The “current” crisis in the Catholic Church, has reminded me of an acquaintance I met years ago who at one time wanted to be a priest, but never pursued it (or if he did, he failed and was not letting on). Anyway, as I got to know him, he began to betray signs of odd personality traits, that made me a little wary of him, the clincher being his boasting of close personal relationships with Catholic hierarchy (a couple of bishops). Although he didn’t directly suggest a sexual relationship, he alluded to it, or at least allowed everyone to infer it (I’m not suggesting a pedophilic relationship as he was referring to recent relationships).

But something else struck me at the time that recently, with the Church reeling from its cover-up of sexual abuse, I have been reminded of. He suggested that the clergy were sort of like members of a secret society. Not necessarily a secret sexually deviant society (though not necessarily excluding it either), but they knew things about each other that kept each of them ‘in check’, as it were. I can only imagine that, where it maybe did not involve child sexual abuse, it involved affairs with married women (or men both married and single), or non-sexual illegal/improper activity, perhaps (drug use, financial dealings etc…). The upshot of all this (as this person inferred) was that Church seniors were compromised enough to be incapable of disciplining seriously aberrant priests, even if they had a mind to.

And, if reports of Papal depravity over the centuries are anything to go by, it’s nothing new.

But will the Vatican deal with this crisis appropriately? Probably not, (again) if history is anything to go by. The institution seems incapable of healing itself from within (or realizing the magnitude of the problem) until it’s too late.

Take the Protestant Reformation, for example. What exactly was the protest about in the first place? Answer, rampant corruption within the Catholic Church that ran right to the top. No one in the Vatican saw it coming then, even if it was patently obvious (notably) to German Princes and German Catholic clergy and half of Europe quickly after that. After the Vatican woke up it took centuries of wars to keep what was left of it together.

No, if history truly is anything to go by, the Pope, so utterly insulated from the real world through an institution that was handed the reigns of power by the Caesars themselves, will try to tough it out until, just like with the Reformation, the opportunity for timely healing and rehabilitation will be lost.

Well I do not doubt that there will be many secret cabals within the catholic church, I do not believe they would be as widespread, and as "open" a secret as the mysterious friend infers.
There are far too many good and decent people involved with the church who would never go along with some of the abhorrent behaviour we are talking about.

I can see how there could be powerful groups who do interfere in investigations and cover up stuff, but I think that the current pope is actually making a real effort to try and bring that behaviour to an end.

How successful he is to that end will be instructive in determining how great the resistance to reform within the organisation is.

for ever since i have head about the catholic church there has always been the jokes aout priests shagging alter boys.
every decade or so there are "new" revelations coming out and some shithead from the church gets up and says nothing and does nothing.

the church has hidden it all up for as long as I know.
they have done nothing to stop sexual abuse and everything to protect their own "church".

that's what i have seen from the catholic church for as long as i have known it.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 6^th, 2010 at 8:56am:

Well I do not doubt that there will be many secret cabals within the catholic church, I do not believe they would be as widespread, and as "open" a secret as the mysterious friend infers.

Yes, it's possible he was self-aggrandising and exaggerating his insider knowledge, but revelations about how aberrant clergy are moved in the US (and probably elsewhere) tends to corroborate his anecdotal evidence.

Also, the stories of loopholes the Church's lawyers sometimes exploit to get priests back into the community when out-of-court settlements include agreements that the offending priests not be trusted alone in a public role, further reinforce it.


mozzaok wrote on Apr 6^th, 2010 at 8:56am:

There are far too many good and decent people involved with the church who would never go along with some of the abhorrent behaviour we are talking about.

Of course there are. Interestingly in the US there are large numbers of laity who are keen to take the reins of Church administration from the clergy... And why not? After all, a church is about the congregation, not the clerical hierarchy.


mozzaok wrote on Apr 6^th, 2010 at 8:56am:

can see how there could be powerful groups who do interfere in investigations and cover up stuff, but I think that the current pope is actually making a real effort to try and bring that behaviour to an end. How successful he is to that end will be instructive in determining how great the resistance to reform within the organisation is.

Well, let's see. Usually the Papal instinct is to hunker down, with the most notable and noble recent exception to that being John XXIII, the jug-eared avuncular Pope who loved the world more than the Papacy.

