Self-Composed-Questionaire

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by GiGi

Whether or not protestantism is fortuitous is hardly a problem for me. I will not be punished, imprisoned, tortured, or killed because I refused to submit the religious authorities.
These self-appointed interpreters of scripture regularly reinterpret the text (albeit slowly) to reinvent itself in a way that allows it to survive in a modern world. The text they interpret has been doctored, and they know it.
Christianity has a pretty ugly history. Nearly all of it, and it's morality, has been discarded.
You can thank secularity, not God or Church, for the freedoms you enjoy. These freedoms have been extended to all races, religions, creeds, both men and women. It will soon protect ****sexuals in the same way.
You say what's important to you are the things the Church is in charge of. Well, that ain't much anymore. It's a good thing, imho.

I think we are talking on different planes. The Church ecclesiastic has seperate authorities. If a secular government wants to allign itself to the Christian Church because of the people's consent or the ruling cl***, that is upon them. Much of the supposed abuses you are alluding to are mostly from the secular government's fears of subversion. There are abuses by bad Catholics, and this only attests to the human condition that we need Christ. For all your ideals, there is not one person who is exempt from harming others in the name of progress. Since this is a Christian site, my focus should be on the Christian ethos as it is historically maintained in its teachings. Regardless of the errors of its members, it is the teaching authority that counts. If two athiests disagree with each other on any issue, it is based on a relative authority. If your own house is divided, it cannot stand; as the Church has split by Protestant denominationalism, those Churches' authority is based on a relativism that is inconsistent; when they adher to the fundamental and core teachings of the Catholic Church as the Trinity, Incarnation, the Resurrection and agree with its morals against ****sexual acts and against adultery... then it is because they understand the continuity of its teaching throughout history and essential to the Christian ethos.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I think we are talking on different planes. The Church ecclesiastic has seperate authorities. If a secular government wants to allign itself to the Christian Church because of the people's consent or the ruling cl***, that is upon them. Much of the supposed abuses you are alluding to are mostly from the secular government's fears of subversion. There are abuses by bad Catholics, and this only attests to the human condition that we need Christ. For all your ideals, there is not one person who is exempt from harming others in the name of progress. Since this is a Christian site, my focus should be on the Christian ethos as it is historically maintained in its teachings. Regardless of the errors of its members, it is the teaching authority that counts. If two athiests disagree with each other on any issue, it is based on a relative authority. If your own house is divided, it cannot stand; as the Church has split by Protestant denominationalism, those Churches' authority is based on a relativism that is inconsistent; when they adher to the fundamental and core teachings of the Catholic Church as the Trinity, Incarnation, the Resurrection and agree with its morals against ****sexual acts and against adultery... then it is because they understand the continuity of its teaching throughout history and essential to the Christian ethos.

This is, indeed, a Christian site, and distinctly not Catholic. By comparison, you may have almost as many differences of opinion with its founder as with me. Yet here we are.
Many of the abuses I mentioned occured under theocratic rule, and later in tight religious communities. Only with the ever decreasing need for gods, and the religions they insire, has real freedom emerged.
That Jews were guilty of deicide, African slaves were decended from Ham, and marriage between people of different races and religions should be forbidden, has been taught continuously throughout history. The Church follows, rather than leads, but grudgingly.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by GiGi

This is, indeed, a Christian site, and distinctly not Catholic. By comparison, you may have almost as many differences of opinion with its founder as with me. Yet here we are.
Many of the abuses I mentioned occured under theocratic rule, and later in tight religious communities. Only with the ever decreasing need for gods, and the religions they insire, has real freedom emerged.
That Jews were guilty of deicide, African slaves were decended from Ham, and marriage between people of different races and religions should be forbidden, has been taught continuously throughout history. The Church follows, rather than leads, but grudgingly.

If you want to make a case that Christianity is compatible with ****sexual acts, it is best to lead with evidence of the nature that comes from the leaders of the Church through a historical continuity. There were several popes and patriarches of the Catholic and Orthodox Church from which you can look through their encylicals, from influential bishops from which the Churches look to as the highest examples and canonizes them with the ***le Saints.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by Columcille

If you want to make a case that Christianity is compatible with ****sexual acts, it is best to lead with evidence of the nature that comes from the leaders of the Church through a historical continuity. There were several popes and patriarches of the Catholic and Orthodox Church from which you can look through their encylicals, from influential bishops from which the Churches look to as the highest examples and canonizes them with the ***le Saints.

