NationStates Jolt Archive

Having fairly recently (in the last decade, more or less) accepted evolution (in part), among other things, the Vatican may be willing to continue it's journey into the 20th century. Hopefully it can join us in the 21st before we finish it off...

After decades of opposition, Vatican view on condoms begins to shift

John Hooper in Rome
Thursday November 23, 2006
The Guardian

The Roman Catholic church has taken the first step towards what could be a historic shift away from its total ban on the use of condoms.

Pope Benedict XVI's "health minister" is understood to be urging him to accept that in restricted circumstances - specifically the prevention of Aids - barrier contraception is the lesser of two evils.

The recommendations, which have not been made public, still have to be reviewed by the traditionally conservative Vatican department responsible for safeguarding theological orthodoxy, and then by the Pope himself, before any decision is made.

The rethink, commissioned by Pope Benedict following his election last year, could save millions of lives around the world. It is likely to be raised today when the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has his first full discussion with the Pope at an audience in the Vatican.

(Article continues (http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,,1954759,00.html))

Wow.

What's a condom? And more importantly, who's the Pope?

An increasingly irrelevant, usually white guy with a pointy white hat that hates gays and drives a cool bulletproof car.

Before the Catholic bashers get a chance to kick off about how the Pope is the sole cause of world poverty, AIDS, 9/11, Don Bradman's failure to secure his 100 average etc, I suggest they have a look at the concept of Papal infallibility. There's a good article on it here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5355758.stm
Pope Paul VI's famous 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, which condemned contraception, was not issued in the form of an infallible statement by the Pope.

An increasingly irrelevant, usually white guy with a pointy white hat that hates gays and drives a cool bulletproof car.

Hem hem... i beg to differ, it is a Popemobile, not a car, but can more accurately be described as a bulletproof golf cart

Wasnt Papal infallibility already disproven by the third or 4th or 70th Crusade?

Bout time too

Before the Catholic bashers get a chance to kick off about how the Pope is the sole cause of world poverty, AIDS, 9/11, Don Bradman's failure to secure his 100 average etc, I suggest they have a look at the concept of Papal infallibility. There's a good article on it here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5355758.stm

Aha. Excellent. Thank you for the clarification.

Hem hem... i beg to differ, it is a Popemobile, not a car, but can more accurately be described as a bulletproof golf cart

And I understand Pope Benedict prefers an open popemobile, not the bullet proof glass one, as seen here:
http://www.catholicpressphoto.com/servizi/2006-10-04-udienza/images/thumbs/2006-10-04%20BXVI%20audience%2006.jpg

I love how i call the Pope irrelevant and a gay basher and people pick up on my comments about his car ;)

Before the Catholic bashers get a chance to kick off about how the Pope is the sole cause of world poverty, AIDS, 9/11, Don Bradman's failure to secure his 100 average etc, I suggest they have a look at the concept of Papal infallibility. There's a good article on it here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5355758.stm

Wow, I never knew that. Awesome! :fluffle:

An increasingly irrelevant, usually white guy with a pointy white hat that hates gays and drives a cool bulletproof car.

If you call Pope John Paul II as having been irrelevant, then you must have a very low opinion of the rest of the human race.

If you call Pope John Paul II as having been irrelevant, then you must have a very low opinion of the rest of the human race.

I view the Pope in the same way i view Papa Smurf. He always seems nice and wise, always tries to teach a moral at the end of each episode and is the leader of a completly ficticious cast of characters.

Bonus points if you can guess who Gargamel represents! ;)

An increasingly irrelevant, usually white guy with a pointy white hat that hates gays and drives a cool bulletproof car.

i'd take the job just for the cool car, and i'd like to think i'm NOT materialist, darn!.

I love how i call the Pope irrelevant and a gay basher and people pick up on my comments about his car ;)

Well, we could pick apart the bit about the hat. As for being an increasing irrelevant usually white guy who hates gays, one of those is semi-accurate, if poorly worded, and the other two are pretty spot on accurate.

If you call Pope John Paul II as having been irrelevant, then you must have a very low opinion of the rest of the human race.

I sure do, even if I didn't state it, I agree with it.

I don't care about the pope. all he ever does it try to give gay people less rights.

