BS: At last a Pope talks some sense

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 07:03 PM

Richard....Your last post, on incest, could you please explain its meaning in laymans terms?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 07:47 PM

Ake: Royston is of course a complete wanker on all threads.
Has Keith taught you how to drive your abacus yet Royston?

All this time and all those faces from which to speak, and that's the best you can do? Shame on you.

As you yourself proved (via one of your faces) on the "Death penalty..." thread, significant threats to the health and safety of gay men, and significant hinderances to anti-HIV strategies, are the bigoted and ignorant views espoused by your other face - and by similar people. As you pointed out, if people like you, and views like yours, could in some way be controlled or prevented, then homosexuality could be de-stigmatised and more of the people who need to access care and HIV-prevention, would access them.

Source: Ake's other face, the one that supports the recent anti-bigotry campaigns of UNAIDS and the WHO. Pop over to the other thread and read all about it.

If we could get Ake's faces to say the same thing, maybe they could nip off to The Vatican and have a word? I'm sure Benedict would wither before the majesty of Ake's deductive reasoning.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: kendall
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 08:45 PM

Religion = superstition.
Superstition= religion.
Neither had a scrap of real evidence to support them.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 09:34 PM

akenaton

I asked:
Does it present a danger to others in society?"

You stated:

Firstly, there is no fucking argument, just read the latest UNAIDS hiv update! Look at male homosexual life expectancy figures! check homosexual promicuity statistics!(from a reputable source like UNAIDS or CDC)

My response....OK, lets say it does present a danger to permiscious male homosexuals and their unknowing partners....so where is the danger to others in society, including you and me? I see none.

You say:
Secondly, homosexuality is being presented to the public by the legislators as a safe and healthy lifestyle, by changing the definition of marriage to accomodate homosexuals and by making homosexual fostering of young children legal.

I do not see whereunhealthy permiscious male homosexual activity has anything to do with two committed homosexuals (male/male, female female, or others) making a lifelong committment to each other...as those in the herterosexual communitiy do. Both can be healthy and I suspect loving.

BTW, I suspect herterosexuals participating in permiscious behaviour also presents a similar danger.

You say:
Other minority groups which indulge in dangerous sexual behaviour (like incest) would not receive these "rights"and before you say "incest is illegal", homosexual practice would still be illegal if the current health figures were available at the time of de-criminalisation.

My response: I do not see the logic in this. Incest and rape are illegal and socially rejected in most western societies....regardless of who does it.
Again...you continue to lump all homosexual relationships together under one category...It is illogical to do this....and while you may have a case to debate....this gets in the way of thoughtful debate....which it seems you seek.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 08:28 AM

What I fail to understand is Benedict's reference to an infringement of natural law.

So, priests buggering children was OK then ? Not a breach of natural law ?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 08:39 AM

It's OK, Ed T

Ake is just pulling your leg when he says all that stuff about gay men. Becasue what he really supports - he keeps repeating it - is the UNAIDS position on equality, HIV and HIV prevention. He keeps telling us on various threads how important it is to listen to and follow what expert bodies like The UN, UNAIDS and the WHO say.

Like their most recent joint statement with the EU.

http://data.unaids.org/pub/PressStatement/2009/20091201_jointstatementeu_en.pdf

"Statement by UNAIDS and the European Union - World AIDS Day ─ 1 December 2009

The Presidency of the European Union (EU) and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) welcome South Africa's strong focus on HIV prevention and HIV testing. The EU and UNAIDS stress the need for the full respect of all human rights -- that no man, woman, boy or girl must be subject to stigma and discrimination due to his or her HIV status, sexual orientation, age, or gender.

The rights of women, young people and key populations must be protected. Their voices must be heard and their needs must be met. An effective AIDS response requires gender equality. Women's and girls' rights must be respected, including the right to sexual and reproductive health.

All forms of gender-based violence must come to an end. Evidence-based and comprehensive HIV prevention policies and programmes must be scaled up, and access to the full range of HIV services must be secured. HIV must be part of the broad health and development agenda. HIV services must be integrated into other comprehensive health services; sexual and reproductive health and
rights must be recognised as an essential component in the HIV response.

The EU and UNAIDS reiterate their commitment to and support for the continued response to the epidemic.