I think a lot of the problems arise from the celibacy requirements for Catholic priests.

A lot of (particularly younger men) becoming priests would be under enormous strain as a result of this. Just because they are priests doesn't mean that they don't have raging hormones like most younger people.

Apart from that it must be a very lonely life for them. Many people just  need a warm intimate relationship where they have somebody to care for them, like a wife or girlfriend. If they don't have that, they crave for more and more sex, and never really get the fulfilment that they would from a normal relationship. The result is clandestine liaisons which leave them feeling guilty and unsatisfied.  

Of course I don't defend paedophiles who might become clergy in order to gain access to children.

The Catholic Church needs to adopt some modern psych testing to screen applicants for the priesthood.  The unnatural lifestyle  may suit some people, but not all.    

Quote:

Take the Protestant Reformation, for example. What exactly was the protest about in the first place? Answer, rampant corruption within the Catholic Church that ran right to the top. No one in the Vatican saw it coming then, even if it was patently obvious (notably) to German Princes and German Catholic clergy and half of Europe quickly after that. After the Vatican woke up it took centuries of wars to keep what was left of it together.

...and after that "decentralisation" Christianity spread around the world more then ever.

tallowood wrote on Apr 6^th, 2010 at 11:07am:

Quote: Take the Protestant Reformation, for example. What exactly was the protest about in the first place? Answer, rampant corruption within the Catholic Church that ran right to the top. No one in the Vatican saw it coming then, even if it was patently obvious (notably) to German Princes and German Catholic clergy and half of Europe quickly after that. After the Vatican woke up it took centuries of wars to keep what was left of it together. ...and after that "decentralisation" Christianity spread around the world more then ever.

The spread of Christianity out of Europe had nothing to do with the Reformation but with Empire.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 6^th, 2010 at 11:11am:

tallowood wrote on Apr 6th, 2010 at 11:07am: ...and after that "decentralisation" Christianity spread around the world more then ever. The spread of Christianity out of Europe had nothing to do with the Reformation but with Empire.

But it had, competition provided more different flavours with appeal to  broader audience.

tallowood wrote on Apr 6^th, 2010 at 11:18am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 6th, 2010 at 11:11am: tallowood wrote on Apr 6th, 2010 at 11:07am: ...and after that "decentralisation" Christianity spread around the world more then ever. The spread of Christianity out of Europe had nothing to do with the Reformation but with Empire. But it had, competition provided more different flavours with appeal to  broader audience.

The audience in Europe were already Christian. The audience in the new world and Asia didn't know Christianity at all, so were not in a position to determine which 'flavour' they preferred. Besides the Christianity acceptable in any given new world geographic region depended on the respective empires' religious 'flavour'. Catholicism in South America due to the Spanish and Portuguese Empires and Protestantism in North America due to the English/British Empire.

Given the bloody wars fought between Protestants and Catholics, their peaceful co-existence side by side anywhere in the new world was impossible for hundreds of years.

It seems the Chinese were not impressed with a religious foreign import no matter what the 'flavour'.

Well, it is like opening a new store in town. If a store provide only one product it would not be as successful as a store that provide many.


Quote:

Christianity in China is a growing minority religion that comprises Protestants (called Jī dū jiào, or Christ Religion), Catholics ( Tian zhu jiao, or Lord of Heaven Religion), and a small number of Orthodox Christians. Although its lineage in China is not as ancient as beliefs such as Confucianism, Taoism, or Mahayana Buddhism, Christianity has existed in China since at least the seventh century and has gained influence over the past 200 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_China

tallowood wrote on Apr 6^th, 2010 at 11:48am:

Well, it is like opening a new store in town. If a store provide only one product it would not be as successful as a store that provide many. Quote: Christianity in China is a growing minority religion that comprises Protestants (called Jī dū jiào, or Christ Religion), Catholics ( Tian zhu jiao, or Lord of Heaven Religion), and a small number of Orthodox Christians. Although its lineage in China is not as ancient as beliefs such as Confucianism, Taoism, or Mahayana Buddhism, Christianity has existed in China since at least the seventh century and has gained influence over the past 200 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_China

Gee, largely forced trading by the likes of the British and the Portuguese wouldn't have accounted for that now would it? And what's the bet it was mostly confined to ports like Hong Kong and Macau.

