BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope [2005]

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope [2005]
From: robomatic
Date: 29 Jan 22 - 06:19 PM

Or, as the English say: maths.

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope [2005]
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Jan 22 - 05:40 PM

Sorry, MudGuard - math.

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope [2005]
From: MudGuard
Date: 27 Jan 22 - 05:01 PM

and expect it even more if the refreshed thread is seventeen years old ...

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Jan 22 - 12:24 PM

If you're going to refresh seven year old threads, learn to expect this.

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: keberoxu
Date: 27 Jan 22 - 11:24 AM

Right. Ratzinger is the FORMER Pope.

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Jan 22 - 10:29 PM

The current pope is Francis.

He will become Francis I when there is a Francis II.

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Jan 22 - 09:35 PM

The current Pope is Francis I. In Catholic teaching he is infallible in matters of faith and morals, which teaching only dates back about 150 years. He is the Head of the Catholic Church. His formal title is:

Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman province, Sovereign of Vatican City-State, Servant of the Servants of God.

That thing about the Sovereign of the Vatican City-State means in Vatican City his word is LAW. Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church means that what he says goes, no arguing.

The Catholic Church isn't a democracy. It's a theocracy or, if you will, a theocratic monarchy.

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: keberoxu
Date: 26 Jan 22 - 08:22 PM

It belongs, I think, on a thread like this one,
which references the pontiff now known as
Benedict XVI.

Few if any of us could have predicted that Benedict XVI
would do what has not been done in four hundred years,
and resign as Pope, permitting the Vatican to name a successor
while he continues his old age in greater privacy than before.

Benedict XVI is in the headlines now, for unfortunate reasons.
While looking at coverage about him,
I was reminded of his brother, who was older,
and who recently pre-deceased him (well, two years or so ago).


I remember when Benedict XVI became the Pope, and his brother
accepted requests for interviews and opinions,
and was as gloomy as he was forthright.
After all, Georg Ratzinger wished for good health and a happy life
for his younger brother,
and he was rather sorrowfully resigned to the probability
that as Pope his brother could not have either one of those things.
Ratzinger said something to the effect that
he himself would find it hard to bear,
to watch his brother becoming ill and frail before his time.

Against all odds, Pope Benedict XVI gave up the papacy and retreated.
And against all odds, it was his brother Georg who died first.
I submit a link to the Jesuit magazine America and
the article memorializing Georg Ratzinger 1924 - 2020

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 11:56 AM

I doubt if it's a matter of "cowardice", Tam - after all, sticking a made-up name on a post to make it possible to have a continuing discussion wouldn't make a poster any less anonymous.

There's some other kind of reason involved, though I can't begin to imagine what it is. "I'm too important to use a label - my words speak for themselves", maybe? Of course it does have the advantage of never having to risk being identified as having said anything really silly, or   as being totally inconsistent in an argument. The idea being to start every post with a clean slate.

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: Tam the man
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 11:27 AM

Why are these 'guests' frightend to give their names, as I say these 'guests' are cowards.

I mean if you're going to run down everyone on this site including please have the balls to give a name.

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 10:29 AM

Nice to know that the Catholic church is to blame for degenerates who give AIDS to child whores in Africa and Asia because the pope is against the use of condoms. And everyone here is so intelligent and self-righteous, the whips come out at the drop of a hat. Maybe people should stop buying sex from slaves.

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: Tam the man
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 08:23 AM

what has an Islamic regime got to do with Catholics eh!

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 08:15 AM

The Taliban is definately gaining ground these days...

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: John Hardly
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 08:09 AM

The concept, as I understand it, is that a Catholic cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate and be a Catholic in good standing if being pro-choice is the reason for voting for the candidate. There is an understanding that candidates hold positions on many issues which may be worthy of a good Catholic's vote. If those (and not pro-choice considerations) are the reason that a Catholic votes for a candidate with a pro-choice position, that is ok with the church.

The same principal could be extrapolated out to include other issues like capital punishment. If one votes for a politician who is for the death penatly, that's ok. But if a Catholic votes for a candidate because he is for capital punishment, that is not ok.

...and again, it's not silly for any religious group to claim to really believe what they claim to really believe. Don't wanna be a Catholic? Nobody's begging you to be one.

Don't like what Catholics believe? During the reformation, guess which side left the church.

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 06:38 AM

Panzer Cardinal becomes Panzer Pope.