I think that its much like black/white segregation was the US in the 50s-60s. The church will eventually allow gays into the fold and some people will bitch and moan and for the most part people will get over it and will stop even giving it much thought eventually.

I think that its much like black/white segregation was the US in the 50s-60s. The church will eventually allow gays into the fold and some people will bitch and moan and for the most part people will get over it and will stop even giving it much thought eventually.

I believe they used to allow gays, provided they hadn't actually had gay sex.

I believe they used to allow gays, provided they hadn't actually had gay sex.

In otherwords, better avoid confession after a night of hot butt sex.

In otherwords, better avoid confession after a night of hot butt sex.

I avoid confession regardless of how much butt secks there was the night before, as should you.

And about time too.

I avoid confession regardless of how much butt secks there was the night before, as should you.
But... I like watching yaoi anime... Besides, I thought confession didn't extend to what you've seen...

Having fairly recently (in the last decade, more or less) accepted evolution (in part), among other things, the Vatican may be willing to continue it's journey into the 20th century. Hopefully it can join us in the 21st before we finish it off...



(Article continues (http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,,1954759,00.html))

Wow, only 75 years (more or less) late is better than never I guess. However, notice the words "first step" and "urging." Well, maybe in another 100 years....:rolleyes:

Wasnt Papal infallibility already disproven by the third or 4th or 70th Crusade?

Pope want infallible till 1870 or so. First Vatican Council.
It only counts in things like what happened to Mary when she died and the nature of Christ.

And at least the church changes. I give it credit for trying.
But not much.

And I understand Pope Benedict prefers an open popemobile, not the bullet proof glass one, as seen here:
http://www.catholicpressphoto.com/servizi/2006-10-04-udienza/images/thumbs/2006-10-04%20BXVI%20audience%2006.jpg

But that's just because the guy's a vampire and bullets don't harm him. Seriously, just look at him:
http://www.robertobaca.net/pope.jpg

The funny thing is that today, at the italian radio, the journalist told:
"Papa Ratzinger fa aperture sui preservativi"...

and that could be translated:
"Pope Ratzinger is opening his views about use of condoms"

but also:
"Pope Ratzinger punches holes in condoms".

I think that the second is more likely to happen!:D

Having fairly recently (in the last decade, more or less) accepted evolution (in part), among other things, the Vatican may be willing to continue it's journey into the 20th century. Hopefully it can join us in the 21st before we finish it off...



(Article continues (http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,,1954759,00.html))

About time.

Well its about freaking time.

Considering the Catholic Church own the largest condom manufacturers in the Vatican City, this may help their condom sales.:confused:

I thought this would be conditional, like "Pope may OK condoms... if condoms look like his white hat."

Or Pope-Flavored Condoms. For Her Displeasure.

Stuff like that.

Good for him.

I had a boyfriend several years ago with a seriously Catholic mother, and she kept giving us pamphlets and xeroxed bible passages and cassette tapes (!) about the evils of contraception. I never looked at them because that stuff is stupid, and my now-ex boyfriend never looked at them because he was afraid that he would be convinced.

We are still friends and he invites my boyfriend and I to his family Christmas party every year (they like each other!). I am going to go up to his mom and be like, "IN YOUR FACE! I've been using condoms like crazy and I'm NOT going to hell! HA ha!"

Wow.

1) What's a condom? And more importantly, 2) who's the Pope?
To answer your questions ;)

1) http://www.condom-usa.com/shop/images/small/condomsmileylollipops.jpg

2) http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/emperor_pope.jpg


As for the slow change in the vatican - I'd say it's about [swearword censored]=]|[= time!

I love how i call the Pope irrelevant and a gay basher and people pick up on my comments about his car ;)

The first two are givens.

To answer your questions ;)

1) http://www.condom-usa.com/shop/images/small/condomsmileylollipops.jpg

2) http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/emperor_pope.jpg


As for the slow change in the vatican - I'd say it's about [swearword censored]=]|[= time!

<333

Nationalist Sozy declares war on the pedophile priests, oppressors of the free African mind, and the anti-women oldies in the Vatican.