But its true that Christianity is growing in China today.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 6^th, 2010 at 11:55am:

tallowood wrote on Apr 6th, 2010 at 11:48am: Well, it is like opening a new store in town. If a store provide only one product it would not be as successful as a store that provide many. Quote: Christianity in China is a growing minority religion that comprises Protestants (called Jī dū jiào, or Christ Religion), Catholics ( Tian zhu jiao, or Lord of Heaven Religion), and a small number of Orthodox Christians. Although its lineage in China is not as ancient as beliefs such as Confucianism, Taoism, or Mahayana Buddhism, Christianity has existed in China since at least the seventh century and has gained influence over the past 200 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_China Gee, largely forced trading by the likes of the British and the Portuguese wouldn't have accounted for that now would it? And what's the bet it was mostly confined to ports like Hong Kong and Macau. But its true that Christianity is growing in China today.

Yes, trade facilitated the work of missionaries but the reformation in Europe was the reason for competition among different denominations.

So, what's up with the Catholic Church?

1/ The belief in Papal infalibility.

Good point Grendel, the fact that so many from within the church do not strictly adhere to all papal edicts indicates a significant proportion struggle with literal interpretations of dogma from anyone, including the popes.

The whole, "God directly told me" argument does not even fly with those clergy who claim adherence to all church dogma, when it does not coincide with their own personal interpretation of religious laws.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 6^th, 2010 at 12:36pm:

Good point Grendel, the fact that so many from within the church do not strictly adhere to all papal edicts indicates a significant proportion struggle with literal interpretations of dogma from anyone, including the popes. The whole, "God directly told me" argument does not even fly with those clergy who claim adherence to all church dogma, when it does not coincide with their own personal interpretation of religious laws.

Papal Infallibility is exercised only on very rare occasions and only twice in the last 146 years.

What would be more useful would be abolition of Papal Primacy.

tallowood wrote on Apr 6^th, 2010 at 12:05pm:

Yes, trade facilitated the work of missionaries but the reformation in Europe was the reason for competition among different denominations.

You can be sure the Catholic Church was zealous in the extreme in its imposition of Christianity into the new world. Queen Isabella insisted that her financing of expeditions to the new world would include the conversion of any non-Christians encountered... And by god, the Conquistadors were true to that request.

Papal infalibility is a 24 hour a day 365 days a year belief.  Not just a pronouncement.  Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error.  This is how most Catholics see it.

It is in contradiction to all reason and logic that the Pope "being Christ"s representative on Earth" as held by most Catholics, is permitted to be wrong and be a sinner yet anything he says regarding doctrine be seen as infalible.

Grendel wrote on Apr 6^th, 2010 at 2:20pm:

Papal infalibility is a 24 hour a day 365 days a year belief.  Not just a pronouncement.  Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error.  This is how most Catholics see it. It is in contradiction to all reason and logic that the Pope "being Christ"s representative on Earth" as held by most Catholics, is permitted to be wrong and be a sinner yet anything he says regarding doctrine be seen as infalible.

All true. However, if you transfer primacy of the Pope to be contingent on ratification by the college of cardinals at every ex cathedra pronouncement, infallibility would effectively then be transferred by that to the College of Cardinals. The college could perhaps also include the Eastern Patriarchs should they so decide to reunite with the West (as the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is the single most serious obstacle to reunion with the East).

mozzaok wrote on Apr 6^th, 2010 at 12:36pm:

Good point Grendel, the fact that so many from within the church do not strictly adhere to all papal edicts indicates a significant proportion struggle with literal interpretations of dogma from anyone, including the popes. The whole, "God directly told me" argument does not even fly with those clergy who claim adherence to all church dogma, when it does not coincide with their own personal interpretation of religious laws.

Knowing a few Catholics, I think the fact that very few of them take their religion literally is actually one of the strengths of Catholicism. While they have their oddball weirdos like Opus Dei, let's face it most Catholics are just regular people.  

A few years ago, I remember asking a priest at St Peters in the Vatican City how to get to the Sistine Chapel.  He was probably at St Peters to take confessionals, but the look of dismay only lasted for a split second and he was really helpful once he realised that I was just an ignorant tourist.

The Catholics may have their share of scandals, but it has become one of the most tolerant and ecumenical of all world religions.