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: Tam the man
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 05:18 AM

It's history repaeting it's self again Germany taking over Poland

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: Haruo
Date: 23 Apr 05 - 03:47 PM

If you follow Catholic humor sites you've already seen this (Google shows me 30 occurrences), but I thought it was pretty funny when I ran into it on Thinking Baptists the other day:

Karl Rahner, Hans Kung and Benedict XVI né Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger all die on the same day, and go to meet St. Peter to know their fate.

St. Peter approaches the three of them, and tells them that he will interview each of them to discuss their views on various issues.

He then points at Rahner and says "Karl! In my office..." After 4 hours, the door opens, and Rahner comes stumbling out of St. Peter's office. He is highly distraught, and is mumbling things like "Oh God, that was the hardest thing I've ever done! How could I have been so wrong! So sorry...never knew..." He stumbles off into Heaven, a testament to the mercy of Our God.

St. Peter follows him out, and sticks his finger in Kung's direction and "Hans! You're next..." After 8 hours, the door opens, and Kung comes out, barely able to stand. He is near collapse with weakness and a crushed spirit. He , too, is mumbling things like "Oh God, that was the hardest thing I've ever done! How could I have been so wrong! So sorry...never knew..." He stumbles off into Heaven, a testament to the mercy of Our God.

Lastly, St. Peter, emerging from his office, says to Benedict, "Joseph, your turn." TWELVE HOURS LATER, St. Peter stumbles out the door, apparently exhausted, saying "Oh God, that's the hardest thing I've ever done..."

Haruo

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: robomatic
Date: 23 Apr 05 - 11:44 AM

Pope John Paul II was extremely charismatic at all age levels, but apparently this did not lead to American Catholics practising his dicta regarding birth control any differently than Americans in general.

It seems that the Western world, Catholic included, practices birth control if only for protection against disease, but probably also as population check. The new area of Catholic population growth seems to be in Africa and Asia, and population pressure would probably be the same regardless of what the Roman Catholic Church preached.

Possibly the Pope has only his charisma anymore to ENFORCE his wishes, so it is possible for him to be praised, loved, and to an extent, ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Apr 05 - 10:18 AM

I woudln't panic. Assuming Benedict follows JP's general line, the Papacy and the wider Catholic Church are likely to continue to be at odds with the present US government on a whole range of issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Apr 05 - 10:00 AM

Ms. Dowd did not mention the greater risk of succeeding in establishing an official fundamentalist christian US government in perpetuity.

Talk of blasphemy laws have already seen the light of day.
Drug companies risk losing many family planning product sales.
Official language and official religion loopholes will crop up.
Blackballing faiths, excluding the unfaithful in every strata of the culture and more devout gun toting christians enforcing god's will as they see it.

The only correct use of the word evolution will become the "evolution" of the Constitution which means throwing the old quaint Constitution away.

No Ms. Dowd the risks are far greater than not expanding the US Christian political party to include everyone under the same Billy Graham banner and marching off to more unilateral patriotic invasions.

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 05 - 08:14 AM

From Maureen Dowds very tart column in today's NY Times:

"Cardinal Ratzinger did not shrink from advising American bishops in the last presidential election on bringing Catholic elected officials to heel. He warned that Catholics who deliberately voted for a candidate because of a pro-choice position were guilty of cooperating in evil, and unworthy to receive communion. Vote Democratic and lose your soul. "Panzerkardinal," as he was known, definitely isn't a man who could read Mario Cuomo's Notre Dame speech urging that pro-choice politicians be allowed in the tent and say, "He's got a point."

The Republicans can build their majority by bringing strict Catholics and evangelicals - once at odds - together on what they call "culture of life" issues.

But there's a risk, as with Tom DeLay, Dr. Bill Frist and other Republicans, that if the new pope is too heavy-handed and too fundamentalist, his approach may backfire.

Moral absolutism is relative, after all. As Bruce Landesman, a philosophy professor at the University of Utah, pointed out in a letter to The Times: "Those who hold 'liberal' views are not relativists. They simply disagree with the conservatives about what is right and wrong.""


A

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: Tam the man
Date: 23 Apr 05 - 07:38 AM

what I meant was treating women the same as men.

but then the breathern don't treat women the same as men either.

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: Tam the man
Date: 23 Apr 05 - 07:36 AM

And Donuel, you forgot about traeting women as eguals ie women becoming Priests.

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: Boab
Date: 23 Apr 05 - 04:08 AM

"Ratzinger"---reads like a Mudcat alias...!

