BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 16 - 05:11 PM

You miss the point Joe, these people do not really care what YOU think, they are dedicated to the "liberal" ideology and the Church is the biggest impediment to the furtherance of that ideology.

It matters not a whit that you yourself are a liberal by nature, you stand on the wrong side of the wall to these people....you are guilty by association.
You are conversing with Fascists, forget it and do good with your life, retain your faith and look a little more kindly on your brethren who recognise the danger.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 16 - 04:53 PM

I ask myself whether it's good enough to just "oppose the right-wingers all my life". Said right-wingers have held dominion all your life and there's no prospect of that changing. You might claim that millions of Catholics are ignoring the Church and using contraception and getting abortions, and a good thing too. The obstinate fact that you are refusing to confront is that four million women per annum in Central and South America, overwhelmingly in Catholic countries, are having unsafe abortions. They are having unsafe abortions because, in those Catholic countries, sex education is discouraged, contraception is both frowned upon and difficult or impossible to obtain, and abortion is illegal. The teaching and the edicts of the Catholic Church have played a huge part in bringing this awful situation about. And that isn't even to begin to address the baleful role of the Church in failing to stem HIV in Africa. You are the arch-apologist for Catholicism, Joe Offer. Your fight from the inside has failed abysmally. The upshot is a good deal of death and misery.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 24 Feb 16 - 02:57 PM

It isn't being held to anything that is the beef here. It's washing your hands of the Catholic Church and its actions. Either the Catholic Church is doing it or some renegade criminals are using your advertising in which case the Vatican should stop them.

You begin to see the point. You may not like the word boutique but if you are a catholic you either hold with what your popes say or you don't. If you pick and choose, which lets face it is the position of all religions with regard to their sacredish texts, then boutique is both descriptive and not exactly insulting.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Feb 16 - 01:06 PM

I gotta say, Jim, that you're really good at linking to old newspaper articles. The two Vatican investigations of U.S. nuns were ended in April 2015, but began winding down even before Benedict resigned. They were a political move by right-wingers, and the right-wingers lost.

As I've often said, it's a mistake to view the Catholic Church as monolithic. I don't like what the right-wingers do in the Catholic Church, any more than Messrs. Shaw, Carroll, and Musket do. I can't figure out why Messrs Shaw, et al, hold me responsible for the actions of Catholic right-wingers that I've opposed all my days.

Mr. Musket, my opposition to the right-wingers isn't "boutique" Catholicism, and it's not the failure to believe Catholic doctrine that Mr. Shaw claims it to be. I hold true to what I believe the Catholic Church ought to be - and so do a lot of other Catholics, including Pope Francis. We're very happy to have a Pope who's on our side, for a change.

There was an interesting article in USA Today on Tuesday, talking about how the National Catholic Reporter newspaper published articles on sexual abuse by priests in 1985, 17 years before the Boston Globe covered the story. NCR, a lay-run Catholic publication not owned or controlled by the Catholic Church, has continued to publish articles on the sex scandal to the present time. I've supported NCR since it began publishing in 1964. The publishers of NCR also hold true to what they believe the Catholic Church ought to be.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 16 - 04:45 AM

Joe doesn't seem to have read that, Jim. He'd better watch his arse I reckon - the Vatican will be coming to rein him in any day now! :-:

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 16 - 03:48 AM

"I'm glad you brought up hellfire, "
May not be as strong a feature with the younger generation, but very much alive and kicking with the older one - it seems perverse in the extreme to defend a Church that has thrived on fear by suggesting that it can now be ignored - sort of like malaria, which has supposedly been conquored, but is still doing the rounds - particularly in the poorer countries, where the divine right of the church reigns supreme alongside of the Zika virus.
Even here, the Church believes itself influential enough on issues such as education, same-sex marriage and pregnancy termination to issue threats and affect political decisions.
It remains to be seen what will happen when and if a future Government gets round to altering the constitution on religious influence - hope I'm around to buy tickets for that one.
It shouldn't be a case of "ignoring" a constant threat in your midst - it has to be permanently removed as a threat or it remains what it is - couldn't help noticing the "largely ignored" bit - ok to let the others go on and have children they can't afford and don't necessarily want
If that happens in the 'enlightened' U.S., explain away what is happening in the poorer countries, where these issues are killing people in their many thousands - a bit smug to claim "largely ignored" - sort of 'ding-ding, we're on the bus'
The church, in these matters has become a lethal threat and if it continues, some bright spark is going to recognise it as a human rights issue - that's when 'pro life' will move from being a spiritual propaganda campaign to doing what it says on the tin.
I confess, I didn't know about your laudable 'Nuns on the Bus' campaign so I looked it up.
"Led by Sister Simone Campbell, they place emphasis on the church's long-standing commitment to social justice"
I wish them every success, but if your church only had a "long-standing commitment to social justice" instead of it's inbuilt support for repression, injustice and inequality, there really wouldn't be a need for such acts of rebellion.
COULDN'T HELP NOTICING THE REACTION
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 24 Feb 16 - 02:45 AM