You just have to compare them to the new breed of Evangelicals to see that.

muso wrote on Apr 6^th, 2010 at 3:23pm:

The Catholics may have their share of scandals, but it has become one of the most tolerant and ecumenical of all world religions.

Just don't mention condoms for Africans.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 6^th, 2010 at 3:27pm:

muso wrote on Apr 6th, 2010 at 3:23pm: The Catholics may have their share of scandals, but it has become one of the most tolerant and ecumenical of all world religions. Just don't mention condoms for Africans.

Atheistic ussr supplied not condoms but ak47s, which of course is more efficient way to control population grows in Africa.

tallowood wrote on Apr 6^th, 2010 at 9:15pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 6th, 2010 at 3:27pm: muso wrote on Apr 6th, 2010 at 3:23pm: The Catholics may have their share of scandals, but it has become one of the most tolerant and ecumenical of all world religions. Just don't mention condoms for Africans. Atheistic ussr supplied not condoms but ak47s, which of course is more efficient way to control population grows in Africa.

Mikhail Kalashnikov is Russian Orthodox.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 6^th, 2010 at 3:27pm:

muso wrote on Apr 6th, 2010 at 3:23pm: The Catholics may have their share of scandals, but it has become one of the most tolerant and ecumenical of all world religions. Just don't mention condoms for Africans.

Despite what people say, it's one of these catholic things that nobody takes any notice of.  I mean they also forbid sex outside marriage - try telling that to most Sub-Saharan Africans.

muso wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 7:16am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 6th, 2010 at 3:27pm: muso wrote on Apr 6th, 2010 at 3:23pm: The Catholics may have their share of scandals, but it has become one of the most tolerant and ecumenical of all world religions. Just don't mention condoms for Africans. Despite what people say, it's one of these catholic things that nobody takes any notice of.  I mean they also forbid sex outside marriage - try telling that to most Sub-Saharan Africans.

That's a bit like comparing it to a doddery old great-Uncle whom no one minds having around, because he's irrelevant.

The thing is, the Catholic Church has considerable political and social influence in Africa and when it comes to the eminently reasonable practise of using condoms to at least restrict the spread of fatal diseases, you can bet the church uses that influence to promote its 'every sperm is sacred' doctrine by any means available, no doubt including leaving unchallenged superstitious and ignorant beliefs about the use of condoms. Not for the greater good of the African people, but in the interests of its own doctrine no matter what the cost in lives and health.

So, yes, the church is tolerant... Tolerant of heaping more misery on poor Africans.

Quote:

I think a lot of the problems arise from the celibacy requirements for Catholic priests. A lot of (particularly younger men) becoming priests would be under enormous strain as a result of this. Just because they are priests doesn't mean that they don't have raging hormones like most younger people.

I agree that a large part of the problem is that they see themselves as being above us mere mortals and able to tap into supernatural forces which (they erroneously think) enables them to be in control of all human conditions.
They've displayed this well enough over the years by their arrogant denial that the clergy is to blame for any wrongdoings. And still they see themselves as being above humanity.

Another factor that I can see, is that people with these tendancies tend to gravitate to positions which enable them to fulfill their most sordid desires. The same ocurrs amongst scout leaders, teachers, etc. where they can expect to be in contact with their desire on a regular basis.

So the question begs. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
IMO, maybe a bit of both, or one or the other. However, I'd very much lean towards them having these tendencies in the first place.
A hetrosexual person doesn't become gay because they frequent gay bars. Gay people frequent gay bars because they have been born gay.
Similarly, some of the clergy would have gravitated there in the hope of fulfilling their innermost sexual desires (that's a bit Freaudian isn't it?), because the church is an easy target. It's simple to "fake it" within a church, because everybody else is faking it also.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 7:39am:

muso wrote on Apr 7th, 2010 at 7:16am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 6th, 2010 at 3:27pm: muso wrote on Apr 6th, 2010 at 3:23pm: The Catholics may have their share of scandals, but it has become one of the most tolerant and ecumenical of all world religions. Just don't mention condoms for Africans. Despite what people say, it's one of these catholic things that nobody takes any notice of.  I mean they also forbid sex outside marriage - try telling that to most Sub-Saharan Africans. That's a bit like comparing it to a doddery old great-Uncle whom no one minds having around, because he's irrelevant. The thing is, the Catholic Church has considerable political and social influence in Africa and when it comes to the eminently reasonable practise of using condoms to at least restrict the spread of fatal diseases, you can bet the church uses that influence to promote its 'every sperm is sacred' doctrine by any means available, no doubt including leaving unchallenged superstitious and ignorant beliefs about the use of condoms. Not for the greater good of the African people, but in the interests of its own doctrine no matter what the cost in lives and health. So, yes, the church is tolerant... Tolerant of heaping more misery on poor Africans.