****sexuality may or may not be compatible. I've studied both sides of the arguement and I think it is. Not that it matters.
Christianity is as flexible as it needs to be. Interracial marriages are performed in Catholic churches following a change in perspective. Wait and see; the Church will be forced to reinterpret scripture in a way that allows inclusion of same-sex couples.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by GiGi

****sexuality may or may not be compatible. I've studied both sides of the arguement and I think it is. Not that it matters.
Christianity is as flexible as it needs to be. Interracial marriages are performed in Catholic churches following a change in perspective. Wait and see; the Church will be forced to reinterpret scripture in a way that allows inclusion of same-sex couples.

Since almost two thousands years have past, I serously doubt it; but you are en***led to your opinion. I do not think "interracial marriages" is as big a problem, since there is precidence even with Mose marrying an Etheopian. Perhaps you are talking more about "interfaith marriages?" At any rate, I find it very difficult to make such equations where there is no equality between the two subjects as ****sexual unions and interracial marriages. There is no precidence for ****sexual marriages in the Church, only that we recognize that people struggle with the flesh... even heterosexuals lust and can lead them to fornication and adultery. ****sexual acts are prohibited in the Catholic Church and I find it very difficult for the Church to change its position when the Catechism is very direct on the matter.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Since almost two thousands years have past, I serously doubt it; but you are en***led to your opinion. I do not think "interracial marriages" is as big a problem, since there is precidence even with Mose marrying an Etheopian. Perhaps you are talking more about "interfaith marriages?" At any rate, I find it very difficult to make such equations where there is no equality between the two subjects as ****sexual unions and interracial marriages. There is no precidence for ****sexual marriages in the Church, only that we recognize that people struggle with the flesh... even heterosexuals lust and can lead them to fornication and adultery. ****sexual acts are prohibited in the Catholic Church and I find it very difficult for the Church to change its position when the Catechism is very direct on the matter.

I know that you are very knowledgable about the Church. I certainly am not.
I simply felt I needed to remind you that same-sex marriage will be recognized by all states in the relatively near future. I believe the Church will adjust its position eventually, as it has done regarding other issues it previously, strongly opposed.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by GiGi

I know that you are very knowledgable about the Church. I certainly am not.
I simply felt I needed to remind you that same-sex marriage will be recognized by all states in the relatively near future. I believe the Church will adjust its position eventually, as it has done regarding other issues it previously, strongly opposed.

Well, the only real positions I think you are referring to are position of the Episcopalian, Lutheran, and other Churches.

Let me think this out for you a little better:
Catholic Church teaches:

****sexual acts are sinful and defective... in the Catechism, has not changed its opinion.

Woman ordination... is not allowable... code of canon law sets out proceedings of excommunication toward the priests who attempt to give holy orders to woman and also to the woman themselves... =Catholic Church is in the stone age by current en vogue secular opinion.

Birth Control, media still gives us a lot of trouble with this one. We have not come around yet. Also there is an automatic excommunication to Catholics who procure an abortion per Code of Canon Law.

Slavery? Catholic Church has existed and tolerated with its reality with Pagan Rome, but has been against the notion of ownership as can be seen by Paul's letter to Philemon concerning Onesimus being treated as a brother and not a slave and as the Church has maintained throughout history condemning it during its heights of ins***ution in Europe and America, again tolerating its reality when the secular governments support it. You will be hard pressed to find an encyclical by a pope or patriarch of the Catholic/Orthodox Churches that specifically endorses it. In fact, here is a papal encyclical notworthy in its universal address and condemnation of slavery by Pope Paul III en***led "Sublimus Dei"
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm
Also by Pope Eugene IV en***led "Sicut Dudum" http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Euge...ene04sicut.htm. Also "In Supremo Apostlatus" by Pope Gregory XVI in 1839 and read in Baltimore no less. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16sup.htm

In matter unrelated to doctrine but of science, the Church's authority is not concerned. Its authority is on doctrine and morals, so I am sure you would probably make reference to Galileo or perhaps quote Aquinas' crackpot scientific notions about the movement of heavenly bodies in his Summa Theologia; of which there is nothing related to the formation of preexisting doctrine and morals.

