I dunno, Alex (mousethief). It sounds like you're spinning words and getting pretty melodramatic there. The Catholic Church would rather people not have sex outside of marriage, which would certainly do a lot to prevent the horrible deaths caused by AIDS. Condoms aren't really needed for controlling AIDS in a monogamous married couple who practice marital fidelity.

The primary right-wrong issue here is marital fidelity - birth control comes a far second. If a person doesn't practice the rule of fidelity, then why would he/she bother to follow a rule about condoms? It just doesn't make sense. Sorry, Alex, but your condemnation sounds a lot like propaganda.

---

And then Richard Bridge makes a statement about the fundamental fact about organised Christianity - they killed ten million people....yeah, I suppose that in the 2,000 years of Christianity, it might be that ten million people were killed in the name of Christianity. I do agree that's shameful; but I would venture a guess that most of those killings were done under the guise of Christianity, but the fundamental reasons were political and economic.

I heard a quote somewhere: "When men want to fight, they will always find a reason to fight."

Sometimes I think it's most honest to say that killing is done for the sake of killing - all other reasons given are simply excuses.

The Catholic Church was a fair-sized nation for much of history. The Pope controlled the central third of Italy and was a major political player in Europe. He was much more a political figure, than he was a religious leader. Most popes rarely bothered to dabble in religion. In the last 150 years, Christianity has cleaned up its act, and the killings have continued for more openly political and economic reasons. The de-politicization of the papacy has one side effect that makes me nervous: the "cult" of the papacy. After the Pope ceased to be a political leader, be became regarded as a holy man - and many popes have not lived up to that expectation.

-----

The doctrine of infallibility was promulgated in the 1870s by the First Vatican Council. Since then, there have been two infallible doctrines: the doctrine of infallibility itself, and the doctrine that the body of Mary was taken into heaven after her death. They still haven't decided whether it was infallible when John Paul II said that the Church has no authority to ordain women. It was worded in a way that it could later be said that the Church had no authority to ordain women at the time - which was true, since huge numbers of Catholics were not ready to accept ordained women in the early 2000s, and ordaining women at the time would have been ecclesiastical suicide - or something like that. Infallible doctrines are usually written in incontrovertible language - and this one wasn't. My jury is still out on that one.

Infallible doctrines are teachings on a level with the articles of the Nicene Creed that is held by most Christians, and those doctrines don't come around every day. All other teachings are subject to change and evolution - and even the infallible ones are subject to reinterpretation. There are NO infallible teachings on divorce or birth control. And note that it is certain teachings, not the Pope, that are classed as infallible. Speaking of the Pope as infallible is imprecise and misleading.

That being said, I think time has proved that the Doctrine of Infallibility has been more trouble than it was worth, and it certainly has caused a lot of confusion and ill will.

Bear in mind that I have always had a healthy suspicion of Upper Management. My faith is based in my faith community - my parish - not in Rome. Rome is necessary, but not necessarily inspiring.

And if my parish wasn't inspiring, I've worked to change it - and I've been quite successful. I admit that I avoid parishes that appear to have no hope of reform. Why shouldn't I?

-Joe-