The thing is, when I refer to boutique religion or pick n mix, I'm shouted at, yet when hypocrisy suits, there it is, for all to see.

Am I saying every superstitious person should be literal and fundamental? No. But by the same token, such institutions should keep it to those who are members and unlike the Catholic Church, stop advising general populations based on snippets that serve purely the purpose of keeping the money rolling into the Vatican.

Perhaps someone should send the pope a book about a novel character called Jesus. If they took his views on board, just think what good they could do by selling off the billions worth of treasures and helping the poor and destitute with it.

I'd add the Church of England to that but their fiscal management is poor to begin with.

Meanwhile, churches pontificate on public health matters whilst their so called flock suffer the consequences. Their apologists aren't much better, however sugar coated their messages.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Feb 16 - 11:28 PM

Primrose Path to Holiness

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Feb 16 - 08:23 PM

Joe Offer doesn't actually seem to believe any Catholic doctrine at all. He's illustrated get-outs for using contraception and for having an abortion, on the grounds that if you don't think it's wrong it's not wrong. I've just checked, and hell and hellfire are still definitely enshrined in the Catechism. But Joe says we don't have to bother with all that, and priests who burble on about it are just having a laugh or something. Well I think it's rather odd that Catholics often claim that their moral compass is determined by their religious belief and churchly guidance, when it seems they don't have to actually believe Jack shit if they don't want to.

As for: "Pol Pot and Hitler and Idi Amin may have hell to themselves."

Well now, who are you to judge? In the words of The Lord....

Yet another teaching that you can ignore if you don't like it? Have we told those millions of Catholics in Africa and south and central America, not to speak of their regimes, that this welcome anarchic situation prevails?

I once tried to tell a speed cop in Wiltshire that I'd thought the speed limit signs were advisory. He didn't agree. You may find one day that you're having the same difficulty with St Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Feb 16 - 06:17 PM

Thanks Joe, I hope I have a ticket on that bus.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Feb 16 - 05:49 PM

Well, Guest, I'm pretty sure that "Nine First Fridays" indulgence is still on the books, for people who think in that mode. It, and many other indulgences, are in a book called the Raccolta. I guess there has to be something left for the legalists. It gives them peace of mind. That sort of legalism is from another time, but why rattle the people who see value in it?

Current thinking is that all but the most truly horrible people are going to end up in heaven, anyhow. Pol Pot and Hitler and Idi Amin may have hell to themselves.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Feb 16 - 04:58 PM

Hey Joe, there's something I've been wondering about for a while now and if anybody would know the answer, it would be you. Does it still hold in the RC church that if you attend mass and take communion for nine first Fridays in a row you get a free pass to heaven when your ticket is punched?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Feb 16 - 04:16 PM

Jim Carroll responds to my statement: "I think that every organized group should have a voice": A little different from threatening those who disagree with hellfire and damnation.

I'm glad you brought up hellfire, Jim. It's talked about so seldom in Catholic circles nowadays, that I had almost forgotten it. Back in the 1950s, Catholic parishes used to have weeklong "parish missions," usually preached by Passionist or Redemptorist priests who were renowned for their preaching ability. There was one week of evening meetings for the men, and one week for the women. Friday night was always the most popular night, because that's when the mission preachers gave their colorful sermons on hellfire and damnation. It was kinda scary, but always interesting. I didn't know very many people who took those sermons seriously, and I haven't heard preaching about hellfire since the early 1960s. I suppose you can find hellfire sermons in Catholic churches nowadays if you look hard enough, but those are the exception to the rule.