[GiGi]

Many argue that there is no ****ogy to be made between the practice of slave ownership and unequal treatment of ****sexuals. I beg to differ.
The Church supported slavery - and gradually changed its position. As I said before, the Church follows. It doesn't lead.
Throughout recorded history people have used others as slaves. It existed in Jesus time, and when the NT was being written.
In the 4th century C.E. The Council of Gangra wrote in support of slavery and it became part of the Church's Canon law.
A lot was written by Catholic and Protestant leaders, for and against, before the Emancipation Proclimation in 1865. Pope Gregory XVI condemned "unjust" slavery; whatever that means!
It was 1866 when the Vatican issued a statement "Slavery is NOT CONTRARY to natural or divine law".
Sure, the Church opposes slavery now. My point to you is, the Church may be the last to give legitimacy to ****sexuals, but it will do so.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by GiGi

Many argue that there is no ****ogy to be made between the practice of slave ownership and unequal treatment of ****sexuals. I beg to differ.
The Church supported slavery - and gradually changed its position. As I said before, the Church follows. It doesn't lead.
Throughout recorded history people have used others as slaves. It existed in Jesus time, and when the NT was being written.
In the 4th century C.E. The Council of Gangra wrote in support of slavery and it became part of the Church's Canon law.
A lot was written by Catholic and Protestant leaders, for and against, before the Emancipation Proclimation in 1865. Pope Gregory XVI condemned "unjust" slavery; whatever that means!
It was 1866 when the Vatican issued a statement "Slavery is NOT CONTRARY to natural or divine law".
Sure, the Church opposes slavery now. My point to you is, the Church may be the last to give legitimacy to ****sexuals, but it will do so.

Just because slavery existed during Jesus time, does not mean Jesus endorsed it. You will have to back up your statements with support. I have given you the N.T. letter to Philemon by Paul, I have given you three papal encyclicals condemning slavery before the height slavery in America and in Europe. Did you not read it? The last Encyclical I gave you was outright condemning slavery in 1839 read in Boston. That is before 1866! You will have to support your statements with a work citation. Otherwise you are promoting prejudice of others who wish to character ***issinate with no regard to truthful information. If you don't understand Pope Gregory XVI, go to the encyclical I linked for context. But this is not related to ****sexuality, you don't seem to bring the comparisons around. How could you make a comparison when you don't even cite your sources?

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Just because slavery existed during Jesus time, does not mean Jesus endorsed it. You will have to back up your statements with support. I have given you the N.T. letter to Philemon by Paul, I have given you three papal encyclicals condemning slavery before the height slavery in America and in Europe. Did you not read it? The last Encyclical I gave you was outright condemning slavery in 1839 read in Boston. That is before 1866! You will have to support your statements with a work citation. Otherwise you are promoting prejudice of others who wish to character ***issinate with no regard to truthful information. If you don't understand Pope Gregory XVI, go to the encyclical I linked for context. But this is not related to ****sexuality, you don't seem to bring the comparisons around. How could you make a comparison when you don't even cite your sources?

Did I say Jesus endorsed slavery? The papal encycicals you gave were wishy-washy, vague, and worthless. I understand that Pope Gregory XVI opposed only slavery that he believed was unjust.
The Vatican finally issued a statement in 1965 - The Pastoral Cons***ution on the Church in the Modern World - that made its anti-slavery position more clear.
We can agree that was a good thing, however, it was too little, too late. It was also, in my own opinion, the begining of the end of Christianity. Rejection, by the Church, of p***ages in the bible that prescribe and regulate slavery cast doubt on the inerrant Word of God.
African slaves, and African Americans were enslaved, discriminated against, and marginalized while the Church endorsed, was silent, or failed to strongly oppose this - just like in the bible.
****sexuals are prosecuted, imprisoned, victimized, marginalized, and denied basic human rights - while the Church spouts scriptural support, is silent, or fails to strongly oppose it - just like in the bible.
There's your comparison. Take it or leave it. Only time will tell, and I expect you and I will be long gone before the Church re-writes history in its favor. Again.

[Columcille]

Time is no justification against principles. Jesus is the righteous judge, and the scriptures are very clear on ****sexual acts and the Church has always maintained it. You have not yet produced any context or citations. You are very confused about the Catholic Church indeed. Until you start presenting your slander with citations so it can be checked in context and testing its reliability as a primary or secondary source material, you remain promoting falsehoods. I saw nothing in your last post to substantiate the claim, and nothing will be forthcoming because your ideas are not from Catholic sources or from any historical record coming from the Vatican. Let us try this from the top, please present your citations.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Time is no justification against principles. Jesus is the righteous judge, and the scriptures are very clear on ****sexual acts and the Church has always maintained it. You have not yet produced any context or citations. You are very confused about the Catholic Church indeed. Until you start presenting your slander with citations so it can be checked in context and testing its reliability as a primary or secondary source material, you remain promoting falsehoods. I saw nothing in your last post to substantiate the claim, and nothing will be forthcoming because your ideas are not from Catholic sources or from any historical record coming from the Vatican. Let us try this from the top, please present your citations.

