members who do not question the church due to poverty, lack of education, lack of basic needs...desperate people who need something to give them hope...yet the very institution in which they place their faith, keeps them in perpetual poverty by restricting birth control, condom use for safety against diseases, etc.

I will never forget what I learned when I researched what I could find, pre-internet, about Ratzinger when writing about his refusal to open up records showing how much gold the church received from the Nazis and that he refused to return any of it. He is an odious person and were he head of any org. I belonged to, I would not be able to defend him, pray for his health, send him tithes, or anything else. It still astounds me that people accept him as their "guide" in faith.

So, Joe, if you really are that powerful, how about getting the church to change policies on condom and birth control use, for starters? Then, how about some equality in other ways for women AND allow priests to be married, as they were in earlier times?

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Naemanson
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 11:49 PM

"the pastor hates me"

Hypocrisy. In a belief system that professes love so many proponents give in to hate. Mind you, this is not a comment aimed not just at the Catholics but at all Christians. It is hypocrisy that keeps me out of churches.

For example, God handed down 10 simple laws. There were no sub texts, footnotes, codicils, or anything else.

Consider please: Thou shalt not kill.

That's pretty straightforward. Four simple little words. Yet that commandment has been regularly and blatantly ignored since Moses climbed down off the mountain.

Another point: Love one another.

I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't say only love those you like. I think He deliberately made the statement all inclusive. If you want any defense for including the undesirables this is it. If you are ugly, I love you; Gay? I love you; Muslim? I love you.

Another? Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

Next to "Thou shalt not kill" this is the one statement from the Bible that grates most harshly on my sensibilities. I don't think I've EVER met a self professed Christian who complies with this.

Until I find a group who practice what they preach I will remain unaligned with any church or church hierarchy.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 01:13 AM

Kat, would you listen to anybody who told you either to use or not to use condoms? I think the fact of the matter is, you would not follow that person's advice unless you agreed with that advice.
Do you think adult "Catholics in South America and other (third world) countries" are so primitive and so stupid and so inferior to you, that they cannot make their own decisions?

Most Catholics don't even know what the Pope says on most issues. In my 2,500-member Catholic parish, it's quite likely that nobody, not even the priest, has read more about what the Pope says than I do. My pastor sometimes tells people, "Ask Joe, he's the theologian."

If the Pope practices mind control, he does it very inefficiently.

Naemanson, my pastor is an alcoholic and he's paranoid, and he's incompetent in many ways. On the other hand, he does very well at the things you'd expect a priest to do, like showing compassion when visiting the sick or hearing confessions, and putting his heart into celebrating Mass. I show him respect for the things he does well, and I'm very hard on him about the things he doesn't do well. I've known him for thirty years, and I play hardball with priests - I expect them to live up to high standards. And because of that he feels threatened by me, so I suppose he has good reason to hate me. It happens. Priests are human beings. If you expect a church full of human beings not to act like human beings, you are deceived. If you expect an institution with over a billion members to be perfect, you are deceived. There are many groups within the Catholic Church that are extraordinarily good, and many that are extraordinarily bad.

But I have found that if I stick with it, I can make a profound difference in my parish community.

Oh, and Naemanson, the reality is that some (many) church people are extraordinarily good, and some are a pain in the ass. It's up to them to choose who and what they are, and how they behave. That's real life.

And yes, Ed T, it would be very nice if the Pope changed the rules and allowed for married and women priests, and you are right that is something I cannot do. But I know lots of Catholic women who are very effective ministers, who have accomplished remarkable things despite the silly Pope and his silly rules. I know other Catholic women who felt called to ministry, so they left the Catholic Church and sought ordination from another denomination. But every organization has laws that need changing. Intelligent people work to get the laws changed, realizing that they are going to have to negotiate with those who don't want the laws changed. That's life.