---

Jim asks: What exactly are their qualifications for issuing such edicts?
Again, Jim, I haven't seen the Catholic Church issue edicts in years - not in my lifetime, at least. The Catholic Church issues carefully worded and reasoned statements on issues it considers important, relying on reason rather than authority to promote its case. Vatican statements are invariably well-researched, even though you might not agree with them. I haven't seen hellfire attached to any such pronouncement, although I'm sure there are some right-wingers who will give you hellfire if you want it.

Jesus saved the penalty of hellfire only for those who failed to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, and such things (Matthew 25).

So, Jim, their qualifications are that their statements either make sense, or don't make sense - along with their power to persuade. During a the summers since the passage of Obamacare, the U.S. Catholic bishops have conducted a "Fortnight for Freedom" campaign to protest their being required to include birth control services in employee health plans. The campaign is silly, and has been largely ignored. At the same time, U.S. nuns have had their "Nuns on the Bus" campaign for social justice, a campaign which has been very popular and well-received. The nuns have credibility (and imagination), the bishops don't. Pope Francis has a lot of credibility, because what he says usually makes sense.

---

I said that Irish legislators "should have risked excommunication" and voted to change Irish anti-abortion laws.

Jim says: Why should they have had to make such a choice - eternal damnation or voting with your conscience?
Do you really believe a lifetime of being conditioned is that easy to walk away from?

Then, Jim, the Irish electorate should elect legislators who have the courage to stand up to the Church - if that is the will of the electorate. I don't believe that "eternal damnation" is a penalty that is automatically included with excommunication, although some people may mistakenly believe it is. They must not have paid attention in their third-grade catechism class, back when they were nine years old. Way back then, I was taught that a person can't go to hell for doing something they sincerely believe to be the right thing to do. That was in my Baltimore Catechism book, which was based on the 16th-century Catechism of Trent.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Jack Campin
Date: 23 Feb 16 - 02:02 PM

What it's going to be like for the parents of microcephalic children:

http://newsdaily.com/2016/02/brazil-health-service-cracking-under-strain-of-microcephaly/

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Feb 16 - 10:57 AM

GfS, you should really check the source before posting the drivel that you copy/paste

There's always a first time, I suppose. And Goofus IS Alex Jones.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Feb 16 - 10:34 AM

Ah, yes, always suspect the purveyors of popular science. Promoting public understanding of science is delicate and fraught. Sometimes it's more the scientists affirming their expert credentials and increasing their authority. The sort of thing Joe does with his theological credentials. Gotta keep a close eye on these buggers. But doesn't Dr Schwarcz's piece read so well! In fact, I suspect he's correct in the general thrust, but I didn't get to that opinion via his mix of reasoning with didacticism. I want to hear the good science, not that.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Feb 16 - 08:21 AM

GfS, you should really check the source before posting the drivel that you copy/pasted. You would have seen that this conspiracy theorist is so out there that he makes other conspiracists, like Alex Jones, look like Pulitzer Prize winning journalists. I have known Joe Schwarcz for many years and it is no secret that he is targeted by these wackos who promote their outlandish theories and count on the scientifically illiterate for their support. But then again maybe you and Constantine are right and the rest of us have been brainwashed and are under the mind control of the CIA and the US government.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Feb 16 - 07:04 AM

"I think that every organized group should have a voice, "
A little different from threatening those who disagree with hellfire and damnation.
What exactly are their qualifications for issuing such edicts?
"and they should have risked excommunication."
Why should they have had to make such a choice - eternal damnation or voting with your conscience?
Doo you really believe a lifetime of being conditioned is that easy to walk away from?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Feb 16 - 05:19 AM

Hi, Jim - Can I explain why the Church should have any influence in matters such as the Zika virus, condoms and the spread of disease, etc. Well, yes, I think that every organized group should have a voice, a chance to present its position rationally.

You say, "there was talk of changing the law on pregnancy termination - the Church responded with a threat to excommunicate all politicians who voted for the change - not a proposal - a threat."

