NationStates Jolt Archive

It has been 1 year since Pope John Paul II died on April 2nd, 2005. I can not believe its been that long!

IT doesnt seem like a year.

at least he wasn't a nazi sob.

It would have been much cooler if his name had been John Paul Ringo George II

It's been a year? Damm.... I mean Jesus... what the Hell?

It doesn't seem like a year. The Vatican & The Pope have been pretty quiet.

He wasn't liberal enough to do greater society after communism any good.


And iztat - thats an eddie izzard reference.

It doesn't seem like a year. The Vatican & The Pope have been pretty quiet.It's probably because he knows that he's not quite as popular as JPII. :p

I am not even catholic, but i kinda miss him. I dunno why either...wierd

I am not even catholic, but i kinda miss him. I dunno why either...wierdNot so strange to miss good people, regardless of what they personally believe. :)

I'm going to be nice, because I'm in that kind of mood today, and I've been ranting enough about the Catholic Church with my atheist friends.

Pope John Paul II was exceptional in his capability to unite enemies in admiration for him and his works of peace. After his death he was praised by George W. Bush, Hugo Chavez, Muhammed Khatami, the Chief Rabbi of Israel, Mahmoud Abbas, and a long list of others, showing the diversity of those he had impressed (compare to the deaths of Arafat and Reagan). He seemed sincere in his dedication to work with others in the spirit of generosity and kindness.

He impressed me with his work with Jews and Muslims, with his determination to apologize and make amends for the atrocities the Catholic Church has committed in the past. This, also, to me seemed very much sincere.

His willingness to at least rhetorically attack the ruling classes of the rich nations for their reckless pursuit of power and profit was at least somewhat courageous, though more support for real action against those power centers, like that proposed by the Latin American Liberation Theology movement he condemned, would have indicated that his support passed beyond mere meaningless rhetoric. Similarly, his moral exhortations against imperialist war were a welcome message in a time where it seems difficult for most critics of aggression to point to anything but "practical" arguments for why the mass slaughter of people for reasons of power and wealth is the wrong course of action.

His attitude towards gays and lesbians, and his unwillingness to advocate safe sex, are to me at least very serious problems with his record.

He remains considerably preferable to his successor, and I wish he were still Pope today.

He was a top class Bloke, the world needs more of him.

I take solace in that if there is a hell like the one he believed in, he will be burning in its deepest pits. Good riddance.

I take solace in that if there is a hell like the one he believed in, he will be burning in its deepest pits. Good riddance.

I've never seen anyone so hellbent (ha ha, aren't I funny) on viciously attacking every thing and every person associated with religion as you.

My question to you is, has any religion or religious person ever done anything good? If so, I'd be interested to hear exactly what this good deed was. Coming from you, that would be very high praise.

I take solace in that if there is a hell like the one he believed in, he will be burning in its deepest pits. Good riddance.
That seems pretty extreme. I respect that you may hate religion and you don't not like the guy but shit. Perhaps a little over the top?

Probably not as bad as the current. In all honnestly I think they should have kept with the naming convention and made Sean Paul the next Pope - he'd be just as effective. And, Fass, I think it'd also bring a whole new meaning to his lyrics 'We be burnin' in reference to the papacy. He even has an album called 'The Trinity'... probably not the same Trinity though...

John Paul eh? I hear he's lost a lot of weight recently :p

I would really like to know more about his, shall we say, "work" in support of Solidarność et al. Just how much of that was backed by the CIA and Mafia?

That seems pretty extreme. I respect that you may hate religion and you don't not like the guy but shit. Perhaps a little over the top?

No, not really. Don't forget this is the guy who's ultra conservative stance on contraception (even in the face of overwhelming medical evidence) still pushed for a heavy ban in Africa- which was beginning to become rampant with Aids.