Once again, I ask you all to think realistically about how organizations work, about how things are accomplished by large numbers of people - when people do good things, they do them on a small scale and generally with a fair amount of autonomy. That makes a significant contribution to the larger organization. HOWEVER, it is almost certain that while some parts of a huge organization are doing good things, other parts aren't. So many of you seem to think that when the Pope barks, people are supposed to mindlessly fall in line and do good works - and if they don't, or if the Pope says something that isn't totally wise, then the whole Catholic Church is evil. That is NOT a realistic view of how any human organization works.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 02:47 AM

Naemanson, is it hypocrisy for my pastor to hate me, or is it honesty? My blunt honesty poses a threat to him, and he doesn't know how to respond. How should he feel? He doesn't hate people because of their religion, sexual orientation, or race - he just hates me because he's scared of me.

• Thou shalt not kill.
  
• Love one another.
  
• Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

Naemanson, do I hear you say that Christians don't follow these commandments, and that you've never met a Christian that follows the Golden Rule?

C'mon now! I would venture a guess that most people you know do a pretty good job of following these commandments, whether those people are religious or not.

These are basic principles of living, and most civilized people do a pretty good job of following them. Certainly there is hatred in some religious and other groups, and I suppose most people hate somebody sometimes - but I really believe that on the whole, human beings are pretty good folks. Sit down, have a beer with a friend - and when the glass is half empty, fill it up again. Life isn't that bad.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Lox
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 07:03 AM

.



       Could this illustrate Fry's point? ....


       Star Wars ... A New Pope ...



.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 07:10 AM

Do you think adult "Catholics in South America and other (third world) countries" are so primitive and so stupid and so inferior to you, that they cannot make their own decisions?

Nice wording there, Joe! But hardly surprising given that the RC Church actively promotes such stupidity in its followers, especially those without the benefits of a Western Higher Education (like yourself) who are able to pick & choose which of its absurd doctrines to believe in or not, as is the case with most Roman Catholics of my acquaintance - but they're not the ones dying of AIDS havbing taken the church at its word, or dying in fields having delivered themselves of an unwanted baby, or clamouring around Medjugorge waiting to hear the latest enlightened insights of the BVM, or undergoing a life time of counselling because their priest couldn't keep his hands to himself. These people are in no way inferior, Joe - but they are the unfortunate ones who take the RCC at its literal word and must suffer as a consequence of its rancid promotions.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 08:38 AM

The assumption that without "Western Higher Education" people are incapable of thinking for themselves and making judgments and choices for themselves is somewhat questionable. It isn't too far removed from a mindset which thinks in terms of "those poor ignorant savages".

Equally questionable is the assumption that people anywhere who are on the point of shagging each other in a situation seen as out of bounds by Catholic teaching are too likely to be thinking along the lines "Here we go - but at least we aren't using a condom, because Catholics aren't supposed to use them, so that's all right".

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 09:20 AM

Formally educated to a high degree or not, I submit that it is not too difficult to find many people in many parts of the world (but, maybe not in Joe's local parish or world) who are not heavily influenced by teaching of the RC church and proclamations of it's Roman leader(s).

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: olddude
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 09:57 AM

If most of the people in this life listened to JOE it would be a better place to live I think

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: olddude
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 09:58 AM

Some talk the talk, Joe is one person who walks the walk .. I am a fan my only complaint is he does post his music for other to listen to HINT HINT

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 11:04 AM

Sorry to disappoint you, olddude, but like the rest of us Joe is only too human. He may have the power of Life & Death on Mudcat, and weilds his sword from on high with terrible consequence, but when he appears in the flesh (in threads such this) his message (and bias) is as subjectively flawed as any other - perhaps a little more so because so many around here believe him to be infallible, himself included at times...

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 11:12 AM

Further aggressive Roman Catholic Stupidity in Direct Violation of the First Amendment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z0wezHBvyY&feature=fvw

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 11:38 AM

Kat, would you listen to anybody who told you either to use or not to use condoms? I think the fact of the matter is, you would not follow that person's advice unless you agreed with that advice. Do you think adult "Catholics in South America and other (third world) countries" are so primitive and so stupid and so inferior to you, that they cannot make their own decisions?

There is a direct correlation between poverty, lack of education, and population growth, Joe. To compare someone such as myself, or my Catholic sisters-in-law who live in a fairly liberated and educated society to someone who lives in a third world country in extreme poverty and dominated by a patriarchal society is disingenuous.