My response is that the politicians had an extraordinary chance at that moment, and they should have risked excommunication. I certainly would have.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Feb 16 - 04:57 AM

"Hi, Jim - I think the Catholic Church will be a far better institution when/if it is no longer in the majority in any nation.
The "church" is not a "majority" anywhere - in fact it is a miniscule minority - hardly a blip on the scale
Catholics, on the other hand are a different matter
It is not the religion that is the problem, but those who manipulate it to control the way people live - the Catholic church is locked in eternal permanent copulation with the most reactionary establishments and governments while a few of its officers occasionally leap over the wall and fight for humanity and often pay dearly for having done so - back to Romero.
When in control, the church never "proposes" anything - it demands obedience on the pain of eternal damnation.
Following the Savita Halappanavar, there was talk of changing the law on pregnancy termination - the Church responded with a threat to excommunicate all politicians who voted for the change - not a proposal - a threat.
The ridiculousness of a situation where a handful of elderly, celibate (allegedly), self appointed pressure group should have any say on contraception, pregnancy, sexual practices, sizes of families... doesn't seem to have sunk in - bizarre, to say the least.
This self-appointed group of dinosaurs should not be allowed to interfere in things like how to respond to the Zika virus, or whether to use condoms to protect from sexually transmitted diseases, or control family sizes, or who to sleep with and when - none of these things...... and much, much more.
THe sins of the Church are being laid on Catholics as a whole, who are, in fact, the victims - not fair.
Can you explain why the Church should have any influence in these matters? - so far, your team seems to take it for granted that it is a god-given right, or even one to be negotiated.
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Feb 16 - 03:54 AM

Jim Carroll says: It really is time you got your head round the fact that unless the church gets its act together it will have no role to play in modern life.

Hi, Jim - I think the Catholic Church will be a far better institution when/if it is no longer in the majority in any nation. When it's the majority, it gets into bed with government, and that's poison for both church and government.

It's a good thing for churches to hold out the ideal. But the ideal is not always practical. If a church is the majority and tries to enforce the ideal by legislation, strange things happen.

It's fine for the church to propose an ideal of no abortion and no contraception, as long as individuals can take those ideals and adapt them to their real lives in a way that works.

It's nice for churches to preserve ideals, but that has to be tempered by pragmatism. That seems to settle out quite nicely in nations where no religious denomination is in the majority. But if there's a church in the majority, all hell is likely to break loose.

Consider Texas. Or Ireland.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 23 Feb 16 - 02:53 AM

The sad truth is, firing silver bullets might slay the beast and might piss it off. At this stage, we have still to decide the calibre, type of gun, purity of silver, shape of bullet... Complacency isn't an option but neither is friendly fire.

Regarding the left foot aspect, which is key given the sway the Vatican has in South America, it is clear to me that if the church gives a clear unequivocal message that helps prevention, people are generally intelligent enough to put two and two together and see the benefits of safe sex viz a viz many of the other issues facing humanity.

You know Goofus, loving people isn't enough, it's fucking that does the deed.

I'm not sure what Joe means by "absolutists." I thought it meant people with superstitious conviction but there you go. You don't need a piece of paper to theologise (or theologize as you say in foreign parts) you just need to provide commentary on old books. Having never read them I am at a disadvantage but I can add this much. There isn't a single bit of supporting evidence for banning contraception in any ancient book of fairy tales. I am reliably informed however that there is encouragement to shag a prostitute rather than have a wank.

Not the best advice....

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Feb 16 - 12:43 AM

Monsanto, if anyone remembers, had a rider attached to the Democrat budget, signed by Obama, which sheltered them from any financial liability, brought by those affected by GMO's. (I posted here about it a couple of years ago). Now Monsanto, has been saying, for quite some time, that one of the reasons, for the development of the GMO's, was to protect the plants from the chemicals in 'Round-Up'....However, if you've been watching your 'news' often there is commercials by several law firms, getting people to call them in regards to a class action lawsuit, because 'Round-Up' has chemicals, now found to cause cancer.....AND
Dr. Joe Schwarcz...check THIS out!!! .

Just thought I'd resolve Steve's diplomacy....and help him with his suspicions...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Feb 16 - 09:50 PM

"There is also extensive scientific literature on this chemical and no connection to any sort of birth defect has ever been noted."

Weasel words, unfortunately, unbecoming of a scientist.

"Pyriproxifen has been widely used in tick and flea collars for pets for years without any problem. Finally, this particular larvicide's mode of action is interference with the functioning of a hormone that is found only in insects and there is no plausible mechanism by which it can interfere with mammalian physiology in a way that would cause microcephaly."