That's an argument Philip Adams would be proud of...

Why don't those impressionable Africans heed the other, more pertinent teaching of the Church they supposedly look up to so much: " keep your d!cks in your trousers outside marriage, you randy little fvckers!" (I quote from memory)

Soren wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 8:02am:

That's an argument Philip Adams would be proud of... Why don't those impressionable Africans heed the other, more pertinent teaching of the Church they supposedly look up to so much: " keep your d!cks in your trousers outside marriage, you randy little fvckers!" (I quote from memory)

And which is the greater evil? The 'wrongness' of consensual sex among adults (which will happen whether or not your doddery old great-Uncle approves) or the unchecked spread of fatal diseases.

The spread and incidence of AIDS and hepatitis in Australia were greatly reduced by making hypodermic syringes easily and cheaply available. Of course, the Catholic Church condemns this policy because it's 'immoral'. Thank god no one in Australia really cares what keeps Cardinal Pell up at night (unless its the aberrant priest he keeps hidden under the bed).

Quote:

That's an argument Philip Adams would be proud of... Why don't those impressionable Africans heed the other, more pertinent teaching of the Church they supposedly look up to so much: " keep your d!cks in your trousers outside marriage, you randy little fvckers!" (I quote from memory)

Oh well, "randy" is not a bad feeling, and not a bad result if it is directed properly.
It seems that the keepers of "rand" have always had trouble with their direction.

muso wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 7:14am:

tallowood wrote on Apr 6th, 2010 at 9:15pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 6th, 2010 at 3:27pm: muso wrote on Apr 6th, 2010 at 3:23pm: The Catholics may have their share of scandals, but it has become one of the most tolerant and ecumenical of all world religions. Just don't mention condoms for Africans. Atheistic ussr supplied not condoms but ak47s, which of course is more efficient way to control population grows in Africa. Mikhail Kalashnikov is Russian Orthodox.

He is now but he was an atheist when he designed ak47.

tallowood wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 9:34am:

muso wrote on Apr 7th, 2010 at 7:14am: tallowood wrote on Apr 6th, 2010 at 9:15pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 6th, 2010 at 3:27pm: muso wrote on Apr 6th, 2010 at 3:23pm: The Catholics may have their share of scandals, but it has become one of the most tolerant and ecumenical of all world religions. Just don't mention condoms for Africans. Atheistic ussr supplied not condoms but ak47s, which of course is more efficient way to control population grows in Africa. Mikhail Kalashnikov is Russian Orthodox. He is now but he was an atheist when he designed ak47.

Are you sure about that?  Back in the days of Stalin, they hid their religion.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 7:39am:

muso wrote on Apr 7th, 2010 at 7:16am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 6th, 2010 at 3:27pm: muso wrote on Apr 6th, 2010 at 3:23pm: The Catholics may have their share of scandals, but it has become one of the most tolerant and ecumenical of all world religions. Just don't mention condoms for Africans. Despite what people say, it's one of these catholic things that nobody takes any notice of.  I mean they also forbid sex outside marriage - try telling that to most Sub-Saharan Africans. That's a bit like comparing it to a doddery old great-Uncle whom no one minds having around, because he's irrelevant. The thing is, the Catholic Church has considerable political and social influence in Africa and when it comes to the eminently reasonable practise of using condoms to at least restrict the spread of fatal diseases, you can bet the church uses that influence to promote its 'every sperm is sacred' doctrine by any means available, no doubt including leaving unchallenged superstitious and ignorant beliefs about the use of condoms. Not for the greater good of the African people, but in the interests of its own doctrine no matter what the cost in lives and health. So, yes, the church is tolerant... Tolerant of heaping more misery on poor Africans.