Today in Pretoria, South Africa, the Swedish Minister for International Development Cooperation, Ms Gunilla Carlsson, on behalf of the European Union, and Mr Michel Sidibé, UNAIDS Executive Director, warmly welcomed the renewed South African focus on HIV and AIDS.

They strongly supported the focus on prevention and South Africa's call for all people to get to know their HIV status. Ms Carlsson and Mr Sidibé emphasized that HIV testing is crucial for en effective response to HIV and AIDS. They also recognized that testing must build on the full respect for human rights, the absolute need of not being forced to disclose your HIV status and that counselling and other support activities must be provided.

In welcoming this renewed South African focus, Ms Carlsson and Mr Sidibé noted that not only Africa but also the rest of the world needs this clear message from South Africa. They stressed that the South African leadership is necessary for a continued effective response to the pandemic.

Ms Carlsson and Mr Sidibé stressed the need for the full respect and adherence to all human rights. The right not to be subject to stigma and discrimination must be guaranteed. They noted that this is relevant for all men and women, children and young people, regardless of HIV status, sexual orientation, age, or gender.

They emphasized that an effective response to HIV and AIDS requires increased gender equality. Women's and girls' rights must be protected, including the right to sexual and reproductive health. All forms of gender-based violence must come to an end. Gender norms must be changed, traditional roles of women and men and the relationship between them must be addressed. Both the beliefs and behaviour of many men and boys must be changed.

Ms Carlsson and Mr Sidibe stressed that evidence-based and comprehensive HIV prevention policies and programmes must be scaled up. Access to the full range of services and commodities must be secured, including life skills and sex education for adolescents, male and female condoms and HIV harm reduction programmes, based on relevant UN recommendations.

They emphasized that HIV and AIDS must be part of the broad health and development agenda. HIV services must be integrated into other comprehensive health services; sexual and reproductive health and rights must be recognised as an essential component of HIV and AIDS programmes and prevention. They noted that the real challenge in the response to the pandemic is to translate principles, declarations and agreements into reality on the ground.

Ms Carlsson and Mr Sidibé recognized the important role to be played by international partners in the response to HIV and AIDS. They emphasized that such support must be based on harmonised projects and programmes, aligned to national priorities, plans, budgets and systems. They reiterated the strong commitment and support by the European Union, the 27 member states and the EU Commission, and UNAIDS in the further response to the epidemic."

So the authoritative experts are quite clear: Stigma and Prejudice kills people.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 12:50 PM

Here's me occasionally trying to put points about the religion side of it, and everybody wants to concentrate on the rights and wrongs of a lifestyle that ignorant superstitious scribes 2,000 years ago had hang ups about.

This is not just about being gay. it also affects women (50+% of all people) and anybody who does not believe in an imaginary friend but there is a job going for a cleaner / clerk / handy man whatever in their town and despite being able and willing, cannot be considered for the job because they are not a member of the club / society / sect advertising the job.

Regardless of any equality bill, there are already employment laws outlawing such pathetic practice. I wonder how the opt out will work? Good old Harriot Harman, yet again showing how useless she really is. bad enough her views but to back down so easily to an old man who doesn't think women are equal? ha Ha Ha. Sorry, it has to make you laugh, otherwise you may take it seriously instead and that would never do.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 06:18 PM

From what I can see, as ever, nothing the Pope actually said was concise enough to have any real meaning, other than that he is (as he is obliged) resisting a perceived erosion of the influence and control his church. Plus, he's drumming up awareness and feeling for his forthcoming visit. All part of the publicity machine.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 06:28 PM

"Anyway, Henry VIII declared the Pope cannot interfere with British law and that is fine by me!"

Henry was of course King of England, controlling Wales and Ireland too. One shouldn't really mix up England with Britain. Scotland went through its own seperate and more thorough Reformation. Britain as a political entity didn't exist in Henry's time.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 06:39 PM

Pardon my gibberish - "erosion of the influence and control of his church"

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 09:00 AM

My bad.

Of course Great Britain did not exist in Henry VIII time, although at Holyrood House, I noticed a plaque showing something the present Queen opened. She was called Queen Elizabeth II, although of course to Scotland she is technically Queen Elizabeth I.

If royalty feel the distinction is no longer important, I am sure I can rattle on about British law before the term existed!