The world of pharmaceutical research is replete with examples of drugs causing unexpected effects, sometimes even after years of ostensibly trouble-free use. Process dictates that you find problems usually when you are looking for problems. Saying you haven't found a plausible mechanism when you haven't needed to look for a plausible mechanism isn't really good enough. Don't get me wrong - I'm confident that yer man is right. His pronouncements, though, are tendentious-sounding and don't inspire confidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 16 - 09:36 PM

Zika virus and conspiracy theories

When I first heard about the tragic cases of microcephaly in Brazil and how suspicion fell on the cause being the Zika virus, I facetiously remarked to a colleague that somehow someone would link it to GMOs. After all, Brazil is the world's second largest producer of genetically modified crops behind the United States with more than half of the agricultural acreage in Brazil devoted to growing such crops. Well, so far GMOs have not been implicated, but Monsanto has. That company of course has become a lightning rod for all sorts of crackpot theories, in this case one forged by a South American group calling itself "Physicians in Crop Sprayed Towns." This is an activist group opposed to the use of pesticides with the belief that these "poisons" are being foisted on the public by the World Health Organization and South American governments because they have been financially seduced by the evil chemical industry.

The alleged link to Monsanto is through pyriproxifen, a larvicide that is sprayed on wet areas where mosquities breed. This may well be the real link to the birth defects rather than the Zika virus according to Physicians in Crop Sprayed Towns. The fact is that Monsanto has absolutely nothing to do with producing or selling this chemical which is supplied by the Sumimoto Chemical Company. Sumimoto has partnered with Monsanto in the sale of herbicides but that has nothing to do with pyriproxifen, the chemical being targeted by this activist group. The Monsanto connection to pyriproxifen is non-existent, the name just being thrown in to get attention and stir the pot.

The supposed Monsanto connection is a non-issue in any case because the pyriproxifen link to microencephaly exists only in the minds of conspiracy theorists who claim that the cases of this type of birth deformity correlate with the introduction of pyriproxifen as a replacement for temephos, a larvicide to which mosquitoes have developed a resistance. The physicians who promote this notion must have skipped the class in medical school that discussed the difference between an association and a cause and effect relationship. They should be reminded that the use of facial tissue does not cause colds, even though colds and the use of such tissues are closely associated.

Of course associations can turn out to be cause and effect, but the one between microcephaly and pyriproxifen is almost certainly not one. The fact is that one would actually expect a correlation with larvicides if the disease is caused by a mosquito transmitted virus because it is exactly where mosquitoes thrive that larvicides are applied. Furthermore, there are areas where many cases of microencephaly have been noted where pyriproxifen has never been used. There is also extensive scientific literature on this chemical and no connection to any sort of birth defect has ever been noted.

Pyriproxifen has been widely used in tick and flea collars for pets for years without any problem. Finally, this particular larvicide's mode of action is interference with the functioning of a hormone that is found only in insects and there is no plausible mechanism by which it can interfere with mammalian physiology in a way that would cause microcephaly. What we have here is an activist group with a fixed agenda trying to fit whatever square peg they can find into a round hole they have drilled.

Dr. Joe Schwarcz
McGill Office for Science and Society

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Feb 16 - 09:13 PM

"it likely that the Catholic Church will back away from its opposition to the legalization of abortion by governments"
It really is time you got your head round the fact that unless the church gets its act together it will have no role to play in modern life.
Enormous damage was done to the Church by the abuse revelations: the way those revelations were handled gave it a further sever kicking.
The smack in the face it got in once "holy Ireland", when the results of the 'same sex marriage' referendum were announced really should have got the message across - Archbishop Martin got it - 'bout time the rest of you did before you're playing to totally empty houses
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Feb 16 - 07:07 PM

"theological language and processes." That way round, if it matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Feb 16 - 07:03 PM

Only the car mechanics who work on cars made of Lego bricks. Doesn't "theological processes and language" sound so grand? What I know about theology is that it is predicated on a supposed entity for which there has never been evidence, and I know that the application of reason to that is a waste of your time and a tragedy for the advance of human intellect. Why don't you just search for what's really true instead?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Joe Offer, at the women's center
Date: 22 Feb 16 - 06:47 PM

If you can't be bothered with theological language and processes, Steve, don't theologize - but don't second-guess the theologians unless you've done your homework.
I suppose that when they see you coming, car mechanics run away screaming....