Imagine the difference that could have made to the AIDS sufferers had he stepped back and thought "Huh, people are dying because of my influence... maybe I should change it slightly"

His attitude towards gays and lesbians, and his unwillingness to advocate safe sex, are to me at least very serious problems with his record.
I never really understood that as he seemed to be a rather compassionate sorta guy.

I take solace in that if there is a hell like the one he believed in, he will be burning in its deepest pits. Good riddance.
Seriously? He wasn't ideal, but name a better Pope, please?

I've never seen anyone so hellbent (ha ha, aren't I funny) on viciously attacking every thing and every person associated with religion as you.

I guess then you are fortunate for having encountered me.

My question to you is, has any religion or religious person ever done anything good? If so, I'd be interested to hear exactly what this good deed was. Coming from you, that would be very high praise.

I'm drawing a blank, since I'm having troubles thinking of any person, at all, that has ever done something "good," seing as "good" is even more relative than "evil."

Seriously? He wasn't ideal, but name a better Pope, please?

That's kind of like saying "Castro wasn't ideal, but name a better dictator, please."

That seems pretty extreme. I respect that you may hate religion and you don't not like the guy but shit. Perhaps a little over the top?

Not so much, seeing as that man worked his stubby fingers to the bone trying to make the lives of people like me all that more difficult, when we hadn't done anything to him, not to mention what his church has done in the third world with its anti-condom stance.

Not so much, seeing as that man worked his stubby fingers to the bone trying to make the lives of people like me all that more difficult, when we hadn't done anything to him, not to mention what his church has done in the third world with its anti-condom stance.
Point taken. Fair call.

I never really understood that as he seemed to be a rather compassionate sorta guy.

Like most cultural conservatives he tended towards a concept of moral values that had less to do with actual human lives and needs and more to do with protecting a rather puritanical conception of human nature. You do not advocate sin, because sin is wrong and unjustifiable whatever its consequences. Even if advocating contraceptives will save hundreds of thousands of lives, it isn't worth it, because preventing sin is more important than saving lives.

There's nothing necessarily uncompassionate about it. The Catholic Church is officially at least more concerned with your soul than your life, and these kinds of attitudes are the result of that focus.

Though, when it comes down to it, to the gays and lesbians deprived of life or dignity in Catholic fundamentalist countries thanks to the campaigns of hatred against them, to the people who've contracted AIDS because they didn't have access to contraceptives, to the people who've been in a constant struggle to survive and provide for a child thanks to the Catholic denial of abortion services, the difference is probably academic at best. When it comes down to it there is no way anyone can effectively exculpate the Catholic Church from the fact that at this very moment, and for decades preceding, it is engaging in practices that are needlessly destroying countless thousands of lives.

His heart was in the right place.

Unfortunately he was as hidebound as they come morally and as capitalist as they come economically. Almost a Thatcher of the Church but at least he did some positive stuff in word (though too rarely in deed I feel).

His heart was in the right place.

The same can be argued for communists. Doesn't make them good people, now does it? The road to hell is paved with "good" intentions.

The same can be argued for communists. Doesn't make them good people, now does it?

I never said JP2 was a good person. And let's not even start on communism.

Reviewing his life I continue to get the feeling that had he traded places with JP1 we'd be a lot better off. And I'd probably be a lot happier with the Catholic Church too.

Like most cultural conservatives he tended towards a concept of moral values that had less to do with actual human lives and needs and more to do with protecting a rather puritanical conception of human nature. You do not advocate sin, because sin is wrong and unjustifiable whatever its consequences. Even if advocating contraceptives will save hundreds of thousands of lives, it isn't worth it, because preventing sin is more important than saving lives.

There's nothing necessarily uncompassionate about it. The Catholic Church is officially at least more concerned with your soul than your life, and these kinds of attitudes are the result of that focus.