I agree with Smokey in that the Pope could be drumming up publicity for his forthcoming visit. Interfering with things that are above religion is not perhaps the best way methinks?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 09:13 AM

The Book of Common Prayer, 1542 :

" The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England".

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 09:48 AM

"If royalty feel the distinction is no longer important, I am sure I can rattle on about British law before the term existed!"

Fair dos if you want to post something that is historically inaccurate then it is your right to do so. It is equally one's right to point out inaccuracies though!

The UK government were taken to the civil court in Scotland in the 1950s over the monarch's numeral. The govt used the argument of parliamentary sovereignty but that argument was thrown out - however they won the case because the ruling declared that the monarch's numeral was a personal matter for the monarch. In other words she can call herself what she wants. The palace has since stated that the numerals used would be the highest available. Hence theoreticaly if we had a King Alexander he would be Alexander IV even though only Scotland has previously had King Alexanders. The chancs of the palace actually putting itself in that situation again are probably small.

What the monarch's style themselves doesn't always match reality. Edward I wasn't the first English monarch called Edward. James VI of Scotland styled himself King of Great Britain over 100 years before Great Britain existed as a kingdom. Likewise if you ever visit Traquair House you can see numerous portraits of the 17thC Stuart monarchs in which they style themselves not only Kings of Scotland, England and Ireland - but also of France.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 11:56 AM

I submit that the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England attempted to establish a common standard of religious belief in England and failed to do so. The Roman Catholic church tried to do a similar thing early, and also failed. How many RC s actually follow the directives of the RC Pope...ie on birth control?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,999
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 12:52 PM

"James VI of Scotland styled himself King of Great Britain"

He became James I of England when Elizabeth died.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Stu
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 01:41 PM

Odd really, that these old Popey blokes (always blokes Popes, apart from Joan of course) who, by refusing to allow Catholics to use condoms have knowingly sentenced to death tens of thousands of Africans who contracted HIV due to unprotected sex.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 03:51 PM

Odd really...refusing to allow Catholics to use condoms have knowingly sentenced to death tens of thousands of Africans who contracted HIV due to unprotected sex.

What is even odder is that anywhere this subject is discussed a similar comment seems to crop up.

Are these people serious?

The 'refusal to allow', and hardly unique to Catholicism, concerns promiscuous sex - fornication and adultery. The RCC and most other Christian denoms, as well as many that are not Christian, regard sex outside marriage as sinful.

The idea of an observant Catholic completely disregarding this matter of basic morality, but at the same time observing the ban on artificial methods of birth control for religious reasons is pretty ridiculous, doncha think?

Promiscuous sex has always been dangerous and potentially deadly. That hardly originated with the pope.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 04:31 PM

"James VI of Scotland styled himself King of Great Britain"

"He became James I of England when Elizabeth died."

Indeed he did. James VI was also king of England. But the point I was making was that he likd to style himself as King of Great Britain. However that does not mean that a kingdom called Great Britain actually existed at that time outside of the royal imagination. Scotland and England remained seperate kingdoms for a further century (short period of the republican commonwealth aside) until the Kingdom of Great Britain was created in the 18thC.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 11:35 PM

The Rome Pope's influence in England was mostly cemented at the at Synod of Whitby in about 600 AD (paschal controversy). Yes, there were a few centuaries of separation....1534 to a recent proposal by the Pope to Anglicans, "that the Churches may be one again.

On October 20, 2009, the Poper announced he will be issuing an Apostolic Constitution (the highest form of papal document) to " erect personal ordinariates for Anglican clergy and laity wishing to enter the Catholic Church"

Here's what seems to be in the future: 1) The Pope will fast track this 2) The Pope is issuing an Apostolic Constitution soon; 3) The Apostolic Constitution will establish the canonical structure of personal ordinariates; 4) The Pope wiill continue to allow married convert-clergy to serve as priests; 5) The Pope values the "Anglican patrimony" of music, liturgy, reverence, and architecture.

This now seems to be welcome with those in the "High church" Those in the Low church are seeking options, as the "Broad Church"seems victors in changes in the Anglican Communion.

So, whatdoyouthinkofthat?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 11:37 PM

Oops, Poper should read Pope....sorry about that, Holy Father:(

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 09:35 AM

So, whatdoyouthinkofthat?

Personally, I think it would be great for the two churches to re-unite - they never should have been separated in the first place.