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Feb 16 - 06:45 PM

think it likely that the Catholic Church will back away from its opposition to the legalization of abortion by governments

In how many more centuries, Joe? I don't mean this as a dig - Seriously, how long should we rationally give 'em?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Feb 16 - 06:34 PM

You could always be more discriminant, and less promiscuous, and promote the wonderfulness of actually loving the person you're having sex with....Naw....nobody would want to hear THAT!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Feb 16 - 03:36 PM

There are plenty of references all over the web to condoms being specifically condemned by name by the Catholic Church. Even if you avoid the ones that refer to condoms specifically, and there are plenty of those for the average googler to find, condoms are an artificial method of contraception, and they clearly don't need to be mentioned by name. You almost seem to be denying that condoms are just that. I mean, what planet are you on? You see, Joe, you spent a long time just there trying to wriggle the Church out of this one, but the plain fact is that there is a thoroughly simple way of clarifying this. "The Catholic Church now accepts the use of condoms." Priests, bishops, cardinals and theologians are squabbling over what the grudging and woolly remarks of those two popes actually meant. The average Catholic hasn't got a chance. Good job most of them don't give a damn. Unfortunately, some do give a damn, and they live in countries where the Church has a good firm grip, condoms are almost impossible to get and where HIV is rife and the Zika mozzies bite like mad. You just carry on theologising while people continue to die or have dangerous abortions. Millions every year. It must be so agonising for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Feb 16 - 03:10 PM

No, Peter, there is no chance that the Catholic Church will change its stance on abortion to allow for the disposal of babies with birth defects. The only exception is when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. I think it likely that the Catholic Church will back away from its opposition to the legalization of abortion by governments, but I do not believe the Catholic Church will ever back away from its official declaration that abortion is immoral. And I doubt that it will allow Catholic hospitals or other Catholic institutions to perform abortions.

That being said, there is a whole body of Catholic moral teaching that allows for a woman to choose to have an abortion if the alternatives are a greater evil. I was first exposed to this aspect of Catholic moral teaching in about the third grade, when I was about nine years old. Basically, when you're faced with a number of bad choices, you do the one that does the least harm.

With regards to condoms, this is going to drive our absolutists crazy, but I cannot find any official Catholic condemnation of condoms. The documents specify "artificial methods of contraception," but not pills or condoms or IUDs or whatever. I do think there is specific mention of sterilization, however.

Pope Benedict did not change policy when he made his statement on condoms in 2010. He made an interpretation of existing policy, using this "lesser of two evils" thinking. He compared the prohibition against contraception with the evil created by the spread of disease, and he found contraception to be the lesser evil. Therefore, he said it could be morally permissible to use condoms to prevent the spread of disease, including HIV/AIDS. Francis confirmed Benedict's opinion by including Zika virus, but the principle applies to the spread of any serious disease.

As far as I can see, that's all you're gonna get. Even if he wanted to call a synod and abolish the prohibition against condoms, he couldn't do it - because as far as I can see, there is no prohibition against condoms. He could have called a synod to discuss changes in the policy against artificial contraception, but that would open a whole can of worms and have no immediate effect. Francis has held two synods that included discussion of the matter, and they ended at an impasse. Changing doctrine requires a consensus with very little dissent, and Francis was not able to achieve that consensus. He hasn't finished dealing with the results of the synods yet. It will be interesting to see what comes of it.

So, what we have is a considered interpretation of existing policy by two popes, both of whom come out on the side of approving the use of condoms to prevent the spread of disease, but not for birth control. And as always, the final moral determination must be made by the individual's conscience. I learned that in third grade, too. Nonetheless, if two popes come up with the same considered interpretation, then I think you can take that to the bank.

You can link to hundreds of columns that will tell you the Pope does or does not permit the use of condoms, but I double that many of the columnists have taken classes in Moral Theology from a seminary chartered by the Vatican. I did pretty well in my Moral Theology classes. If you don't believe what I have to say, then I guess you don't believe what I have to say. I've tried to present this as clearly and rationally as I can.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 22 Feb 16 - 09:25 AM

In the guardian, again, Emer O Toole gives her perspective:

What hope has Pope Francis offered to women exposed to Zika? None

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Feb 16 - 06:48 AM

He did not say that "condoms to battle HIV are OK", Joe Offer. He made a statement that was so vague and circumlocutory that it's caused furious controversy in the Church. There has never been a clear, definitive and honest statement to the effect that condom use is ever acceptable. The Church's official teaching has not changed. If you are running an organisation of hundreds of millions of people and wish to declare a change of policy, you express it in clear, simple and unambiguous terms, not in words that get even your finest theologians' knickers in a twist.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 22 Feb 16 - 03:37 AM

Just looking at the link there (from The Guardian's iPhone app) on the off chance it doesn't work, should anyone wish to read it, it's an article by Barbara Ellen from last week so should be easy to find. The paragraph of most interest to Joe's sighs would be;

"Why is "permission" being granted to safeguard against one virus, Zika, but not against HIV and Aids? While Zika is horrific, how many lives has Aids claimed and ruined, including babies who are born HIV-positive? A disgrace, then, that, in all these decades, the issue has been persistently dodged by the Vatican. In 2009, Francis's predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, said that the Aids tragedy could not be solved by the distribution of condoms "which even aggravates the problems". The following year, Benedict conceded that "male prostitutes" could use condoms."