Though, when it comes down to it, to the gays and lesbians deprived of life or dignity in Catholic fundamentalist countries thanks to the campaigns of hatred against them, to the people who've contracted AIDS because they didn't have access to contraceptives, to the people who've been in a constant struggle to survive and provide for a child thanks to the Catholic denial of abortion services, the difference is probably academic at best. When it comes down to it there is no way anyone can effectively exculpate the Catholic Church from the fact that at this very moment, and for decades preceding, it is engaging in practices that are needlessly destroying countless thousands of lives.Oh the irony. Using the word 'puritanical' to describe the Pope.

Oh the irony. Using the word 'puritanical' to describe the Pope.

The bigger irony is that it is a fitting moniker.

The bigger irony is that it is a fitting moniker.I gues someone use the phrase 'Is the Pope a Catholic?' you'd probably question the statement?

Oh the irony. Using the word 'puritanical' to describe the Pope.

These days, when you see Christian, Jewish, and Muslim fundamentalists ganging up on the rest of us, such old sectarian differences don't seem to matter anymore.

I gues someone use the phrase 'Is the Pope a Catholic?' you'd probably question the statement?

And you probably don't own a dictionary since you don't seem to know what the word "puritanical" means apart from historically/archaically?

Yes lets pray for Karol Wojtyla's soul and let him rest in peace

Today Is a 1 year Anniversary of the Death of John Paul the Second. Pope John Paul rest in peace. My prays go to you Karol Wojtyla

May The Lord Preserve Our Holy Father, JOHN PAUL. May Give Him Life And Protect Him In This Life And Reserve For Him The Reward Of The Just. Amen

In the name of God Respect love and serve life every human life only in this direction will you find justice, development, true freedom, peace and Happiness

Hail Mary full of grace the lord is with thee Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy

Hail Mary full of grace the lord is with thee Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy

So sincere a "prayer" you could not even properly bother copy&pasting it...

And you probably don't own a dictionary since you don't seem to know what the word "puritanical" means apart from historically/archaically?How can I not know the meaning of the word puritanical as it derives its meaning from what the Puritans believed. Such as Oliver Cromwell's decision to close all the theatres in London. Basically a strict and over the top morality :p

How can I not know the meaning of the word puritanical as it derives its meaning from what the Puritans believed. Such as Oliver Cromwell's decision to close all the theatres in London. Basically a strict and over the top morality :p

Where, then, the irony, apart from etymologically? The moniker still stands.

Where, then, the irony, apart from etymologically? The moniker still stands.I was only remarking on that irony. The moniker is indeed accurate, just ironic as well.

Yes lets pray for Karol Wojtyla's soul and let him rest in peace



Lets not I have to agree with fass on this one

I take solace in that if there is a hell like the one he believed in, he will be burning in its deepest pits. Good riddance.

That seems pretty extreme. I respect that you may hate religion and you don't not like the guy but shit. Perhaps a little over the top?

Sorry, but it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with his and his successors anti-gay rantings, and their inability to even talk to a delegation of gay Catholics and listen to them.

Sorry, the church is split right down the middle; on one side in the minority, you have the hard core, Opius Dei ultra conservatives who, quite frankly, inhabit the third world shit hole countries who, when not fighting with each other, they're stoning gays or beheading those who don't follow their brand of morality. The other side is the progressive side of the Catholic church who, for example, would like to embrace diversity, and rather than condemn gays, actually create an atmosphere which promotes stable, honest relationships - an honest debate about birth control, abortion, the roll of women in the church and possibly entering the clurgy.

the roll of women in the church and possibly entering the clurgy.

sorry, but women arent going to be entering the clergy anytime soon. we had a unit about women and the Church in my theology class, and priests represent Jesus, therefore women arent allowed to be priests. my teacher said that women play a more administrative role in the Church. i think women should be allowed to be priests and therefore be offered any opportunity that a man is in the Church.

sorry, but women arent going to be entering the clergy anytime soon. we had a unit about women and the Church in my theology class, and priests represent Jesus, therefore women arent allowed to be priests. my teacher said that women play a more administrative role in the Church. i think women should be allowed to be priests and therefore be offered any opportunity that a man is in the Church.