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 06:17 AM

Please forgive Ratzinger for:


Being a member of the Hitler Youth movement.

His stance on condoms.

His demonizing John Kerry as evil incarnate due to freedom of choice issues.

His overt support for the Bush family's fundamentalist evangical base.


...for he knows not what he does.



Long live the Pope

(At least through the presidency of Bill Frist or Jeb Bush or Schwartzenegger.

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 04:56 AM

He's just another omnipotent authority figure obsessed with controlling the masses.

*Smiles*

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: Gurney
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 04:02 AM

According to the media here, he has allotted several nicknames in the past, including 'God's Rotweiller' and 'The Panzer Cardinal.'

Yeah, not bad. A tree that bends in the wind isn't one to trust your weight to. And he has a lovely smile, like an older Tommy Steele.

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 10:18 PM

Joe - The group with the highest rise in AIDS in America is married women whose husbands are bringing it home from elsewhere. Shouldn't they be entitled to some protection?

As to Ratzinger - It is only fitting that in this day of Bush and Blair, that the new Pope would be an inquisitor. He's just another omnipotent authority figure obsessed with controlling the masses.

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: Ernest
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 02:07 PM

To Joe Offer and others: I appreciate your thoughtful messages.

To those, who were not able to do so:

This is a music site. At least you could have said that you`d rather have an Irish Pub than a German Pope.

Yours
Ernest

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: Tam the man
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 01:21 PM

I thought the Pope was a man my mistake, the only person who didn't have any faults was Jesus the Son of God.

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 11:13 AM

No Wolfgang - but I do quite often read posts without responding.

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 10:51 AM

Even a 'God Almighty Wind'....

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 10:41 AM

'A Mighty Wind' indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: GUEST,Top of the Popes
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 09:07 AM

who wants to join my new folk group


"the singing ratz"



we're gonna be bigger than Pope John Paul George & Ringo

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 07:36 AM

I decided some time ago not to read or respond (McGrath)

You made me grin. Do you really sometimes respond without reading?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: GUEST,Joe Offer
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 11:03 PM

Your post from Human Life International proves my point - you define the position of the Catholic Church by the actions of its right-wing extremists, and that's simply not fair. The "Human Life International" organization is located in the United States, but yet there's no indication that the organization has any support from the American bishops, or from Rome. If you want to quote from a legitimate Catholic relief organization like Catholic Relief Services or Maryknoll or the Jesuits or one of the other major religious orders, I might think it more representative of mainstream Catholic thought.

I don't really trust the Guardian, much of the time, but take another look at the article you cited - a right-wing Catholic organization is threatening a boycott against an international Catholic relief agency that condones the use of condoms for disease control. So, again, you're defining the Catholic Church by its right-wing extremists, and completely ignoring the mainstream position that was stated quite clearly in the very same article.

And again, the article by the International Association for Physicians in AIDs Care speaks of the actions of right-wing Catholics - not of the actions of any mainstream or official Catholic organization.

OK. So I guess you're right. We do have a number of conservatives and even some wild-eyed fundamentalists in the Catholic Church. They are very embarrassing, and I'm very sorry that they haven't been shot or burned at the stake or something; but that sort of disposal is now forbidden by Church law.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 06:53 PM

There seem a lot of posts from nameless GUEST(s) on this thread. Just in case any of them are in response to anything I have written, I think it's only polite to say that I decided some time ago not to read or respond to such posts, for reasons I've explained several times.

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 06:29 PM

McGrath and Joe, you both seem to have swallowed the Catholic propaganda line, hook line and sinker about AIDs prevention with the use of condoms and reduction of multiple sex partners.

So, let me ask you this: how then do you account for stories like this:

The Guardian

Or this:

Or this article for the International Association for Physicians in AIDs Care?

And blatant propagandizing by Catholic organizations like this:

Human Life International

If your eyes are glazing over at the length of these articles, and you are quickly clicking back here without bothering to read any of the articles, then you maybe don't WANT to understand the problems inherent with the Catholic anti-condom propaganda campaigns being waged in the developing world.

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 05:21 PM

Condoms have always had the two distinct roles, as contraceptive (birth cotrol) and a prophylactic (disease control). Only the use as a contraceptive has ever been proscribed by the Church.