It doesn't work that way in practice. Even the local Catholic Church backs the use of condoms, and surprise surprise, so do the Muslims. If you can read French, here is an interesting story:

http://www.afrik.com/article17696.html

The Headline reads - AIDS - Ghanaian Cardinal advises the use of condoms in Africa.

The Catholic church does not have any campaign to limit the use of condoms in Africa. It's just atheist propaganda.

muso wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 10:12am:

The Headline reads - AIDS - Ghanaian Cardinal advises the use of condoms in Africa. The Catholic church does not have any campaign to limit the use of condoms in Africa. It's just atheist propaganda.

Interesting... So the Ghanaian Cardinal is not in communion with the Holy See?

muso wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 10:12am:

The Catholic church does not have any campaign to limit the use of condoms in Africa. It's just atheist propaganda.

That's bullshit Muso and if you don't know its bullshit, then you should.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 10:44am:

muso wrote on Apr 7th, 2010 at 10:12am: The Catholic church does not have any campaign to limit the use of condoms in Africa. It's just atheist propaganda. That's bullshit Muso and if you don't know its bullshit, then you should.

Well considering that the campaigns to use condoms are driven by the various Health Departments and that the health departments (say in Guinea for example) is dominated by the (local) church, I think it's hardly likely.

Condoms interfere with the process of evolution.

tallowood wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 11:31am:

Condoms interfere with the process of evolution.

Medicine interferes with the process of evolution.

muso wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 12:33pm:

tallowood wrote on Apr 7th, 2010 at 11:31am: Condoms interfere with the process of evolution. Medicine interferes with the process of evolution.

Medicine and condoms are good while evolution is bad?

tallowood wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 3:03pm:

muso wrote on Apr 7th, 2010 at 12:33pm: tallowood wrote on Apr 7th, 2010 at 11:31am: Condoms interfere with the process of evolution. Medicine interferes with the process of evolution. Medicine and condoms are good while evolution is bad?

Medicine is good when you get the evolution of bad gases from volcanoes.

Condoms are good unless you get sand in them Q. What do you call sand in a condom? A. An organ grinder.

muso wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 3:21pm:

tallowood wrote on Apr 7th, 2010 at 3:03pm: muso wrote on Apr 7th, 2010 at 12:33pm: tallowood wrote on Apr 7th, 2010 at 11:31am: Condoms interfere with the process of evolution. Medicine interferes with the process of evolution. Medicine and condoms are good while evolution is bad? Medicine is good when you get the evolution of bad gases from volcanoes. Condoms are good unless you get sand in them Q. What do you call sand in a condom? A. An organ grinder.

Ok, evolution is bad.

muso wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 11:09am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 7th, 2010 at 10:44am: muso wrote on Apr 7th, 2010 at 10:12am: The Catholic church does not have any campaign to limit the use of condoms in Africa. It's just atheist propaganda. That's bullshit Muso and if you don't know its bullshit, then you should. Well considering that the campaigns to use condoms are driven by the various Health Departments and that the health departments (say in Guinea for example) is dominated by the (local) church, I think it's hardly likely.

Is it hardly likely? What if local Catholics decide submission to the Holy See takes precedence over Health Department instructions... What advice would health workers of that mindset offer their clients? Would they challenge aversion to the use of condoms?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 3:31pm:

muso wrote on Apr 7th, 2010 at 11:09am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 7th, 2010 at 10:44am: muso wrote on Apr 7th, 2010 at 10:12am: The Catholic church does not have any campaign to limit the use of condoms in Africa. It's just atheist propaganda. That's bullshit Muso and if you don't know its bullshit, then you should. Well considering that the campaigns to use condoms are driven by the various Health Departments and that the health departments (say in Guinea for example) is dominated by the (local) church, I think it's hardly likely. Is it hardly likely? What if local Catholics decide submission to the Holy See takes precedence over Health Department instructions... What advice would health workers of that mindset offer their clients? Would they challenge aversion to the use of condoms?

In those countries in West Africa that I've visited (Guinea and Côte d'Ivoire) which have  a sizeable Catholic influence, the reality is that they not only promote condom use, but there are signs and posters on highways and in clinics promoting condom use.  The result has been that in most of West Africa, the burden of AIDS has not been so great. Public Education has largely been successful.

In fact, even largely Muslim Mali and Senegal promote condom use.

In practice, even the Bishops turn a blind eye to it although they might make all the right noises for the Vatican.

