Two Questions for the RC's of the board about the Pope Emeritus

[blackrock13]

George puts religion in perspective.

It's amazing how often Carlin is quoted in threads on religion. As funny as he was, one of my favourites, he was a comedian. Most of his points have been discussed at length on TERB and found wanting. Not everything leading comedians say is true. Remember, 'there is no sex in Champaign Lounge'. I hear from many that this just isn't true.

 

[yeahyeahyeah]

George puts religion in perspective.

++++1

He's nailed it of course.

 

[yeahyeahyeah]

Does that really matter? Did the Catholic Church ever claim it was founded by Christ?
And which church you think Jesus would endorse? Anglican, Baptist or Presbyterian?

My point is rather self-explanatory. As soon as you build massive bureaucracies around basic and eternal truths, it's stops being about the truths, because it's too costly to the power structures to maintain them.

This article, "The Illusion of Progress" spells out my point rather well. The Church can't endorse condoms, and so ensures the death of hundred of thousands of Catholic Africans every year. I'm sure Jesus would be walking down the street during Pride with multi-coloured condoms around his neck. I mean, seriously...

----

"The horror of the HIV/AIDS epidemic is well known, so I won’t spend too much time describing the details. Suffice it to say that well more than a million Africans die annually of AIDS, and 23 million are currently living with HIV. As a result, the average life expectancies in several nations in the region have been shortened by more than a third over the past two decades.

Unsurprisingly, the use of condoms is a proven method of combating the disease: The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization have all found a robust correlation between condom use and lowered rates of infection. One can of course argue that other methods of fighting HIV, such as sexual fidelity, are more effective. But few would argue that condoms serve no purpose in this fight at all.

Benedict XVI, however, has established himself as one of those irrational few, proclaiming during a 2009 visit to Cameroon that the “distribution of condoms…increases the problem.” He would later moderate his stance, claiming in 2010 that the use of a condom could be justified in exceptional circumstances, for example, for “male prostitutes,” but he never backed away from his rejection of condoms as a mainstream means of combating HIV.

The Catholic population of Africa has taken the Vatican’s words seriously, and many aid workers attempting to promote condom use have expressed frustration with the Church. One would hope that an African clergyman, to whom the horrors of AIDS are more immediate, would be less doctrinaire in matters of contraception. Peter Turkson of Ghana, however, is not. During a 2009 speech at the Vatican, he concurred with Benedict XVI’s remarks in Cameroon, implying that condoms worsen the problem rather than alleviate it."

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/3/13/pope-africa-horror/

---

And so on....

As I was trying to say in my original post:

"But I do mean to point out a simple truth: No matter where the next pope comes from, the Church will still be complicit in the death and mistreatment of hundreds of thousands of AIDS victims and homosexuals throughout Africa. We can continue to argue over the best skin color or national origin of the next pontificate. But compared to the effects of the policies he’ll be promoting, this debate seems awfully trivial."

 

[great bear]

My point is rather self-explanatory. As soon as you build massive bureaucracies around basic and eternal truths, it's stops being about the truths, because it's too costly to the power structures to maintain them.

This article, "The Illusion of Progress" spells out my point rather well. The Church can't endorse condoms, and so ensures the death of hundred of thousands of Catholic Africans every year. I'm sure Jesus would be walking down the street during Pride with multi-coloured condoms around his neck. I mean, seriously...

----

"The horror of the HIV/AIDS epidemic is well known, so I won’t spend too much time describing the details. Suffice it to say that well more than a million Africans die annually of AIDS, and 23 million are currently living with HIV. As a result, the average life expectancies in several nations in the region have been shortened by more than a third over the past two decades.

Unsurprisingly, the use of condoms is a proven method of combating the disease: The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization have all found a robust correlation between condom use and lowered rates of infection. One can of course argue that other methods of fighting HIV, such as sexual fidelity, are more effective. But few would argue that condoms serve no purpose in this fight at all.

Benedict XVI, however, has established himself as one of those irrational few, proclaiming during a 2009 visit to Cameroon that the “distribution of condoms…increases the problem.” He would later moderate his stance, claiming in 2010 that the use of a condom could be justified in exceptional circumstances, for example, for “male prostitutes,” but he never backed away from his rejection of condoms as a mainstream means of combating HIV.

The Catholic population of Africa has taken the Vatican’s words seriously, and many aid workers attempting to promote condom use have expressed frustration with the Church. One would hope that an African clergyman, to whom the horrors of AIDS are more immediate, would be less doctrinaire in matters of contraception. Peter Turkson of Ghana, however, is not. During a 2009 speech at the Vatican, he concurred with Benedict XVI’s remarks in Cameroon, implying that condoms worsen the problem rather than alleviate it."

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/3/13/pope-africa-horror/

---

And so on....