It think it's pretty well agreed by Church historians of both bodies that, according to the standards of that time, King Henry should have received his annullment and it was withheld for political purposes.

A visionary future potiff - probably not theimcumbent - may be able to accomplish this, or at least keep the ball rolling in that direction.

The three big issues standing in the way are female clergy and hierarchy, the morality of active homosexuality as a lifestyle, and contraception.

The first and last of these are the most easily disposed of - the RCC's postion on both is ridiculous and easily jettisoned.

The other is more contentious, even within Anglicanism.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 04:02 PM

...according to the standards of that time, King Henry should have received his annullment and it was withheld for political purposes.

If he'd been given it, that would have been purely - and cynically - for political purposes. The "grounds" for any annullment were complete rubbish. However all that was the occasion rather than the reason for the split, which was basically to do with power and money, like most things - in this case all that monastic property waiting to be seized.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 04:47 PM

Ah for the good old days, when knights were bold and maidens - not to mention royal wives - lost their heads!

You are correct, it would have been political in either case.

But hardly an impediment to the two Churches re-uniting centuries later.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 06:00 PM

Ah for the good old days, when knights were bold and maidens - not to mention royal wives - lost their heads!

Well I would expect royal wives to lose their maidenheads.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Roughyed
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 06:31 PM

The background to this in Britain is that the government is trying to hive off some of the public sector functions to what it calls the third sector i.e. charities along with the staff. They see it as a more politically acceptable form of privatisation.

Some of those charities have religious ties which have homophobic views and workers in the public sector who are used to a comparatively progressive attitude to gay lesbian and transgender people have an understandable fear of suddenly finding themselves employed by people who think they are the spawn of satan.

The legislation is an attempt to allay those fears/soften up the opposition, take your choice, but Papa Razzi has put his foot in it again with another ill timed and ill judged contribution.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 08:17 PM

"So, whatdoyouthinkofthat?" (EdT)

I think it would be a monumental disaster if the two churches reunited. The west has suffered quite enough already from religious lunacy. The last thing we need is a more powerful church. Church and State are best separated by a chasm of infinite width.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 08:52 PM

Thanks, Allan C. I'm with you.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 10:05 PM

The anti-women discrimination goes deeper than you thought, Sugarfoot Jack. There was never a Pope Joan. If it was the Maid of Orleans you had in mind, the occupying Brits (or "English" as I had better say in this thread) required a French court to find her guilty of heresy and she was accordingly burnt at the stake.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 10:53 PM

There was never a Pope Joan. If it was the Maid of Orleans...

I think Sug was referring to the fictitious tale of a "Pope Joan", which was a plagiarism of a Roman legend having nothing to do with the Church in much the same way that "The Protocols of...Zion" was a plagiarism of a French satire having nothing to do with Jews.

Unfortunately, some people still believe one or both of these are true. I think Sug was just joking though.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:46 AM

"it was the Maid of Orleans you had in mind, the occupying Brits (or "English" as I had better say in this thread)"

This is actually a perfect subject to show the reson why it isn't just someone being pernickity, rather it just doesn't make sense to talk about the British when what is meant is the English. During the campaigns of Joan of Arc, as in much of the said wars, Scotland was closely allied to France and thousands of Scottish troops were campaigning in France on behalf of both the French and Scottish kingdoms against the English kingdom. So yes it would make no sense to suggest France was at war with Britain whether it is in this thread or not. I actually remember somewhere reading that when St Joan entered Orleans she did so with her Scots Guard to the tune of what is now known as Scots Wha Hae. Don't know if that is just a story or if it is rooted in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:49 AM

Furthermore, Peter K, Joan of Arc, Maid of Orleans, had no connection whatever with the Pope Joan canard, and is a mere red herring. There is a full and excellent Wikipedia article on the Pope Joan legend.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Stu
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 07:35 AM

"The idea of an observant Catholic completely disregarding this matter of basic morality, but at the same time observing the ban on artificial methods of birth control for religious reasons is pretty ridiculous, doncha think?"

I don't actually, because in the real world the two don't necessarily go together. What seems like sound theological dogma when dreamed up in the hushed precincts of the Vatican don't translate into the harsh reality of the real world. In fact, it's pretty ridiculous to think it does and seeing that within the church systematic, deeply immoral behaviour has been actively covered up over the years would make that glaringly obvious.