Here is what one Jesuit has to say in an article worth looking at: I accept that the difference between a condom-as-contraceptive and a condom-as- prophylactic is real and that one may use a condom to prevent HIV transmission, allowing its contraceptive action, according to the Principle of Double Effect.

That is a completely different matter from the argument about how reliable they are as a method of preventing HIV transmission. And there does appear to be evidence that the level of risk is actually more significant than frequently claimed.

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: John Hardly
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 05:12 PM

"Ratzinger is a conservative, not a fundamentalist..."

So, which of the fundamentals do you think he doesn't believe or won't uphold? *WINK, WINK* *BG*

(you don't have to answer.....I'm just beating my drum)

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: GUEST,Joe Offer
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 04:49 PM

With regards to condoms, I still don't think I've seen any facts about the so-called Catholic "propaganda campaign" against condoms. There is a strong difference between a stated position on something, and an outright campaign. I will fully agree that there have been some downright stupid statements made by certain church leaders about the permeability of condoms, but I still see no evidence of a widespread campaign by the Catholic church against condoms. Frankly, I think that stubborn opposition to the Catholic Church on this issue simply serves to exaggerate the impact of the church's position - and that exaggeration serves to compound the impact of that position. And yeah, it's all done in the name of winning, not for the purpose of preventing AIDS.

What happens so often in all corners of our polarized world is that people target the extremists among their opponents and ignore the vast majority who are in the middle ground of the discussion of an issue. In fact, the tendency is to label the entire opposing side as "extremist," and to define the entire opposition as beings equally ridiculous as its extremist minority. Yes, there are conservative Catholic bishops and cardinals who take the Church's position to ridiculous extremes. It's foolhardy to even bother with them, because they will never change. Don't seek to do battle with the Catholic middle, either - the only solution is to seek common ground and a reasonable compromise that serves the aims of all concerned. the vast majority of Catholics and Catholic leaders are deeply concerned about AIDS and its horrible impact. They will be a valuable ally in the fight against AIDS, but not if they are dismissed as enemies because they do not buy the liberal party line hook, line, and sinker.

No, MMario, I don't think Ratzinger's conversion to conservatism is just a matter of loyalty to the "party line." I don't expect he'll turn into a wild-eyed liberal. I think most people tend to move toward the center or even to the right when they move into leadership positions. If you are an extreme progressive, you can't effectively lead an organization that is not equally progressive. Many of the liberal theologians who were silenced dealt in highly speculative theology that is simply beyond the understanding of Catholics who do not have advanced theological degrees. It's worthwhile stuff, but it IS hard to follow - and it is distressing to people who don't understand it. The "silencing" was the withdrawal of a theologian's license to teach in the name of the Catholic Church. this sometimes means the loss of a job, but most of the "silenced" theologians found teaching jobs elsewhere. But my pont is that you cannot be a speculative theologian and a church leader at the same time, because speculative theologians are in a realm that is beyond the comprehension of most mortals.

So, anyhow, I'm still hoping that this guy won't be as rigid as some think he will be.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 03:00 PM

Joe - you say he was considered a liberal until he took up the postition in the 80's - Are you implying that maybe his conservitive line since then was somewhat a matter of "upholding the party line"?

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 02:26 PM

No Joe, I don't think it has to do with winning when it comes to the position of the UN and other aid organizations, and the use of condoms as a means of preventing AIDs transmission.

See, that is where YOU don't seem to get the argument. The aid workers are saying that condoms aren't just used for birth control anymore--they are now also used to prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. That means that condoms have more than one single purpose, one which can save millions of lives of innocents. However, the church dogmatists refuse to accept that something that can be used for birth control can also be used to prevent the spread of a fatal disease killing millions of people, which is at the stage of a world-wide epidemic. Can you imagine if, say, the church said they wouldn't allow TB vaccines to be used? Same thing. We are talking about a public health epidemic here, like the flu, not "birth control".

There is no way that the necessary education and distribution systems can be set up for aid workers to educate about transmission and distribute condoms, without running headlong into the Catholic church's propaganda campaign spreading misinformation and outright lies about the transmission of the disease and the efficacy of condoms to prevent transmission. It really is that simple, and the intransigence of the church on this point has been well documented again and again by international aid authorities, organizations like the UN, WHO, etc.

Sometimes the church is just plain wrong. Now, if you are suggesting that the intransigent stance for winning sake is being taken by the church, then I'd agree with you.