As I was trying to say in my original post:

"But I do mean to point out a simple truth: No matter where the next pope comes from, the Church will still be complicit in the death and mistreatment of hundreds of thousands of AIDS victims and homosexuals throughout Africa. We can continue to argue over the best skin color or national origin of the next pontificate. But compared to the effects of the policies he’ll be promoting, this debate seems awfully trivial."

Well thought out.

 

[Questor]

My point is rather self-explanatory. As soon as you build massive bureaucracies around basic and eternal truths, it's stops being about the truths, because it's too costly to the power structures to maintain them.

This article, "The Illusion of Progress" spells out my point rather well. The Church can't endorse condoms, and so ensures the death of hundred of thousands of Catholic Africans every year. I'm sure Jesus would be walking down the street during Pride with multi-coloured condoms around his neck. I mean, seriously...

----

"The horror of the HIV/AIDS epidemic is well known, so I won’t spend too much time describing the details. Suffice it to say that well more than a million Africans die annually of AIDS, and 23 million are currently living with HIV. As a result, the average life expectancies in several nations in the region have been shortened by more than a third over the past two decades.

Unsurprisingly, the use of condoms is a proven method of combating the disease: The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization have all found a robust correlation between condom use and lowered rates of infection. One can of course argue that other methods of fighting HIV, such as sexual fidelity, are more effective. But few would argue that condoms serve no purpose in this fight at all.

Benedict XVI, however, has established himself as one of those irrational few, proclaiming during a 2009 visit to Cameroon that the “distribution of condoms…increases the problem.” He would later moderate his stance, claiming in 2010 that the use of a condom could be justified in exceptional circumstances, for example, for “male prostitutes,” but he never backed away from his rejection of condoms as a mainstream means of combating HIV.

The Catholic population of Africa has taken the Vatican’s words seriously, and many aid workers attempting to promote condom use have expressed frustration with the Church. One would hope that an African clergyman, to whom the horrors of AIDS are more immediate, would be less doctrinaire in matters of contraception. Peter Turkson of Ghana, however, is not. During a 2009 speech at the Vatican, he concurred with Benedict XVI’s remarks in Cameroon, implying that condoms worsen the problem rather than alleviate it."

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/3/13/pope-africa-horror/

---

And so on....

As I was trying to say in my original post:

"But I do mean to point out a simple truth: No matter where the next pope comes from, the Church will still be complicit in the death and mistreatment of hundreds of thousands of AIDS victims and homosexuals throughout Africa. We can continue to argue over the best skin color or national origin of the next pontificate. But compared to the effects of the policies he’ll be promoting, this debate seems awfully trivial."

Very thoughtful post.

In fantasy land, the scenario posited by OP, 2 popes with conflicting opinions on major issues would create a major division within the church. In reality, its not going to happen, at least not this time around. The new pope's views are well documented and he's just as much a conservative as the guy that's retiring. He does seem to have an interest in social justice issues, but I don't see that leading to a major change in direction. Benedict was elected by pretty much the same group of cardinals as Francis.

And they do seem to be 2 peas in a pod. Benedict has his Nazi past as well as the cover up of a pedophile ring. The new guy has some nasty stuff from Argentina's Dirty War.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/345612

(edited)
From 1976 until 1983, Argentina was governed by a series of US-backed military dictators who ruled with iron fists and crushed the regime's opponents, many of them students, trade unionists, journalists and leftists. Kidnapping, torture, murder by death squads and disappearances characterized this brutal 'Dirty War,' and many of the leading perpetrators, including two junta leaders and the military dictator Gen. Leopoldo Galtieri, were trained by the United States in kidnapping, torture, assassination and democracy suppression at the School of the Americas in Panama. As many as 30,000 people were killed or disappeared during this horrific period, and many children and babies were stolen from parents imprisoned in concentration camps or murdered by the regime.
During this harrowing period, the Argentine Catholic church was shamefully silent in the face of horrific atrocities. Argentine priests offered communion and support to the perpetrators of these crimes, even after the execution of two bishops, including Enrique Angelelli, and numerous priests. Worse, leading church figures were complicit in the regime's abuses.

(edit)