Lack of education does not denote "stupidity" nor does it mean "primitive" as you well know, yet you try to put those words in my mouth. Lack of education may mean a woman does not know about contraception OR does not have access to it or know where to find it, esp. if she is dominated by the men in her life: father, husband, brothers, religious leaders and may have little contact with the outside world, i.e. no internet or other media available which may present information and different views on life.

Do the research, Joe. There are plenty of websites which will make the connections for you and, it is not just the RCC, it is also other male-dominated religions...take a look at statistics for countries in the Middle East, for instance.

It has been shown that when women are better educated about birth control, economics, etc. the population growth slows and, yes, they say "no," even if it's just silently to themselves, to the Pope, their priest, whomever, when it comes to their rights over their bodies.

Remember when the shrub was in office and he and the GOP-dominated congress made it illegal for any agency to send aid to another country which included any information on contraception, including condoms to prevent AIDS? The RCC and other leading religions did nothing to oppose that. As a consequence, in Africa, where condoms were hard to come by, both economically and literally, whole generations of people have died of AIDS, leaving orphans in their wake. Yet, the "official" line from the old men who have no fear of getting someone pregnant, no fear of what they will eat and feed the children each day, no fear of a stronger, bigger person dictating to them what they can and cannot do with their bodies, it is a SIN to use a condom.

Yep, members of the RCC like you and my in-laws pick and choose which tenets to follow, but that is a luxury of the country you live in, Joe. I am NOT attacking individuals of the RCC no more than Stephen Fry, except to call you on some of your assertions. BUT, yes, I certainly DO attack and blame the LEADERS of any religion who advocate keeping women in a state of poverty whether it is economic/spiritual/moral/and/or educational. There are no good excuses for such in today's world.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Wesley S
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 12:44 PM

"Further aggressive Roman Catholic Stupidity in Direct Violation of the First Amendment:"

Suibhne Astray - Please explain how the First Amendment has been violated.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 01:39 PM

"If most of the people in this life listened to JOE, it would be a better place to live I think"

I will dare to go farther with that thought:

If most of the people in this life listened to JOE, and lived in a semi-rural area outside Sacramento, not in conditions in the third world (England excluded), the world would be a better place to live.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: olddude
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 01:52 PM

I take it back, Joe just yelled at me for making too many threads. Don't listen to him .. I plead with you .. don't listen to JOE ... LOL

teasing

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 01:58 PM

I found the material below interesting, the writer came from inside the RC church.

I especially found the 1993 lecture interesting, "Sex and the Catholic Church:Where did we go Wrong" by A.W. Richard Sipe. It is in the second link, scroll down to the bottom, and click on the last lecture. It is from a lecture in 1993....maybe little has changed?




http://www.richardsipe.com/Media/2010-06-02-ncr.htm

Sex and the Catholic Church:

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 02:06 PM

Please explain how the First Amendment has been violated.

Church & state separation; religious freedoms etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 02:24 PM

I'm sorry, but all this crap about the Catholic Church and condoms is a red herring. If you can provide proof that there is a significant transfer of disease between married couples who are faithful to each other, THEN you may have a point.

The Catholic Church preaches marital fidelity, and it preaches it very strongly. It also opposes artificial forms of birth control, including the use of condoms. HOWEVER, the birth control issue is secondary to marital fidelity, and it is rarely preached from the pulpit. Some dioceses do require couples to attend "natural family planning" classes before marriage, and they do give a detailed explanation of the Church's position on birth control in those classes.

And as I have said before, I disagree with the Catholic Church's position on birth control and several other issues. I do not believe that my membership in the Catholic Church precludes my right to have my own opinions and think my own thoughts. However, as a catechist, I do not teach anything contrary to Catholic teaching in religious education classes - I just don't teach on the subject of family planning, and leave that job to others. I don't teach anything that's contrary to Catholic teaching, and I don't teach anything that is contrary to my own beliefs. I have often expressed my thoughts on this issue to other Catholics, but not when I'm teaching. But yes, I do think the Catholic Church needs to do a lot of re-thinking on its teachings about sexual matters. On the other hand, I fully agree with the idea of marital fidelity, and I think it is essential for a healthy family life.