I didn't said the church ever condoned or accepted ****sexuality. I said it will. Read my posts.
Now you want slander with citations! Oh puleeez!
Are you still telling me that the Vatican has always opposed slavery? Why didn't they just say so? Why couch the message in ambiguity?

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by GiGi

I didn't said the church ever condoned or accepted ****sexuality. I said it will. Read my posts.
Now you want slander with citations! Oh puleeez!
Are you still telling me that the Vatican has always opposed slavery? Why didn't they just say so? Why couch the message in ambiguity?

I have given you some very good material in regards to the Church's opposition to slavery. I have given you three encyclicals. You have given me NONE. In my book, it is your accusation against the Catholic Church on slavery that needs to be researched and cited. You make a comparison as though it is common knowledge that the Catholic Church did this or that, that is a logical fallacy to make ***umptions that "everyone knows such and such to be true" when it is a popular propoganda campaign that seeks to discredit what it fears or dislikes. How can you even make a comparison as though the Catholic Church changed its moral position if you cannot even produce relevant and accurate information to substantiate your claims?

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I have given you some very good material in regards to the Church's opposition to slavery. I have given you three encyclicals. You have given me NONE. In my book, it is your accusation against the Catholic Church on slavery that needs to be researched and cited. You make a comparison as though it is common knowledge that the Catholic Church did this or that, that is a logical fallacy to make ***umptions that "everyone knows such and such to be true" when it is a popular propoganda campaign that seeks to discredit what it fears or dislikes. How can you even make a comparison as though the Catholic Church changed its moral position if you cannot even produce relevant and accurate information to substantiate your claims?

First of all, this thread is about ****sexuality, not slavery, but since I compared the controversy around slavery, and the slow, but eventual change in the Church's position, I will make one last post on the subject. With any luck, we can simply agree that there's more than one way to view this.
http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages...ts/slavery.pdf
Lest we forget, Pope Gregory IX support for the slave trade was incorporated into cannon law and Pope Gregory XI ordered that the Florentines be enslaved if captured.
Pope Martin V sanctioned the trade in African slaves (Bull 1441). 1454 Nicolos V wrote:
We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso – to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit...[78]

Look. We can go on like this forever. Fact is some abhored slavery (Pius II), others approved, still more remained neutral.

Now for women, ****sexuals, and other yucky folk:
http://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/

[Columcille]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM
The article from the same that you give in the PDF. I have stated before that the Church tolerated slavery due to the secular governments support. I believe Fr. Pantzer does address the problem very clearly. It must be remember from St. Paul's letter to Philemon that the slave's treatment was to be like that of family and not as animal or possessions since we are all "slaves" to Christ. Those that remained neutral more than likely faced hostility by the governments, and I have no doubt that open war was considered a greater evil than a rogue nation that sought to enslave others. There is a real balance to consider when it comes to the politicing of the Vatican and what the Vatican actually teaches. I have already found one problem with your (1441) bull. The Pope at that time was Pope Eugene IV. If he was a pope, he was an antipope. Which makes him not capable of ex cathedra pronouncements. Pope Nicolos V on the other hand is not making a treaty on slavery, but giving King Alfonso whatever means is necessary to preserve the Catholic territories from pagan influence. This is therefore not a doctrinal statement of endorsement of slavery, this is for "perpetual rememberance."
If you read the above encyclical, you would see the context of King Alfonso's progress.