That's before you've even got to the sort of society and environment so many of their flock live in a world away from the comfortable, closeted and privileged existence the bloated grandees of the church are familiar with.

Which is why proclamations from decrepit old men safely ensconsed in their exclusive old boy's club should be treated with the utter contempt they deserve, and even more so when they're trying to directly influence the elected government of a democracy (I use the term advisedly) of a country where most of the people don't subscribe to their anachronistic dogma anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 09:08 AM

Sugar, you are entitled to all of those opinions.

My only objection is to your earlier claim that the "death [of] tens of thousands of Africans who contracted HIV due to unprotected sex" is somehow the Church's fault. That is not only outrageous but quite stupid.

Christianity, and Judaism before it, have always condemned promiscuous sex and will continue to do so. Like many articles of Jewish law, the prosciption is hygienic in origin.

The social service agencies that distribute condoms in Africa and provide information on how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases make no moral judgements. This is a luxury that religion does not have.

A married couple living in a committed relationship with each other and with their Creator need have little worry about dying of AIDS.

The Catholic Church advises its members on which methods of family planning it considers morally acceptable. Beyond that, the choice rests with the couple's own conscience.

AIDS is spread by filthy behavior, not by the advocacy of basic standards of morality.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Stu
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 10:34 AM

"That is not only outrageous but quite stupid."

Cheers.

"Christianity, and Judaism before it, have always condemned promiscuous sex and will continue to do so. Like many articles of Jewish law, the prosciption is hygienic in origin."

Hygienic? So nothing to do with a code of morality then? Out of interest, what do they say about nose picking then? As far as I am aware, the Bible, Talmud or any other ancient text doesn't discuss condom use so any modern decree won't be the result of divine instruction but mortal construction.

"The social service agencies that distribute condoms in Africa and provide information on how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases make no moral judgements. This is a luxury that religion does not have. "

Quite right too - at least not everyone is abandoning those in need when the going gets tough. If religion cannot negotiate it's way through complex moral and cultural dilemmas then it's only showing it's own shortcomings. Many of these people live in abject poverty and need real, practical help to overcome the challenges they face, not the disapproving judgements of those who supposedly share their faith. So much for the parable of the good Samaritan.

"A married couple living in a committed relationship with each other and with their Creator need have little worry about dying of AIDS."

What's that got to do with the price of cheese?

"AIDS is spread by filthy behavior, not by the advocacy of basic standards of morality."

Like the leaflet said, HIV is spread by ignorance - education is the key as it is with so many preventable diseases.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 11:20 AM

Well, I followed your link, here is part of what it says:

The Pope said "the traditional teaching of the Church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids".

The BBC's David Willey in Rome says the Church's view is that encouraging people to use condoms only minimises the effects of behaviour that in itself damages lives.

The pope is absolutely right, and David Wiley is absolutely right in correctly stating the Catholic Church's position (something that the BBC is often not very good at).

Condoms can fail, through physical defects or, more often, improper use. Moral sexual behavior, by definition, cannot.

The report then goes on:

But the London-based Lancet said the Pope had "publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on this issue".

It said the male latex condom was the single most efficient way to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV/Aids.

"Whether the Pope's error was due to ignorance or a deliberate attempt to manipulate science to support Catholic ideology is unclear," said the journal.

But it said the comment still stood and urged the Vatican to issue a retraction.

"When any influential person, be it a religious or political figure, makes a false scientific statement that could be devastating to the health of millions of people, they should retract or correct the public record," it said.

Outrageous! There wasn't any distortion and there wasn't any error, and there certainly isn't anything to retract.

The pope can no more say, "If you're going to commit adultery be sure to use a condom" than he can say, "If you're going to rob a bank be sure to post a lookout."

With the remainder of your post I take very little exception.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 11:50 AM

Where have you been for the last 100 years, beeliner?

Sex is hardwired into our psyche. It (I suggest) was a useful survival mechanism for the species to make sex pleasurable rather than mechanistic as it increased the likelihood of child survival, long long before marriage was invented.

You can't unwire that. People are going to have sex, because it is pleasurable.

Doctrines of abstinence were around before syphilis. They were a tool of the priesthood to manipulate credulous followers, to enable the priesthood to play the guilt card to achieve power.