Oh pulease, thats the same crap they tried to use about married priests, which was only banned in the 12th century because of inheritence laws were comeing into vogue.

There were female missionaries, just as there were male; the concept of priest is a pretty modern concept given that the earliest Christian groups worked closer to what you see today, for example, in the Open Brethern in reference to elders of the church - that is, people who have worked in the church and obtained position through merit, lead the service.

Their justification of women not becoming priests have more to do with the anti-female agenda put forward by the Opus Dei group, who has sway over the current pope, than actually any real theological reasoning.

Oh pulease, thats the same crap they tried to use about married priests, which was only banned in the 12th century because of inheritence laws were comeing into vogue.
actually, since priests take vows of celibacy, they arent allowed to get married, because then they wouldnt be celibate.

He was a decent human being who tried to make the world a better place.

The world needs more like him :(

That's kind of like saying "Castro wasn't ideal, but name a better dictator, please."
Castro is one of the better dictators around. I would react in a similar way if someone cried that he will burn in the lowest rung of hell. If he's burning in the worst part of hell, where is Hitler burning?

That is, there are many Popes who were worse than JPII. If he is in the worst part of hell, where are those guys who started the crusades? In fact, where would Hitler and Stalin be, relative to JPII?

His heart was in the right place.

Unfortunately he was as hidebound as they come morally and as capitalist as they come economically. Almost a Thatcher of the Church but at least he did some positive stuff in word (though too rarely in deed I feel).
What? He was rather against capitalism, though not in favour of communism either. Compared to previous popes, and other religious leaders in general, he was fairly moderate on social issues and tolerant of other religions.

When it comes down to it there is no way anyone can effectively exculpate the Catholic Church from the fact that at this very moment, and for decades preceding, it is engaging in practices that are needlessly destroying countless thousands of lives.
I agree that the Vatican in general is hopelessly archaic and idealistic on moral issues, but also remember that millions of people around the world around the world are inspired by their Catholic religion to help other people.

I'm an atheist as well but too often we are prone to ignore looking at the good in favour of looking at the bad.

The same can be argued for communists. Doesn't make them good people, now does it? The road to hell is paved with "good" intentions.

Good people? I thought that you said good was relative...


I'm drawing a blank, since I'm having troubles thinking of any person, at all, that has ever done something "good," seing as "good" is even more relative than "evil."

I miss him. He was one of a kind. :(

Now, last year when he was having trouble, I overheard it on the TV in the mess hall in Ft Leonardwood. I bet my battle buddy $20 that he'd be dead before we got out of basic training. Now, despite the fact that I won that, I had fractured my spine before he died, so he cheated me out of an easy $20. I don't mean to sound mean about it, he was a good guy and all, but they kinda kept him alive a little longer than what I find humane.

I agree that the Vatican in general is hopelessly archaic and idealistic on moral issues, but also remember that millions of people around the world around the world are inspired by their Catholic religion to help other people.

I understand that. I don't doubt that Catholics have done immense good, and that a good deal of them were inspired by their belief to do so.

I'm an atheist as well but too often we are prone to ignore looking at the good in favour of looking at the bad.

It has absolutely nothing to do with my atheism. My position would be the same regardless of my view of God. What the Catholic Church is doing is wrong, period, and even if God came down and said it was right, I would still oppose it.

Like most cultural conservatives he tended towards a concept of moral values that had less to do with actual human lives and needs and more to do with protecting a rather puritanical conception of human nature.

Not true. In actuality, in Catholic teaching, they are equally important and considered to be so related to eachother as to be really indistinguishable. Respect for the lives and dignity of human beings is the basis of almost all Catholic teaching, such as caring for the poor and even their pro-life stance.

You can see the results of this teaching all over the world. If you live in any major metropolitan area where the Catholic Chuch is at all prevalent, you'll more than likely find Catholic sponsored houses of charity, soup kitchens, homes for battered women, orphanages, and so on.