Pope Nicolas V states:
Thence also many Guineamen and other negroes, taken by force, and some by barter of unprohibited articles, or by other lawful contract of purchase, have been sent to the said kingdoms. A large number of these have been converted to the Catholic faith, and it is hoped, by the help of divine mercy, that if such progress be continued with them, either those peoples will be converted to the faith or at least the souls of many of them will be gained for Christ.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by Columcille

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM
The article from the same that you give in the PDF. I have stated before that the Church tolerated slavery due to the secular governments support. I believe Fr. Pantzer does address the problem very clearly. It must be remember from St. Paul's letter to Philemon that the slave's treatment was to be like that of family and not as animal or possessions since we are all "slaves" to Christ. Those that remained neutral more than likely faced hostility by the governments, and I have no doubt that open war was considered a greater evil than a rogue nation that sought to enslave others. There is a real balance to consider when it comes to the politicing of the Vatican and what the Vatican actually teaches. I have already found one problem with your (1441) bull. The Pope at that time was Pope Eugene IV. If he was a pope, he was an antipope. Which makes him not capable of ex cathedra pronouncements. Pope Nicolos V on the other hand is not making a treaty on slavery, but giving King Alfonso whatever means is necessary to preserve the Catholic territories from pagan influence. This is therefore not a doctrinal statement of endorsement of slavery, this is for "perpetual rememberance."
If you read the above encyclical, you would see the context of King Alfonso's progress.

Pope Nicolas V states:
Thence also many Guineamen and other negroes, taken by force, and some by barter of unprohibited articles, or by other lawful contract of purchase, have been sent to the said kingdoms. A large number of these have been converted to the Catholic faith, and it is hoped, by the help of divine mercy, that if such progress be continued with them, either those peoples will be converted to the faith or at least the souls of many of them will be gained for Christ.

I hope I've shown that documents expressing anti-slavery sentiments were not as clear as they might have been had they included some unambiguous language; Don't import or export slaves. Don't buy slaves. Don't sell slaves. Don't own slaves. Don't support the people who do. No exceptions.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by GiGi

I hope I've shown that documents expressing anti-slavery sentiments were not as clear as they might have been had they included some unambiguous language; Don't import or export slaves. Don't buy slaves. Don't sell slaves. Don't own slaves. Don't support the people who do. No exceptions.

I think you haven't read it well enough what you did present. The father who wrote the article shows how the magesterium retained its authority on the matter on morality. This you overlooked trying to pin-point what you think were obvious objections, of which he answers.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I think you haven't read it well enough what you did present. The father who wrote the article shows how the magesterium retained its authority on the matter on morality. This you overlooked trying to pin-point what you think were obvious objections, of which he answers.

This ain't rocket science! If the Pope wants to say NO to slavery, just say it. Period. No B.S.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by GiGi

This ain't rocket science! If the Pope wants to say NO to slavery, just say it. Period. No B.S.

The problem with your conception is that it does not portray reality. When slavery is ins***uted openly, it is the fault of the secular government. As such, there are uneasy political agreements made due to the nature of secular power. So when Paul, who was an apostle... and very much as authoritative as any other patriarch and pope, says to Philemon to treat Onisemus as a brother, he was dealing with a reality of its ins***ution as the Pagan Empire enforced. I am sure that Sparticus was still a strong reminder to the Roman Empire. Personally I think you should watch a few Nazi movies to see the bravery of people like Sophie Scholl. When the Pope speaks out on topics concerning slavery, especially very forcefully put, it could be seen as interfering or undermining a secular authority, and if that secular authority deems to wage war... I do not think the Pope would be willing to attempt to start it. Seems to me the B.S. comes from too many wrong ***umptions about how the Catholic should operate according to your biases and submit to your sentiments.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by Columcille

The problem with your conception is that it does not portray reality. When slavery is ins***uted openly, it is the fault of the secular government. As such, there are uneasy political agreements made due to the nature of secular power. So when Paul, who was an apostle... and very much as authoritative as any other patriarch and pope, says to Philemon to treat Onisemus as a brother, he was dealing with a reality of its ins***ution as the Pagan Empire enforced. I am sure that Sparticus was still a strong reminder to the Roman Empire. Personally I think you should watch a few Nazi movies to see the bravery of people like Sophie Scholl. When the Pope speaks out on topics concerning slavery, especially very forcefully put, it could be seen as interfering or undermining a secular authority, and if that secular authority deems to wage war... I do not think the Pope would be willing to attempt to start it. Seems to me the B.S. comes from too many wrong ***umptions about how the Catholic should operate according to your biases and submit to your sentiments.

You say slavery is the fault of secular government, but I haven't attempted to blame anyone. That's beside the point.
We both know the Pope(s) couldn't make a clear anti-slavery statement, even if he wanted to. So, please stop pretending that he did!

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by GiGi

You say slavery is the fault of secular government, but I haven't attempted to blame anyone. That's beside the point.
We both know the Pope(s) couldn't make a clear anti-slavery statement, even if he wanted to. So, please stop pretending that he did!