But back to the condom thing. If the primary teaching is marital fidelity and the birth control thing is secondary and subordinate to that, why would people slavishly obey the subordinate teaching on condoms and ignore the primary teaching on marital fidelity? How stupid do you think people are?

If you can prove that there is significant transfer of disease between monogamous, faithful married couples, then you may have a point that it would be nice for the Pope to distribute condoms. Otherwise, your ravings about the dire consequences of the Pope's condemnation of condoms, are quite ridiculous.

Also, I would suggest that it would be nice if somebody would provide evidence that significant numbers of third-world people are avoiding the use of condoms in extramarital sex because of the Pope's statements. It just doesn't make sense. If you think the Pope's condemnation of condoms makes a difference, prove it.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 02:34 PM

The Pope tacitly supports Koch brothers tax cuts so that he and his Republican allies can posture and be seen to be doing something about abortion. Apparently it is not enough for him to tell his 1.2 billion that it is wrong. He must enter into Caesar's realm and attempt to impose his values on others.

But there is no violation of the second amendment even in that. The prohibition is against state established religion. It is not against religion petitioning the State.

Of course the Church has been overly political since it was made state religion of the Roman Empire 1600 years ago. One has to believe that once a bad habit has had even its 100th birthday it is very difficult to break.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 02:40 PM

Wait a minute. What are these "Koch brothers tax cuts," and how does the Pope support them? First time I've ever heard of the Pope taking a position on taxes. That sounds absolutely preposterous.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 02:57 PM

The Catholic Church supports the Republicans nearly across the board because of their posturing on abortion. I think that threats against Catholic candidates was a major reason that Kerry lost in 2004 and are a major cause of the failure of the progressive agenda. Or for that matter abortion is a wedge issue causing millions to vote against their own interests and even against the log term economic health of the country.

I don't feel that The Pope or his bishops should be attacking one government evil while remaining silent on others. It seems they have made a deal with the devil. From the point of view of an outsider who knows a little bit about the history of the Church, it looks like the age old pattern of suckling up to wealth and power.


The Koch's in may ways ARE the Republican agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Wesley S
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 03:27 PM

"Please explain how the First Amendment has been violated."

"Church & state separation; religious freedoms etc."


I already know what the first amendment is. What I want to know is how it's been violated. You haven't answered the question.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 03:42 PM

Jack, you're really stretching things to bring in the Koch Brothers.

It's clear that American Catholics are no longer overwhelmingly Democratic in their voting, but I think that's largely due to the fact that Catholics have moved into higher income brackets and have become more concerned about preserving their personal wealth (not that I agree with that). the "intelligentsia" in the Catholic Church are still solidly liberal, especially those who were educated in Catholic universities. It's interesting to see how many pro-choice, liberal Catholic Democrats hold seats in the House and Senate. Yes, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is Catholic, but there's a snowball's chance in hell that any bishop or Pope is going to get her to abandon her pro-choice position. Catholic bishops are overwhelmingly opposed to abortion, but most are very liberal on issues such as immigration, opposition to warfare, and services to the poor.

But to bring in the Koch Brothers? C'mon!!! Get real.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 03:49 PM

March 18, 2009
As Director of Public Information for the World Health Organization, at their headquarters in Geneva, in the 1980's, I sat with our Director General, Halfdan Mahler, a Danish physician with 30 years of experience ministering to the poor in India, as he debated a Catholic theologian on the use of contraceptives to combat sexually-transmitted disease. to Rome's demand for abstinence and monogamy, he asked why poor, uneducated workers, often separated for months from their families, should be expected to observe rules of moral behavior difficult for those of us to attain! The Pope's transfer of the burden of abstinence to the world's poorest citizens is at best foolish. Why should the poor be denied the least gratification?
Charles Morrow
Director of Public Information (retired)
World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
(from Ottawa Citizen web comments)

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 03:55 PM

Fine, Ed. But if people disobey the Pope and have sex outside of marriage, why should they obey the Pope about the use of condoms? There is no logical connection, none at all.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 04:00 PM

Pelosi visits the Vatican, the Vatican issues a statement saying, in effect that she should be writing laws against abortion.