You do not advocate sin, because sin is wrong and unjustifiable whatever its consequences. Even if advocating contraceptives will save hundreds of thousands of lives, it isn't worth it, because preventing sin is more important than saving lives.


Again, the Church would say there is no need for compromise. What is morally right is also what is good for lives of people.
And don't say that the Catholic Church teaching is responsible for a single life lost as far as the AIDS epidemic is concerned. If people followed Church teaching on sexuality, AIDS wouldn't be a problem.


There's nothing necessarily uncompassionate about it. The Catholic Church is officially at least more concerned with your soul than your life, and these kinds of attitudes are the result of that focus.


Again, this really isn't true. I'm not trying to be combatitive, it's just that I'm fairly familiar with the Church's social teaching, and it revolves around the physical well-being of people.


Though, when it comes down to it, to the gays and lesbians deprived of life or dignity in Catholic fundamentalist countries thanks to the campaigns of hatred against them,


I've never heard of this being the case, but if it is, it's not the result of any Vatican teaching. The Vatican teachs people to have respect for homosexuals.



to the people who've contracted AIDS because they didn't have access to contraceptives,


Even if the Church supported contraception (condoms are allowed to be used in marriages if the purpose is to prevent infection from spreading, but that's another story) why would they be responsible for distributing condoms? What does the Church have to do with distributing condoms? The Church teaches against condoms, and that's it. Some people make it sound like the Pope sends in Vatican SWAT teams to make sure that nobody is using contraception.

Again, the AIDS epidemic is a result of people not following Church teaching to wait for marriage to have sex. If people followed Church teaching, they would have no risk of contracting AIDS through sexual contact. Period.

If people are going to go against this teaching, then I don't see why they wouldn't go against the Vatican's teaching on contraception as well. What kind of person says "I'm not going to follow Vatican teaching on monogamy, but I think I will follow their teachings about contraception right to the letter." It doesn't make any sense.

And no, it's not the Vatican's responsibility to teach or distribute what it considers to be morally wrong. There are plenty of secular organizations for that.



to the people who've been in a constant struggle to survive and provide for a child thanks to the Catholic denial of abortion services, the difference is probably academic at best.

The Church is against abortion because it sees it as the killing of human beings. You don't get too much more concerned with human life than that. Yes, the Church is concerned about the soul of the one committing abortion, but it is more concerned about the life of the child.
Now, perhaps you don't agree that the embryo or fetus is really alive or a person, etc., however, you can't claim that this church teaching is simply a spiritual matter. At least not in the eyes of the Church.


When it comes down to it there is no way anyone can effectively exculpate the Catholic Church from the fact that at this very moment, and for decades preceding, it is engaging in practices that are needlessly destroying countless thousands of lives.


Again, it's just not true. I'd encourage you to read up on what the Church actually teachs and why. Even if you may not agree with everything they teach, at least you will understand where they are coming from.

Here's a list of many of JP II's writings, encyclicals, and homilies. In many of these, he discusses some of the controversial social issues that you mentioned.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/JP02/index.htm

Here's the Catholic encylepedia, which is probably the handiest research source to get an explanation of Catholic teaching.
http://www.newadvent.org

And the Cathechism,
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

It has been 1 year since Pope John Paul II died on April 2nd, 2005. I can not believe its been that long!

Wierd eh?

I cannot respect him for his stance on sexuality and gender issues, but I can respect him for his devotion to peace. He was a good man for his time, but I only wish that he had the foresight to look beyond the dogma.

sorry, but women arent going to be entering the clergy anytime soon. we had a unit about women and the Church in my theology class, and priests represent Jesus, therefore women arent allowed to be priests. my teacher said that women play a more administrative role in the Church. i think women should be allowed to be priests and therefore be offered any opportunity that a man is in the Church.