What you think Roman Catholic Health workers in Australia would do?  

muso wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 5:51pm:

In those countries in West Africa that I've visited (Guinea and Côte d'Ivoire) which have  a sizeable Catholic influence, the reality is that they not only promote condom use, but there are signs and posters on highways and in clinics promoting condom use.  The result has been that in most of West Africa, the burden of AIDS has not been so great. Public Education has largely been successful. In fact, even largely Muslim Mali and Senegal promote condom use. In practice, even the Bishops turn a blind eye to it although they might make all the right noises for the Vatican.

I'm sure their Dioceses' Bishops didn't place those signs.

It indicates that the Holy See has no business having an opinion on condom use. The Vatican should remain silent on condom use.


muso wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 5:51pm:

What you think Roman Catholic Health workers in Australia would do?

That's a good question. Even more reason for the Vatican to choose silence on the issue, i.e. not risk a bad health practise being advised/unchallenged or put an ardent Catholic in the position of having to choose between obedience to the Holy See and their good conscience on the matter.

Even more contentious and intractable by far is the issue of abortion and the pill.

I know of an ultra-ardent Catholic family that would not allow their slightly retarded daughter to take contraceptives... The inevitable result being pregnancy. After that they did not allow her to have an abortion... The result being a child she she was not mentally capable of looking after. Would they entertain the option of adoption? Well, here's where the irony kicked in... They let her make that decision for herself! The result being? Maternal instinct kicked in and she wanted to keep the baby. The net result? The grandparents ultimately took legal custody of the child, because by the time she'd fumbled her way through motherhood the child was nearly 4 years old, at an age where adoption would have been traumatic.

Of course there's no cure for congenital stupidity... And even less for congenital religious stupidity.

You talk as if the birth and life of that now 4 year old is a disaster and as if his/her abortion would have solved whatever you are trying to demonstrate with this tale. You do not mention that there is anything wring with the child so I think it is a story AGAINST abortion.

So now we have a not-quite-so-influential Catholic church in Africa being blamed for the randy fvckers' lack of regard for their own and each other's well-being, and now a story about how abortion does not solve anything.
Keep going, H.

Soren wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 11:38pm:

You talk as if the birth and life of that now 4 year old is a disaster and as if his/her abortion would have solved whatever you are trying to demonstrate with this tale. You do not mention that there is anything wring with the child so I think it is a story AGAINST abortion.

The point is about the unnecessary suffering that their slightly retarded daughter was put through from which simple contraception could have spared her (and she went through hell and put the child through hell because she was not intellectually and emotionally capable of looking after a budgie let alone a child). The paramount issue as far as the parents were concerned was that contraception was sinful because the Church said it was and no amount of reasoning from other family members was going to change their mind.


Soren wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 11:38pm:

So now we have a not-quite-so-influential Catholic church in Africa being blamed for the randy fvckers' lack of regard for their own and each other's well-being, and now a story about how abortion does not solve anything. Keep going, H.

It’s interesting that you try to deflect focus on the stupidity of the church’s position on condom use by referring to Africans as being ‘randy fvckers’, as if pre/extra-marital sex is the point to the church’s preaching against condoms.

The church’s position on contraception is that it is sinful… Regardless of marital status.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 8^th, 2010 at 12:02am:

The church’s position on contraception is that it is sinful… Regardless of marital status.

The church's position is that Catholics shouldn't have premarital sex, and that they should actually get married if they have kids.  

The church's position on priests is that they should be celibate.
The priests positions vary from missionary to whatever.  ;D

Now if any of this nonsense happened in Islam, they'd have their bits cut off.

Do you think it's reasonable that stupid regulations get ignored by the Catholic population at large? - or that Catholic clergy are so good at turning the blind eye to such widespread flouting of the rules? Personally I think it's a good thing.

The Pope is Catholic :o . That means that he has to stick to the rules. There are some things he just can't change.  I guess he could pretend that he heard voices from heaven that told him otherwise, but none of the Cardinals would believe that kind of nonsense. I doubt if the RC hierarchy has made any contingency for divine intervention.

My point is that it is nonsensical, because contradictory, to assign responsibility to the church for the spread of AIDS in Africa. Either the Church is influential - and so people would heed its teaching about sex outside marriage - or it is not influential, in which case not only is its teaching on extramarital sex ignoired but also its teaching on condoms.