When Bishops were calling for not giving Kerry communion because he was not anti abortion, where was the Pope saying. "Do not get involved in local politics." Where were the Bishops refusing communion to war mongers? Where were Bishops saying, "Kerry, come take communion here. You have a secular job to do. You are fighting for the poor. Your values are no worse than that of the Republicans."

You want to know where they were? I would say, "Follow the money."

What Pelosi is doing is AGAINST the expressed wishes of the Pope and the Church. Catholics are wonderful people in general.

The politics of the upper reaches of the Church, in my opinion, not so pretty.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 04:12 PM

In Africa the Pope more or less said that Condoms make the AIDS problem worse.

That's not true.

He knows better.

He lied.

He bore false witness.

If what Joe is saying is true, that people don't actually listen to the Pope, then he bore false witness for no good reason, which is only slightly worse than bearing false witness to protect people from some supposed greater evil.

Even the Pope doesn't get to ignore commandments at his whim. If anyone in the Church needs to lead by example, it should be him.

There is no moral ethical or other reason why the Pope can't say "The only prevention of AIDS we endorse is Abstinence."

But if you fall into temptation, It is better you use a condom and significantly decrease the probability of bringing AIDS home to your family.

Likewise he could say. We are against drunkenness. But if you must drink. Don't compound the harm of the sin by driving.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 04:24 PM

Oy, Jack. Take a logic class.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 05:03 PM

I doubt if the Pope has ever heard of those Koch blokes, whoever they are. The world is a big place, and the USA is just one country among many.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 05:18 PM

"But if people disobey the Pope and have sex outside of marriage, why should they obey the Pope about the use of condoms? There is no logical connection, none at all"

Joe, Yes, you have your local belief that all, or at least most, RC people you know (I suspect USA folks) disobey the Pope, or that he has no or minimal influence on their lives (that you have more).

That being well stated, where is the research proof behind your broad conclusion, that you seem to claim to be logic or common knowledge, that people in third world countries, for example RCs in Africa, are not influenced by statements by the head of the RC church, let's say on condom use Provide such research citations please.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 05:21 PM

Joe O
Please groundtruth your definition of logic when you refer to statements other make with and that what you have stated....you simply cannot have it both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 05:53 PM

The evils of condoms...it's like swimming with your socks on.


Some RC Bishops on Condoms

http://allafrica.com/stories/200903200808.html

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 06:09 PM

...statements other make with and that what you have stated.

?????

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Lox
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 06:11 PM

Folks,

I am not expressing my view here,

But I would like to clarify Joes argument as it doesn't seem to be getting through to people.

here it is in a nutshell.

1. Pope says no sex outside marriage.

2. catholics do it despite beng told not to.


OK - so catholics are disobeying the popes order.


then:

1. Pope says no condoms.

2. Catholics all do exactly as they are told and ride bareback.


As you can see, there is an inconsistency above.



If the reason the third world doesn't use condoms is because the pope told them not to, then how come they don't abstain from sex outside marriage because the pope tld them not to?


Joe doesn't ned to provide evidence for pointing out a logical fallacy.

His evidence is the logical fallacy.



Whether I agree with Joe that the pope does not influence catholics when it comes to the use of condoms is another matter entirely.

I will not give my view here as that was not the purpose of my post.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 06:18 PM

OK, McGrath of Harlow you are right...this makes more sense:

"Please groundtruth your definition of logic, when you refer to statements others make with those you have made....you simply cannot have it both ways".

Explanation: Joe O has accused another poster of not making logical statements. Yet, the logic in many of his statements, reasoning and conclusions is often lacking. I was asking Joe O to subject some of his own posts and theories to a logic test.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 06:40 PM

Perhaps this verse from Tom Lehrer's "Irish Ballad" might help Ed T grasp the logic of the point Joe and myself were making in regard to condoms:

And when at last the police came by
Sing rickety tickety tin
And when at last the police came by
Her little pranks she did not deny
To do so she would have had to lie
And lying she knew was a sin, a sin
And lying she knew was a sin.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 07:34 PM

Joe O,
Consider the benefit from considering the benefits of logic, when making a sound case.