Using the same logic Christians shouldn't be allowed to be priests. They represent Jesus you see and Jesus was a Jew so Christians can't be priests. ;)

actually, since priests take vows of celibacy, they arent allowed to get married, because then they wouldnt be celibate.

You really aren't that bright - look up his history, there were married priests and popes and so forth; NOTHING ever forbid ANYONE from marrying, the idea of celibacy is spawn off of the idea of 'no sex before marriage' and since one can't can't get married, ergo, they can't have sex!

Hell, today, if you're an anglican priest, married with children, and become a Catholic priest, you can still remain married to your wife! so right NOW there are married Catholic priests! see the stupidity in the whole system?!

You really think that the disciples/apostles were all single blokes who took a vow of celebacy? please, thats really pushing faith to a whole new level, beyond the virgin birth and the emaculate conception.

Castro is one of the better dictators around. I would react in a similar way if someone cried that he will burn in the lowest rung of hell. If he's burning in the worst part of hell, where is Hitler burning?

Meh, if you were going to compare him to other dictators in history, General Tito would probably come out as one of the better if not best dictator; Castro has his moments, but at the same time, he is an ideologue who is out of touch with reality - still holding on the false notion that homosexuality is born out of the decadent west and the wealthy aristrocracy - yeah, like there are no poor fags <rolls eyes>

Even if the Church supported contraception (condoms are allowed to be used in marriages if the purpose is to prevent infection from spreading, but that's another story) why would they be responsible for distributing condoms? What does the Church have to do with distributing condoms? The Church teaches against condoms, and that's it. Some people make it sound like the Pope sends in Vatican SWAT teams to make sure that nobody is using contraception.

Oh please, get a fucking clue on the matter - they lobby governments, like in the Phillipines to maintain the ban on abortion, push for a ban on contraception - what do they have now? out of control, rampent rates of STDs, illegal abortions and an out of control population explosion which is pushing their infrastructure to the breaking point.

Then what happens? these third world basket cases then come to us 'decadent condom using west' cup in hand for some cash - what do I say to their, grow a back bone and tell the Catholic church to pipe down and stick to theological matters and out of politics.

Again, the AIDS epidemic is a result of people not following Church teaching to wait for marriage to have sex. If people followed Church teaching, they would have no risk of contracting AIDS through sexual contact. Period.

If people are going to go against this teaching, then I don't see why they wouldn't go against the Vatican's teaching on contraception as well. What kind of person says "I'm not going to follow Vatican teaching on monogamy, but I think I will follow their teachings about contraception right to the letter." It doesn't make any sense.

And no, it's not the Vatican's responsibility to teach or distribute what it considers to be morally wrong. There are plenty of secular organizations for that.

How is it morally wrong? based on the false concept that no-procretive sex is a waste of the male seed, which is based on the disproven idea that men have a limited amount of sperm?!

Geeze, atleast Muslims have the idea partially right, no sex outside marriage, but the use of condoms within marriage is perfectly acceptable.

No, not really. Don't forget this is the guy who's ultra conservative stance on contraception (even in the face of overwhelming medical evidence) still pushed for a heavy ban in Africa- which was beginning to become rampant with Aids.

Imagine the difference that could have made to the AIDS sufferers had he stepped back and thought "Huh, people are dying because of my influence... maybe I should change it slightly"

He can't change it slightly. He's infallable, or would like to seem so, so he can't ever change his mind on something he's made a decision on. This makes every pope a bastard by default.

Oh pulease, thats the same crap they tried to use about married priests, which was only banned in the 12th century because of inheritence laws were comeing into vogue.

There were female missionaries, just as there were male; the concept of priest is a pretty modern concept given that the earliest Christian groups worked closer to what you see today, for example, in the Open Brethern in reference to elders of the church - that is, people who have worked in the church and obtained position through merit, lead the service.

Their justification of women not becoming priests have more to do with the anti-female agenda put forward by the Opus Dei group, who has sway over the current pope, than actually any real theological reasoning.