People are simply not (in general, you can always find a few who are unlucky or freaks with no hormones) going to abstain from sex.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 12:06 PM

Richard, you are talking to the wrong person, you need to bring this to the attention of the world's religious leaders.

Let me know how they respond.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 01:04 PM

I like this idea of the two churches getting it together. (Peoples' Popular Front of Judea???)

If they were the one club, it would be less work involved in pointing and laughing. Perhaps on a more serious note, here in the UK, pooling resources may be the only way to survive as many people who were hitherto without a view one way or the other, develop opinions when they hear the old men with pointy hats rattle on about women and Gay men not being good enough to read from an old book and hand out wafers & wine.

Pope talking sense? I am sure he has the right to point out that a law in a country that includes his followers makes it difficult for them to practice bigotry, and likewise, everybody else has the right to point out the folly in his comments.

Did I just read above that the spread of AIDS is through filthy behaviour?   Wow... Filthy behaviour can be fun, but needle sharing isn't. They can both spread a virus. it is in the nature of a virus rather than the mind of a person though.

The catholic church should keep quiet on that front, as to deny that sex is nothing but procreation is not only false but the ensuing frustration leads to.... err... Sorry, but the harrowing facts of the irish priests are too much for Steamin' Willie to poke fun at.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 01:24 PM

Apologies to all. The Pope Joan legend had passed me by.

it just doesn't make sense to talk about the British when what is meant is the English.

But "English" doesn't quite hit the mark either, Allan C, since quite a few of the occupiers were more French tghan English....

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 02:06 PM

The Church can practice Harm Reduction without giving up its morality. She could say "we believe sex outside the holy enclave of marriage is foolish and immoral" and also "we recognize not everybody will agree with us, or be able to toe that particular line, and if that's the case it is better to use protection than not" without contradiction. That she has chosen not to shows that her precious morality is more important to her than the lives of real people. Which is sickening.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 02:34 PM

"...we recognize not everybody will agree with us, or be able to toe that particular line, and if that's the case it is better to use protection than not."

mouse, that's what the various social service agencies would say. I've never criticised that. They make no moral judgments and neither do I. One is responsible to God, and to some extent to one's neighbor, for one's sins, not to the free clinic nor to me.

The Church can't say that. Firstly, the people you describe, who "don't agree or aren't willing to toe the line" wouldn't pay attention anyway.

Secondly, the Church is absolutely correct. Abstention from dangerous sex is not only moral but 100% effective in preventing sexually transmitted diseases. No more need be said.

But the discussion has now gone full circle, perhaps more than once, so what's the point in continuing.

I don't consider myself a particularly 'devout' Catholic, if I had to pick an adjective it would be 'pragmatic', but I don't like to see my Church villified for doing the right thing and promoting moral rather than sinful behavior - without equivocation and without apology.

I don't like to see other religious bodies wrongfully criticized either, but I am, as would be expected, more knowledgable about my own.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:20 PM

Ah. "I've had the last word. Please stop talking about this."

Very honourable.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Penny S. (sans cookie)
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:49 PM

The Anglicans will not be able to join with the Catholics under the Pope. The split may have been triggered or enabled by Henry's marriage problems, but the adoption of Protestantism was already under way, and proceeded after him. Many people were prepared to go to the stake over their lack of belief in transubstantiation. The Anglicans include a tranche who long to go to Rome, a movement which only goes back to Victorian times, but also a tranche of evangelicals with much in common with such people in other churches. And some who follow a middle way. The point of the Anglican church was that all could be accomodated. It never was true - hence all the chapels in Britain. It is less true now. But - join at the head, and the body will split off before the ink is dry.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:50 PM

You can continue talking as long as you wish. I just don't see the point in continuing to participate in a discussion that is going around in circles.

The Church condemns filthy behavior in the strongest terms, for reasons of morality but also of hygiene. It's therefore responsible for the filthy behaviour and its consequences.

Very profound, mouse.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:54 PM

She could say "we believe sex outside the holy enclave of marriage is foolish and immoral" and also "we recognize not everybody will agree with us, or be able to toe that particular line, and if that's the case it is better to use protection than not" without contradiction.