Here is one site that exposes some of the practices of fallacy...and some can even be found in posts here:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Notable (and recent) examples include an appeal to authority (I have many USA positions in the RCC, so therefore I am an authority on RC matters, even in the third world).

Another example of a potential fallacy (illogical conclusion) is: some RC people, for an example in some areas of the USA, ignore some of the RC leader(s) advice/direction on birth control, thus all people (for example, in Africa, and South America), ignore the same RC leader(s) advice/direction on condom use, to help avoid HIV.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: olddude
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 08:00 PM

Ok, I came from a devout Catholic family. I can tell you with certainty that there are those who will follow the pope's ruling if he told them to jump off a building. I know many fundamentalist denominations that will follow their leaders the same way. So the view of condom use etc ... is destructive IMO ... period .. However, Joe is correct that most Catholic's are less concerned with the churches view of anything and will ignore what he or anyone else says unless it makes sense to them as individuals. Those people I think , like myself are there for God and don't really follow the x's or y's of the church .. or any church for that matter.

I do however think that it cannot be understated the hold the Church has on many people ... I am sorry to say that but I have seen it too often .. I will also say that is true for people in other churches Mormon , or Baptist ect .. it is all about the mindset of the person. Some people are more free thinkers than others in regard to church ruling ... what they all have in common however is Christ's teachings.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 08:28 PM

The thing is, I can't ever recall any ruling from the pope saying sex outside marriage is just fine, just so long as you don't wear a condom.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 08:55 PM

If the Pope tells people not to drink water, despite the fact that they are thirsty, not many of them are going to obey him, no matter how indoctrinated they are.

If he tells them that their local water is unhealthy, and that they should filter it before drinking it, a fair share of them will probably take his advice.

If the local people have very limited education, and the Pope tells them that filtering their water before drinking it will increase their risk of deadly illness, a fair share of them will probably take his advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 09:16 PM

Just some information from HERE. Though it is from 1991, there is still validity in its findings, imo:

Extramarital relations and perceptions of HIV/AIDS in Nigeria*
Uche C. Isiugo-Abanihe
Department of Sociology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria

The incidence of extramarital relations varies widely with religion, with Roman Catholics, Muslims, and members of indigenous religions being more likely to be unfaithful, and Protestants and Pentecostals being less likely. People with less education are somewhat more prone to having extramarital relations, but the results are not very firm, especially with respect to the most recent extramarital episode.

Among men, in contrast, Catholics are about 79 per cent more likely
than Muslims to have had an extramarital affair in the previous week, while members of the indigenous religions are about 49 per cent more likely. It is clear from these results that many Christians, especially Catholics, fail to follow the teachings of their religion regarding marital fidelity.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Naemanson
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 11:30 PM

Joe, you are right, of course. Religious people are only human and cannot practice what they preach. I just want them to keep their hypocrisy to themselves and not splatter it all over the TV and newspapers.

I want to remind you that my comments were non-denominational. They could be seen as applying to all religions as well but Christians make such a big point of worshiping the Prince of Peace.

One last comment. I spent the last three years teaching in a Catholic high school. I was reprimanded because I stopped one child from hitting another child. Apparently we were not supposed to teach non-violence.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 03:22 AM

One last comment. I spent the last three years teaching in a Catholic high school. I was reprimanded because I stopped one child from hitting another child. Apparently we were not supposed to teach non-violence.

Naemanson, I think there's something more to the story that you did not know yourself. I would think there must have been a misunderstanding in there somewhere. Catholic schools do not reprimand teachers for stopping fights or teaching non-violence. That just wouldn't make sense. Perhaps the person who gave you the reprimand did not fully understand what was going on, or perhaps that person questioned your method of stopping the fight.

I'm sorry you've experienced so much hypocrisy lately. I guess it comes in spurts. I don't see much of it myself. I think most people do what they believe is right most of the time, although they may fail every once in a while. If they fail every once in a while, does that necessarily mean that whatever they have to say is invalid? And if they're wrong in some things, does that mean they're wrong in everything?