So exactly what role did Jorge Bergoglio play in his country's brutal seven-year military dictatorship?
A 1995 lawsuit filed by a human rights lawyer alleges that Bergoglio, who was leading the local Jesuit community by the time the military junta seized power in 1976, was involved in the kidnapping of two of his fellow Jesuit priests, Orlando Yorio and Francisco Jalics, who were tortured by navy personnel before being dumped in a field, drugged and semi-naked, five months later.
At the time, Bergoglio was the superior in the Society of Jesus of Argentina. According to El Silencio (Silence), a book by Horacio Verbitsky, one of Argentina's most respected investigative journalists, Bergoglio urged the two priests, who were strong believers in liberation theology, to stop visiting Buenos Aires slums where they worked to improve the lives of some of the country's poorest people. After the priests refused, Bergoglio allegedly stopped protecting them, leading to their arrest and torture. According to the Associated Press, Yorio accused Bergoglio of "effectively handing [the priests] over to death squads."
Despite his alleged role in the Jesuits' imprisonment, Bergoglio did eventually take action to secure their release. His intervention and appeal to the vicious junta leader Jorge Videla quite likely saved their lives.
But that wasn't the only time Bergoglio allegedly cooperated with the regime. According to Verbitsky, he also hid political prisoners from a delegation of visiting international monitors from the Inter-American Human Rights Commission.
Bergoglio was also silent in the wake of Father Angelelli's assassination, even as other leading Argentine clergy condemned the murder. He was quick, however, to hail the slain priest as a "martyr" years later in more democratic times.
"History condemns him," Fortunato Mallimacci, a former dean at the University of Buenos Aires, once said of Bergoglio. "It shows him to be opposed to all innovation in the church and above all, during the dictatorship, it shows he was very cozy with the dictatorship."
Human rights attorney Myriam Bregman told the AP that "the dictatorship could not have operated [so brutally] without this key support."
Bergoglio is also a proven liar when it comes to his personal knowledge of the regime's atrocities. In 1977, the De le Cuadra family, which lost five members, including a pregnant woman, to state security forces, appealed to the Jesuit leadership in Rome for desperately-needed protection. According to the Associated Press, the Jesuits in turn urged Bergoglio to help the family. Bergoglio assigned an underling to the case, who returned with a note from a colonel stating that the slain woman, who like many other 'Dirty War' victims was kept alive just long enough so that she could give birth, had her baby given to a family "too important" to remove it from. The colonel's letter is written proof that Bergoglio knew about the regime's practice of stealing babies from its victims, yet the archbishop testified in 2010 that he had no knowledge of stolen babies until after the military regime fell.
"Bergoglio has a very cowardly attitude when it comes to something so terrible as the theft of babies," Estela de la Cuadra, daughter of Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo founder Alicia de la Cuadra, told the AP.

Maybe its his own guilt that has lead to his interest in social justice.

 

[blackrock13]

Very thoughtful post.

In fantasy land, the scenario posited by OP, 2 popes with conflicting opinions on major issues would create a major division within the church. In reality, its not going to happen, at least not this time around. The new pope's views are well documented and he's just as much a conservative as the guy that's retiring. He does seem to have an interest in social justice issues, but I don't see that leading to a major change in direction. Benedict was elected by pretty much the same group of cardinals as Francis.

And they do seem to be 2 peas in a pod. Benedict has his Nazi past as well as the cover up of a pedophile ring. The new guy has some nasty stuff from Argentina's Dirty War.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/345612



Maybe its his own guilt that has lead to his interest in social justice.

Small point, the accusations towards the new Pope are not proven and back up by members on TERB.

 

[Imperius]

Unsurprisingly, the use of condoms is a proven method of combating the disease: The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization have all found a robust correlation between condom use and lowered rates of infection. One can of course argue that other methods of fighting HIV, such as sexual fidelity, are more effective.

Of course, sexual fidelity is the Catholic church's position, for a variety of reasons tied to different parts of church doctrine.

And it happens to be true. Sexual fidelity or abstinence, when observed, is absolutely more effective in fighting the spread of HIV than condom use.

But what fun is sexual fidelity/abstinence? Given that we're on TERB, I trust everyone agrees.

The Catholic population of Africa has taken the Vatican’s words seriously

Unfortunately for the HIV-affected Catholic (and non-Catholic/non-Christian) population in such regions, they've chosen to heed the "don't use condoms" part, but ignore the "sexual fidelity" part, leading to disaster.

So they don't use condoms AND they screw around. Why? I've heard a few reasons, but basically it comes down to:

1. Guys don't like using condoms.

Guys know this. SPs know this. We hear about cases on TERB all the time about some guy trying to discreetly take off his condom during a session. Guys use condoms because they know they'd be dumb not to, or because the girl is smart enough and persuasive enough to force them to do so, or no play time. But men don't want to use them, and unfortunately some won't if they think they can get away with it.

2. Some cultures put a very low value on sexual fidelity.

You can see this in the number of children "without fathers" in the society, i.e. the fathers have sown their seed and taken off. I consider that to be an epidemic as well, with a variety of causes. So now, if one sexual partner sees the other partner as temporary, with no long-term commitment or responsibility to their health or well-being, why should they be bothered to use protection? Inconsiderate, disrespectful, and unconscionable? Yes. But it happens all the time.

Unfortunately in Africa, this selective hearing is proving massively fatal. For those who choose to listen to the Catholic church, they should either listen to and follow their rules FULLY, or not follow them at all and just use condoms. Floundering in the middle is what's causing tremendous damage.