Well said, Alex. And actually, that's what a lot of Catholic priests will tell people in private discussion. Now, a legalist would say that would be contradicting Church teaching to do it that way - but it really isn't. In a one-on-one situation, people are able to explore the nuances of a situation through the eyes of compassion, and they can come up with a workable solution that honors both the ideals and the realities. I think the current Pope is a very rational sort of person, and would probably agree with this (privately). Can't say that for John Paul II, who was the darling of the legalists.

And just because the reality doesn't always allow us to adhere strictly to the ideal, does that mean we are forced to totally abandon the ideal and seek only the lowest common denominator?

I, for one, think that sexual fidelity in marriage is a wonderful ideal to uphold. But I was ten years between marriages, and my reality was such that I saw no need to be celibate for ten years. So, I had three wonderful relationships that turned out not to be permanent. Did I go go confession and confess what I did as sins? Certainly not. These relationships were good and loving and wholesome, and I did not consider them sinful in any way - but since I knew this decision was contrary to Church teaching, I didn't think it would be right (or rational) to go to a priest to ask his permission for me to contradict Church teaching. St. Thomas Aquinas would back me up on this - but it's well-nigh impossible to explain these moral nuances to a group. It must be done in one-on-one discussion.

My primary moral theology teacher in the seminary was a crusty old Irish-American who had great compassion, a practical nature, a wonderful sense of humor, and a brilliant mind. He believed in law, but he believed it should be applied with compassion and wisdom. He did NOT believe in a legalistic approach to moral theology.

Much of the criticism of churches in this thread, comes from a legalistic perspective. Religious faith should not be a legalistic process, despite the fact that many "believers" see it that way. Religious faith lives in the world of ideals - and ideals that are applied without compassion and wisdom and tolerance, are deadly. When people espouse any ideology without compassion and wisdom and tolerance, all hell breaks loose.

Does that mean we should abandon all ideals? I certainly hope not. I think that all the major religious creeds are rooted in compassion and wisdom - and if they do not remain rooted in these elements, then they have not been true to their origins. Although these elements have been denied by those in power at the head of many denominations, most denominations have many members who have remained true to the roots of their faith.

I also have to say that I have never had much faith in upper management, that I see top leaders as an annoying but necessary evil in all organizations. The heart of any community lies in the people who show wisdom and compassion, the people who deal with others one-on-one.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 04:11 PM

As the old saying goes "be good, and if you can't be good, be careful".

And that applies as much to sexual activities as it does to robbing banks or shoplifting.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:13 PM

"She could say "we believe sex outside the holy enclave of marriage is foolish and immoral" and also "we recognize not everybody will agree with us, or be able to toe that particular line, and if that's the case it is better to use protection than not" without contradiction. That she has chosen not to shows that her precious morality is more important to her than the lives of real people. Which is sickening"

Ha Ha! What a fuckin' hypocrit, isn't that exactly what i've been saying to you and the other "liberals" on the subject of compulsory testing and contact tracing for groups "AT RISK" from hiv/ aids?

Just substitute "precious liberal agenda" for "precious morality" and your on the button......seemples!!

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:21 PM

And furthermore...

Karen Armstrong says almost all religious groups have what may be called "founding myths," stories about their founders and the origins of their faith. These myths have varying levels of historicity, but their historicity isn't what's important. These myths tell profound truths. The Jewish patriarchs and Mohammed were examples of faithfulness to the ideal, and their ideal God was faithful to them - "slow to anger and rich in kindness," as the Hebrew Scriptures say. Jesus was a paragon of compassion and love and justice for the downtrodden, despite certain contradictory stories like the cursing of the fig tree. The Buddha was the supreme example of wisdom and Enlightenment, disconnecting oneself from the trivialities to seek the simplicity of the profound. In the same fashion, there are profound truths expressed in myth in Native American and Celtic spirituality, and in most Asian, African, and other religious creeds.

Now, if you're a legalist, whether you accept or respect a religious creed or not; you seek only to prove or deny the historicity of these myths, and fail to see the profound truths that are at their center - truths like compassion and tolerance and wisdom and love and family and peace and justice.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:33 PM

"Filthy sexual behaviour" - give me a break, I thought stupid ideas like that died out in the early 60s.   Mary Whitehouse is extinct, I am glad to say. I thought her attitudes were, but I hope they soon will be.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:36 PM

I wasn't expecting the the Inquisition