---

Ed T, take a look at the message from Lox, 24 Sep 10 - 06:11 PM. It's a pretty good explanation of my logic.

Keep in mind that marital fidelity is a primary teaching of the Catholic Church, something of far more importance than the teachings on birth control. You will hear marital fidelity preached from the pulpit, quite frequently. The teachings on birth control, while still Catholic teaching, are subordinate to the teaching on marital fidelity. If you do not adhere to the primary teaching, it makes no sense to follow the teaching that is subordinate to it.

If you want to understand the Catholic teaching on birth control, you can find it in the Catechism of the Catholic Church at the Vatican Website. Note that the prohibition against birth control is discussed only within the context of marriage, and the Catechism does not even mention condoms by name. It considers all forms of birth control (other than abstinence) to be wrong - but this ruling applies only to married couples, because people are not supposed to be having sex outside marriage.

Let's take it a little further. It's clear that the Catholic Church is opposed to homosexual sexual relations. Do you think that gay Catholics feel bound by the Catholic prohibition against condoms?

And Jack the Sailor, the Pope did not lie about condoms. He did not bear false witness, because he said what he believed on the matter. Some people feel that the availability of birth control encourages promiscuity because people don't have to be afraid of causing the conception of a child. And promiscuity is obviously a cause of the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. I disagree, because I believe the lack of birth control has an insignificant effect on the deterrence of promiscuity - but you can't expect crotchety old celibate males to understand that.

Pope Benedict made a trip to Africa not too many months ago. I do not believe that he made mention of birth control in any of the many speeches and sermons he gave during his trip. What he said was an answer to a question posed to him by a reporter. It was an honest statement about a longstanding church teaching. It was not any kind of campaign against condoms. In fact, I have never heard of a Catholic campaign against condoms.

As for those who question my choice not to follow certain teachings of the Catholic Church, let me ask you this: Do YOU feel bound to obey rules that you sincerely believe are wrong, even if those rules might come from a parent or someone else you love and respect?

One of the most basic moral teachings of the Catholic Church is that you have to follow your conscience, that you must do what you sincerely believe is right even if the rule says otherwise.

An underlying thought seems to be pervasive in this discussion: since the Catholic Church has an incorrect opinion on the subject of birth control, it is therefore evil and has no right to speak about any issue. I disagree.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 05:01 AM

The Vatican's Official Youtube Channel

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry on The Catholic Church
From: mauvepink
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 05:55 AM

Could it not also be that the Catholic church is opposed to contraception with the underlying belief then that more babies will inevitably be born into Catholic families? More babies = more people to indocrinate into the Catholic religion.

Time was, in much of the world, that the Priest may have been the only person that people could turn to to ask about things and read letters, etc, as he was the only educated person within that community. This is not so much the case now and the church is by no means guaranteed a flow of children that simply follow what went before. They now ask questions, have rights and express curiosity about their world. They also make their own minds up. In the 'Western world' the Priest may not have the controls he used to on his congregation.

"Putting the fear of Christ" into young minds used to be a sure way of keeping numbers up in the church. Not no more.

I think the Catholic church needs to adapt )evolve) faster than it does if it is to keep up and survive in the modern world. Most of the man made rules are simply that: MAN MADE.

One wonders if Christ came today, and was accepted, would he have a "Christmobile" (as in Popemobile) to get around and would he be carried in a chair by others? Christ never had such things. It was all he could do to borrow a donkey. Christ would walk among his followers.

Perhaps the Roman Catholic church could do worse than to go back to some basics of their Master's Son? Stop talking down to people and acting as judge and jury on so many things.

Most Catholics I know, and Priests for that matter, adapt the Pope's words in order to be able to get through their every day life. Those that don't struggle with so much guilt. I even know one Priest that openly admitted that anyone who would turn their back on someone who was LGB or T, was not being Christian. That was after the Popes attack on gay theory last Christmas. Brave Priest. Most people and Priests have to live in the real world. I respect them for that and I respect their faith, just not their earthly 'masters'.

mp