Afriacans can't blame the church for their own selective weaknesses . As usual, they are their own victims, and as usual, they want to blame someone else.

Soren wrote on Apr 8^th, 2010 at 11:01am:

My point is that it is nonsensical, because contradictory, to assign responsibility to the church for the spread of AIDS in Africa. Either the Church is influential - and so people would heed its teaching about sex outside marriage - or it is not influential, in which case not only is its teaching on extramarital sex ignoired but also its teaching on condoms. Afriacans can't blame the church for their own selective weaknesses . As usual, they are their own victims, and as usual, they want to blame someone else.

Just one slight problem with your logic, the wearing of condoms is not a practise that many people prefer for contraception (an attitude already reinforced by false and superstitious beliefs about their being dangerous), despite their obvious health benefits, making the job of Health authorities hard enough to educate a population on their use.

The church exacerbates this problem because it reinforces this reluctance by adding a moral dimension to the act of wearing a condom (not to pre-marital sex itself which is not the point of Church doctrine on contraception). It is not acceptable according to the church to use a condom even for birth control. Far better, the Vatican believes, to fill the world with unwanted children than take a more responsible approach.

The Vatican could choose silence on the matter rather than make this an issue of morality.

muso wrote on Apr 8^th, 2010 at 9:54am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 8th, 2010 at 12:02am: The church’s position on contraception is that it is sinful… Regardless of marital status. The church's position is that Catholics shouldn't have premarital sex, and that they should actually get married if they have kids.   The church's position on priests is that they should be celibate. The priests positions vary from missionary to whatever.  ;D Now if any of this nonsense happened in Islam, they'd have their bits cut off. Do you think it's reasonable that stupid regulations get ignored by the Catholic population at large? - or that Catholic clergy are so good at turning the blind eye to such widespread flouting of the rules? Personally I think it's a good thing. The Pope is Catholic :o . That means that he has to stick to the rules. There are some things he just can't change.  I guess he could pretend that he heard voices from heaven that told him otherwise, but none of the Cardinals would believe that kind of nonsense. I doubt if the RC hierarchy has made any contingency for divine intervention.

Muso, educate yourself on Church doctrine regarding contraception for birth control.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 8^th, 2010 at 11:15am:

muso wrote on Apr 8th, 2010 at 9:54am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 8th, 2010 at 12:02am: The church’s position on contraception is that it is sinful… Regardless of marital status. The church's position is that Catholics shouldn't have premarital sex, and that they should actually get married if they have kids.   The church's position on priests is that they should be celibate. The priests positions vary from missionary to whatever.  ;D Now if any of this nonsense happened in Islam, they'd have their bits cut off. Do you think it's reasonable that stupid regulations get ignored by the Catholic population at large? - or that Catholic clergy are so good at turning the blind eye to such widespread flouting of the rules? Personally I think it's a good thing. The Pope is Catholic :o . That means that he has to stick to the rules. There are some things he just can't change.  I guess he could pretend that he heard voices from heaven that told him otherwise, but none of the Cardinals would believe that kind of nonsense. I doubt if the RC hierarchy has made any contingency for divine intervention. Muso, educate yourself on Church doctrine regarding contraception for birth control.

I'm married to a Catholic. After 25 years, I think I should understand it by now.

All I'm saying is that a large majority of Australian Catholics don't really follow their religion.

muso wrote on Apr 8^th, 2010 at 2:55pm:

I'm married to a Catholic. After 25 years, I think I should understand it by now. All I'm saying is that a large majority of Australian Catholics don't really follow their religion.

Fair enough... It was a little presumptuous of me.

The fact that a large majority of Catholics don't really follow their religion particularly regarding the Vatican's stand on birth control is because there is nothing immoral about controlling pregnancy... In fact it is the moral thing to do when a couple decide they cannot offer the child their fullest commitment to its life, for whatever reason, economic, emotional or psychological.

If Catholic clergy were less terrified of sex and less obsessed with "mother", maybe they too would see that obvious fact.

The Catholic church has been very influential in preventing foreign aid being spent on familiy planning clinics that teach anything other than it's doctrine. In other words, they have blocked sound, unbiased health advice which would have been offered for free. They reinforce the treatment of women as baby factories.