One of the things that you said in this post is actually somewhat based on truth. That is, that the Church's stance on married clergy is not doctine, but instead just a choice that the Vatican makes. In fact, there are instances when married protestant ministers convert to Catholicism and are allowed to be priests while married. Also, other Catholic rites, other than the Roman rite, allow their priests to be married. For example the Byzantine Catholic Church allows its priests to be married so long as they were married before their ordination.

However, ordaining women is different. Priests act in the person of Jesus and Jesus appointed only men as his apostles, which priests today are said to be successors of. Therefore, since the Church believes that sacraments were instituted by Jesus and Jesus never chose a woman as one of his apostles, they don't believe that they have the authority to ordain women priests. So while we may someday see an allowance for married priests, women priests are extremely unlikely.

Whether or not you agree with the Church's logic on this teaching is your own issue. However, it isn't done because the church is "anti-woman". They aren't, and any real familiarity with Church teaching willl tell you that. I would like to see some evidence of this anti-woman agenda you speak of.

Some people make Catholic ministers sound like power hungry hounds just wanting to impose their will on everyone just for fun. Here's a newsflash. You don't become a priest to be rich or famous or powerful. If you do, you're in for a big surprise. The priest has the power to preach, and that's it. He can't make you do anything. He's not rich. He's not famous.

There are no ulterior motives in Church teaching. The Church has no reason to teach anything other than what it believes to be true, based on scripture and what is good for humanity. There just aren't any secret agendas and there is no reason for there to be any. If you read and fully understand Church teaching, and don't agree with it, fine. But don't talking about Church "agendas" which don't exist.


And no, the Da Vinci Code is not a history book (you seem like you might be the type of person who believes it is).

Oh please, get a fucking clue on the matter - they lobby governments, like in the Phillipines to maintain the ban on abortion, push for a ban on contraception - what do they have now? out of control, rampent rates of STDs, illegal abortions and an out of control population explosion which is pushing their infrastructure to the breaking point.

Then what happens? these third world basket cases then come to us 'decadent condom using west' cup in hand for some cash - what do I say to their, grow a back bone and tell the Catholic church to pipe down and stick to theological matters and out of politics.


Out of control! Rampant! I'm not sure if any of what you said is actually true, because I've never heard the Phillipines described in that way before (and you didn't provided me with any link that could have helped me out). However, I know people from the Phillipines, and they don't seem to have any animosity toward the Catholic Church. Maybe next time I see one of them, I'll ask them how they feel their country is doing and see if they feel that any of their country's problems are a result of Catholic teaching. I highly doubt that they would say so. As far as STD's, they rampant everywhere, not just in third world coutries.

Once again, people who follow the Church's teaching on sexuality aren't at risk of STDs. Any STD problem is a result of a populace who isn't following Catholic teaching on sexuality. So how could you blame the Catholic Church for an STD problem?

Oh, and calling them "third world basket cases" really makes it sound like you're actually interested in their well being.


How is it morally wrong? based on the false concept that no-procretive sex is a waste of the male seed, which is based on the disproven idea that men have a limited amount of sperm?!

Geeze, atleast Muslims have the idea partially right, no sex outside marriage, but the use of condoms within marriage is perfectly acceptable.

I gave you links that explained Catholic teaching before. It's not by duty to copy and paste for you. No, it has nothing to do with wasting male sperm (by the way, Monty Python is not a historical movie).

However, since we're in a JPII thread, here is one of his more well known writings, humae vitae, which covers human sexuality (and isn't too long, I'd recommend reading it if you want to understand Church teaching about sexuality.)

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6humana.htm

Edit: Oops, this was actually written by Pope Paul VI. But yeah, it's well known and controversial because many people thought that the Catholic Church would make the change to allow contraception because that is what the protestants did.