Surely Joe isn't falling into the trap of assuming HIV is a gay problem? He does after all keep telling me our resident homophobe isn't homophobic...,,

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 22 Feb 16 - 03:00 AM

Same source, coming at yeh..

(Sigh)


http://gu.com/p/4hv2z?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Feb 16 - 01:06 AM

Musket says: Perhaps, looking at the thread subject, you might ask why your chief executive (Pope) is saying that condoms to battle Zika are ok but condoms to battle HIV aren't.

Because his predecessor already said that condoms to battle HIV are OK. Francis has not rescinded that approval.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/21/pope-benedict-condoms-hiv-infection

[sigh]

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Feb 16 - 01:02 AM

You're right....oh no!!....well, it has to better than the wet-suit idea..wet-suits are made of neoprene, which is a petroleum product...and 'environmentally uncool'.
What are we going to do???...I mean, liberals would NEVER stand for THAT!!....I mean, like liberals a caring people, right??
Do you think liberals could do more than talk and post about it??
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, instead of forming opinions about it...while waiting to see IF somebody else is going to DO something about it, with liberal approval, do you think anyone might sell their computers, to get a plane ticket, and go down and volunteer to help those poor suckers????
...Naw....we're liberals....somebody else should do it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 16 - 06:02 PM

I seem to recall Priscilla Presley and Leslie Nielsen bagging the copyright on full-body condoms. Bloody priceless.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Feb 16 - 04:26 PM

Damn!!...Well there goes my royalties for the invention!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Feb 16 - 04:18 PM

Since they'd need some sort of protection in the way they breathe as well, Sanity, I think you are recommending wet suits and snorkelling equipment for everyone. Effective, I should think, but maybe a bit on the warm side.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Feb 16 - 04:12 PM

...oh..and I left out the best part...Donald Trump can get the Vatican to pay for them...the memo was sent on Hillary's server for her private parts..or something like that....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Feb 16 - 03:46 PM

Maybe they should invent giant condoms that people can put on over their heads, and it should cover their whole bodies, so mosquitoes don't bite them!...and that way if the people have sex with someone else, their covered!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Feb 16 - 03:44 PM

I prefer not to think about it 😳

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 16 - 03:17 PM

"Jim. Have you any proof they are celibate?"
They told us they were' didn't they
Mind you, that Bishop Casey....
Makes you think, dunnit
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Feb 16 - 03:02 PM

How's about a list of whether we should treat cancer or coronary heart disease?

Both need whatever the most appropriate prevention advice is, and contraception is not only appropriate in Zika and HIV but also for similar reasons, to help stop a spreading condition in its tracks.

For that matter, I cannot think of a single reason why condoms wouldn't be an appropriate method of lowering the prevalence of HIV. Is there one? Has the Catholic cult come up with a single relevant reason not to promote condoms for HIV protection?

You see, their leader refuses to do so, and I'd like to know why. So would the millions of lives shattered by incoherent ramblings of old men.

Jim. Have you any proof they are celibate? 😎

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 16 - 02:48 PM

" both should allow condom use."
Surely the point is that self-appointed celibates should have no say whatever in the matter - or is there something I've missed?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Feb 16 - 01:08 PM

It is really simple, Steve and Musket

A) make a list of significant differences between the illnesses as fairly as you can


B) Decide whether they add up to a reason to treat the illnesses differently


I have decided that my answer to B is that the differences are insufficient to treat the diseases differently: both should allow condom use. But I don't think the list from A is empty and I can see why someone might regard the differences as enough.

As for writing the list both Steve and Musket are intelligent enough to come up with their own versions

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Feb 16 - 11:54 AM

I genuinely don't understand where DMcG is coming from?

The catholic cult is saying that condons for Zika is ok but condoms for HIV isn't.

Dangerous, irresponsible, tragic for the victims of stupidity and plain outrageous.

So.. What are you wanting to contrast?