You should reread what you cited. What has changed for the secular governments is in some part the Catholic Church's teaching to its laity. You should think that the Catholic Church is not some sort of secular political en***y that can stop evil in the world, it cannot. Evil is something from which is close to every one of us, you and I are not immune; your ideals could be just as high as ours, but regardless it does nothing to the corrupt human nature. You should give up trying to bash the Catholic Church, especially since you still are not good at citing your sources. The Father you quoted demonstrated well enough how it did not affect the teaching on doctrine and morals.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by Columcille

You should reread what you cited. What has changed for the secular governments is in some part the Catholic Church's teaching to its laity. You should think that the Catholic Church is not some sort of secular political en***y that can stop evil in the world, it cannot. Evil is something from which is close to every one of us, you and I are not immune; your ideals could be just as high as ours, but regardless it does nothing to the corrupt human nature. You should give up trying to bash the Catholic Church, especially since you still are not good at citing your sources. The Father you quoted demonstrated well enough how it did not affect the teaching on doctrine and morals.

You've got it backwards. The fact is, the church is willing to bend for secular government, and society in general, of which its members are a part.

Did I suggest the church could "stop evil"? I don't think I did! That's nonsense. It refused to stop pedophile preists!!! Just one more difficult situation the church didn't have enough backbone to stand up and face.
Moral teaching, my foot!

I wanted to show that the language your leadership employed was vague and ambiguous. It was difficult to interpret then, and is still discussed today, because it wasn't perfectly clear. You have offered excuses and I understand them. Those were tough times.

On the use of condoms: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_175623.html
Benedict also said the Roman Catholic Church was at the forefront of the battle against AIDS.
"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane heading to Yaounde. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

Would you care to explain to me how the use of condoms increases the spread of AIDS?

I'm not bashing the church. The Pope is already doing a fine ***.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by GiGi

I wanted to show that the language your leadership employed was vague and ambiguous. It was difficult to interpret then, and is still discussed today, because it wasn't perfectly clear. You have offered excuses and I understand them. Those were tough times.

On the use of condoms: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_175623.html
Benedict also said the Roman Catholic Church was at the forefront of the battle against AIDS.
"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane heading to Yaounde. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

Would you care to explain to me how the use of condoms increases the spread of AIDS?

The only real stop to the spread of AIDS is firstly, stop drug users from sharing needles; so perhaps abstinance of illegal drug use is better than handing out needles and telling people to go ahead and "shot up." The same goes for the other avenue of spreading AIDS by sexual impurity. Two virgins having a truly monogomous relationship is a sure way of not contacting AIDS, unless a person with AIDS rapes and victimizes one of them. Handing out condoms is the same as handing out needles... it only reinforces the behavior to continue in disrespecting the sanc***y of the body reducing the person's iden***y to a piece of meat or continuing in the enslavement of bad habits.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by Columcille

The only real stop to the spread of AIDS is firstly, stop drug users from sharing needles; so perhaps abstinance of illegal drug use is better than handing out needles and telling people to go ahead and "shot up." The same goes for the other avenue of spreading AIDS by sexual impurity. Two virgins having a truly monogomous relationship is a sure way of not contacting AIDS, unless a person with AIDS rapes and victimizes one of them. Handing out condoms is the same as handing out needles... it only reinforces the behavior to continue in disrespecting the sanc***y of the body reducing the person's iden***y to a piece of meat or continuing in the enslavement of bad habits.

Giving clean needles and bleach to addicts is not the same as saying 'shoot up'. The groups that provide these things also provide educational and resourse information. The needles and bleach may help keep some alive while they, and society work on addiction issues.
Your Pope says the best way to avoid sexually transmitted HIV is to remain abstinent until you marry a partner who is (somehow) guarenteed to be faithful and disease free. Anything less and you die!
On the one hand, you want us to remember that Popes had to deal with slavery in a world were slavery existed. You want us to understand that they couldn't realistically make definative anti-slavery statements.
On the other hand, you seem to accept the unwavering (and public) Catholic position against condom use.
Seems to me, the Church is not as comfortable in the livingroom as it is in the bedroom.

[TRiG]

Originally Posted by GiGi

Giving clean needles and bleach to addicts is not the same as saying 'shoot up'.

It's a strategy called "harm reduction". It works. In the real world.

TRiG.