But when it comes to the church's position on condom use, as far as I'm concerned, the Catholic church is guilty of committing crimes against humanity for the ways they are undermining the aid efforts in Africa and Asia in particular, where AIDs has exploded and reached epidemic levels in the past decade.

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: GUEST,Joe Offer
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 02:07 PM

John Allen's work is usually well-balanced, and I think his article on AIDS covers the matter quite well. Yes, there are people in the Catholic church who have some extreme ideas about condoms. Yes, the Catholic Church opposed the use of condoms as birth control devices. But if people wouldn't make an issue out of it and wouldn't try to push the Church into total acceptance and promotion of condoms, it wouldn't be an issue. The "Abstain, Be faithful, Use a Condom" (ABC) approach seems to be a pretty reasonable compromise.

I think sometimes people on both sides get too focused on winning that they forget what it is they are trying to accomplish. The goal here is to prevent AIDS and overpopulation, not to probe the Catholic Church is wrong and evil. There's a need to seek middle ground here, not to destroy the opposition.

Same with the abortion issue. The goal of the pro-choice movement is to reduce the number of unwanted babies, not to increase the number of abortions. The goal of the pro-life movement is to reduce the number of abortions, not to increase the number of unwanted babies. Each side has gotten bound up in seeking to defeat and destroy the other side, so no progress is made toward either of these laudable goals.

Another thought came to me last night. As Wilfried said above, Ratzinger is a conservative, not a fundamentalist. This may have some surprising results for Catholic fundamentalists. In what I consider a mistaken quest for unity, John Paul II tolerated and even appeared to encourage the flawed theology, judgmentalism, bigotry, and anti-intellectualism of the Catholic fundamentalists. The Catholic fundamentalists have spent a huge amount of money on media and propaganda, establishing universities and broadcasting networks to spread their distorted message. The fundamentalists have a stranglehold on Catholic broadcasting in the United States, and they have done much the same wherever there are Catholics. Ratzinger is an intellectual and a rigorous proponent of theology that is conventional but sound. He is not likely to tolerate the extremes of the Catholic fundamentalists, and this may have the surprising effect of giving the Catholics Church a much more moderate image than it currently has.

So, we'll wait and see.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 11:28 AM

And as to the protests at the UN Mission, here is an article from Act Up.

Some excerpts from National Catholic Reporter Online on the controversy:

"Catholic Aid Group Supports Condom Use
In an article written for the Tablet, a UK-based Catholic weekly, the HIV Corporate Strategist for the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, Ann Smith, elucidated a nuanced approach to
condom-use that is at odds with the church hierarchy's adamant opposition to their use, even in cases where a husband or wife is infected with HIV/AIDS.

Smith wrote, "Sadly, all too often the debate over HIV prevention has involved a contest between 'condom only' or 'abstinence/fidelity only' solutions. These have often been hijacked by political, religious or cultural agendas in turn fueled by mutual distrust and prejudices. A third, middle ground approach known as ABC, "Abstain, Be faithful, Use a Condom," has also emerged. But all three approaches often assume oversimplistic solutions for an idealized world in which all individuals are free to make empowered choices. This is not the reality for most people worldwide affected by HIV. CAFOD' s approach seeks to take into account the complex social, cultural and economic factors that influence behaviors and condition choices, most particularly (but not only) in countries of the South where the impact of AIDS has been disproportionately catastrophic."

The paper, originally presented at the XV World AIDS Conference in Bangkok, Thailand, during July 2004, drew criticism from conservative Catholics, but perhaps tellingly, the church hierarchy in the UK had nothing to say on the matter. Days after the article appeared, CAFOD issued a clarification that it did not "fund the supply, distribution or promotion of condoms."

And pardon the long cut and paste, but I could no longer get to this article through NCR Online, so I'm quoting it in it's entirety. It was written by John Allen, the Vatican reporter for NCR who you may have seen reporting for CNN these past few weeks.

Most Catholics I know involved in HIV/AIDS relief are frustrated with the endless public controversy over condoms: Whether they're rock-solid behind the church's traditional ban or think some flexibility is in order, they're virtually unanimous in believing that the condom debate has too often overshadowed the good work done by the Catholic church through its network of clinics, hospices, hospitals and AIDS education centers, above all in Africa.

Mexican Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, president of the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Health, is fond of saying that 27 percent of all AIDS relief in the world is run by the Catholic church. Complaints that the church has turned a blind eye to AIDS can't be sustained against this commitment, whether it's Sant'Egidio's DREAM project in Mozambique that gets antiretroviral drugs to the poorest of the poor, or the Nyumbani orphanage in Kenya that provides a loving home for 94 HIV-positive children.