Not true. In actuality, in Catholic teaching, they are equally important and considered to be so related to eachother as to be really indistinguishable. Respect for the lives and dignity of human beings is the basis of almost all Catholic teaching, such as caring for the poor and even their pro-life stance.

Yeah, right, I've heard it all before. Facts don't change when they're inconvenient, though.

You can see the results of this teaching all over the world. If you live in any major metropolitan area where the Catholic Chuch is at all prevalent, you'll more than likely find Catholic sponsored houses of charity, soup kitchens, homes for battered women, orphanages, and so on.

Irrelevant.

Again, the Church would say there is no need for compromise. What is morally right is also what is good for lives of people.

Right, because to them human welfare is based on sinlessness.

And don't say that the Catholic Church teaching is responsible for a single life lost as far as the AIDS epidemic is concerned. If people followed Church teaching on sexuality, AIDS wouldn't be a problem.

But people don't, and never will.

Again, this really isn't true. I'm not trying to be combatitive, it's just that I'm fairly familiar with the Church's social teaching, and it revolves around the physical well-being of people

I'm talking about their ethical bases. Of course their charity work is focused on material well-being to a degree, but their entire ideology does not merely encompass that element.

I've never heard of this being the case,

Then you haven't been paying attention.

but if it is, it's not the result of any Vatican teaching. The Vatican teachs people to have respect for homosexuals.

The Vatican encourages homophobia, and when you encourage homophobia you have to expect the results of homophobia - that is, prejudice and hate crimes against and self-hatred among gays and lesbians, both of which take their toll on lives and dignity. The Catholic Church can pretend to have clean hands as much as it wants, but it's illusory. Rhetorical condemnations of "hatred" are meaningless.

Even if the Church supported contraception (condoms are allowed to be used in marriages if the purpose is to prevent infection from spreading, but that's another story) why would they be responsible for distributing condoms? What does the Church have to do with distributing condoms? The Church teaches against condoms, and that's it. Some people make it sound like the Pope sends in Vatican SWAT teams to make sure that nobody is using contraception.

Again, the AIDS epidemic is a result of people not following Church teaching to wait for marriage to have sex. If people followed Church teaching, they would have no risk of contracting AIDS through sexual contact. Period.

If people are going to go against this teaching, then I don't see why they wouldn't go against the Vatican's teaching on contraception as well. What kind of person says "I'm not going to follow Vatican teaching on monogamy, but I think I will follow their teachings about contraception right to the letter." It doesn't make any sense.

Human beings don't work that way. They don't say "I'm going to accept all of the Vatican's doctrine or I'm going to reject all of the Vatican's doctrine. " People aren't going to be monogamous, period; it's completely opposed to human nature. Whether or not people use birth control, however, is very much dependent on how the society regards it, and if the society is hostile towards it it will not be used as often, or even easily available.

Furthermore, it is possible to contract sexually-transmitted diseases even if you are monogamous and follow Catholic doctrine to the letter - if your partner happens not to be.

The Church is against abortion because it sees it as the killing of human beings. You don't get too much more concerned with human life than that. Yes, the Church is concerned about the soul of the one committing abortion, but it is more concerned about the life of the child.
Now, perhaps you don't agree that the embryo or fetus is really alive or a person, etc., however, you can't claim that this church teaching is simply a spiritual matter. At least not in the eyes of the Church.

Granted. It isn't indicative of its divine-based morality, merely of its reactionary absurdities.

Again, it's just not true.

If nothing else, from the homophobia the Catholic Church promotes it most definitely is true.

I'd encourage you to read up on what the Church actually teachs and why. Even if you may not agree with everything they teach, at least you will understand where they are coming from.

Actually, I am rather familiar with what the Church "actually teaches and why."

For instance:

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil. (my emphasis)

That is to say, the morality or immorality of an action is irrelevant to its material consequences. If the use of contraceptives violates "natural law," it doesn't matter how many lives it saves - it's wrong, and can never be justifiable.