Yet the condom issue shows no signs of going away, and this week brought fresh evidence of the tension it's creating within Roman Catholicism.

One came from Barragan himself, in an interview with Rome-based reporter Stacy Meichtry, who is preparing a story on the church and AIDS for an upcoming issue of NCR.

Barraghn's weariness with the topic was evident.

"I think by now we've said everything that's to be said regarding our position on condoms," he told Meichtry. "What we need to look at are comprehensive practices like those in Uganda which reduced AIDS infections through faithfulness and abstinence."

Yet Barragan opened the door slightly for a reevaluation of the blanket ban. while affirming that he opposes the distribution of condoms, because he believes it institutionalizes promiscuity, he said he finds condoms acceptable in social contexts where abstinence is not an option.

"If an infected husband wants to have sex with his wife who isn't infected, then she must defend herself by whatever means necessary," Barragan said. This position, he said, is consistent with the tenets of traditional Catholic moral theology, which teaches that acts of self-defense can extend to killing in order to not be killed.

"If a wife can defend herself from having sex by whatever means necessary, why not with a condom?" he said.

Barragan says this belief informs his decisions as head of the Council for Pastoral Health, but adds that his views are personal and do not speak for Pope John Paul II. "The Holy Father has never spoken explicitly on the subject," Barragan said.

The second indication of intra-Catholic ferment came from CAFOD, the leading Roman Catholic development agency. In a new position paper published in the Tablet, the agency, which comes under the aegis of the bishops of England and Wales, said anti-AIDS campaigns in the third world should be realistic and employ a range of methods.

"For many in Africa and Asia, sex is often the only commodity people have to exchange for food, school fees, exam results, employment or survival itself in situations-of violence," said the paper by Ann Smith, HIV corporate strategist at CAFOD.

"There are immense social and cultural pressures on poor men and women to conform to accepted stereotypes: There are economic pressures that result from the break-up of families as migrant workers spend months on end far from their spouse and family support, plunged into unbearably harsh working and living conditions by exploitative local or multi-national employers."

In such conditions, the paper suggested, condoms may be the least bad option, especially for social groups such as prostitutes with the highest risk of infection.

"Any strategy that enables a person to move from a higher-risk activity towards the lower end of the continuum, CAFOD believes, is a valid risk reduction strategy," the paper said.

Yet while some voices in the Catholic world are raising questions, others are reaffirming the traditional position.

One such voice belongs to Colombian Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, long an unapologetic critic of the use of condoms to respond to the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

In a paper titled "Family Values versus Safe Sex," released to the press this week, Lopez Trujillo writes: "Permeability and electric tests indicate that latex may allow passage of particles bigger than the HIV."

He even suggests that condoms should carry warnings of their potential dangers, like cigarettes.

[John L. Allen Jr. is NCR Rome correspondent. His e-mail address is [e-mail].]

The Word From Rome

In his Web column this week, Allen looks at fallout from clergy sex abuse in Ireland and Austria.

COPYRIGHT 2004 National Catholic Reporter
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 11:07 AM

Joe, here is an article from the Washington Post about the condom controversy in Africa.

And here is one from The Guardian

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 11:05 AM

That's a silly idea. He has that in common with 99% of his peers.

Probably a very good reason NOT to make any of them Pope...

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 10:17 AM

Ratsinger's childhood was shaped by the Hitler Youth program of which he was a member. (Donuel)

That's a silly idea. He has that in common with 99% of his peers. Some of them became conservatives, some reactionaries, some communists and some liberals. The son of one of the July 20th plotters against Hitler who hadas a young man seen his father shot by the Nazis became a very conservative man.

Much more shaping for Ratzinger may have been the fact that his father's career came to an end when he refused joining the Nazi party.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 09:58 AM

Ratsinger's childhood was shaped by the Hitler Youth program of which he was a member. (Donuel)

That's a silly idea. He has that in common with 99% of his peers. Some of them became conservatives, some reactionaries, some communists and some liberals. The son of one of the July 20th plotters against Hitler who hadas a young man seen his father shot by the Nazis became a very conservative man.

Much more shaping for Ratzinger may have been the fact that his father's career came to an end when he refused joining the Nazi party.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 09:08 AM

As the comic we get (not me mind you) in the UK called the "Sun" put it

Papa Ratzi