I love how i call the Pope irrelevant and a gay basher and people pick up on my comments about his car ;)

That's because your first two comments are appropriate to your name and not worthy of further comment :p

Gee, looks like the Catholic-haters will have one less thing to whine and bitch and stomp their feet and throw fits about :D

<333

http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/blume.gif :p

I don't care about the pope. all he ever does it try to give gay people less rights.

This is actually not true. He's just trying to keep them from sinning.

Before anyone attacks me: that's the view of the religion.

To answer your questions ;)

1) http://www.condom-usa.com/shop/images/small/condomsmileylollipops.jpg

2) http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/emperor_pope.jpg


As for the slow change in the vatican - I'd say it's about [swearword censored]=]|[= time!

Coming from an ex-Catholic, I really gotta say that the Catholic Church is actually rather progressive, especially in comparison to other sects. Such as Southern Baptists, whom seem to be caught in the Dark Ages.

Really, most of the hatred towards the Church these days is misconstrued and due largely to misunderstandings. Such as being "Anti-Gay", one must understand the reasons as to why. The Church believes that sex is for procreation, and if done for carnal pleasures, it is a sin. Heterosexuals whom have sex without the purpose of procreation are consider to be sinning just about(if not just as) bad as homosexuals. Do I agree with this? No, not really. I'm not religious. But I understand what they are getting at, at least.

Other similar points can be made, as well. I'm glad that the Church is willing to change with the times, and really they are hardly backwards(compared to other sects).

So, meh.

This is actually not true. He's just trying to keep them from sinning.

Before anyone attacks me: that's the view of the religion.

Indeed, and it's not hte fact that they are homosexuals that makes them sinners, it's the fact that sex for any purpose other than procreation is considered a sin.

That said, I don't think homosexuality is bad, in any way, shape, or form. I just understand the Church's viewpoint on it, and that it is not really anti-gay(It is anti-sex, period, so to speak).

An increasingly irrelevant, usually white guy with a pointy white hat that hates gays and drives a cool bulletproof car.

Almost accurate; the pope doesn't drive that car.

And you forgot his complete lack of knowledge of any religion other than Christianity (*cough*popemuslimcontroversy*cough*) and how he relies on Byzantine Emperors to be right all the time on religion.

So now the Vatican realizes that condoms don't promote promiscuity!

Wow, it's actually more progressive than the Suthern Baptists... though SBs are stuck in pre-Vatican times.

Well thank god! Now the pope says it's ok, I'll stop having rampant unprotected sex and start having rampant protected sex..

Well thank god! Now the pope says it's ok, I'll stop having rampant unprotected sex and start having rampant protected sex..

Too bad North Carolina is a mostly Protestant state. We'll never get decent sex ed classes.

Too bad North Carolina is a mostly Protestant state. We'll never get decent sex ed classes.

Or decent... well, you know... ;)

Or decent... well, you know... ;)

:p

:p

Hey, I try. :)

Really, most of the hatred towards the Church these days is misconstrued and due largely to misunderstandings. Such as being "Anti-Gay", one must understand the reasons as to why. The Church believes that sex is for procreation, and if done for carnal pleasures, it is a sin. Heterosexuals whom have sex without the purpose of procreation are consider to be sinning just about(if not just as) bad as homosexuals. Do I agree with this? No, not really. I'm not religious. But I understand what they are getting at, at least.

Other similar points can be made, as well. I'm glad that the Church is willing to change with the times, and really they are hardly backwards(compared to other sects).

So, meh.

In which case, they are now being hypocritical, as sex with contraceptives is non-procreative by default.

Whoops.

Really, most of the hatred towards the Church these days is misconstrued and due largely to misunderstandings. Such as being "Anti-Gay", one must understand the reasons as to why. The Church believes that sex is for procreation, and if done for carnal pleasures, it is a sin. Heterosexuals whom have sex without the purpose of procreation are consider to be sinning just about(if not just as) bad as homosexuals. Do I agree with this? No, not really. I'm not religious. But I understand what they are getting at, at least.

Actually Pope Benedict made a speech last year indicating that he believed that carnal pleasure could in fact bring people closer to God. Some have suggested that if he is able to cement such a position in church doctorine, he may be intending it as a springboard for peace with homosexual catholics. It also allows Pope Bene to legitimise contraception. Trying to change the church however won't be easy, even for the Pope.

In which case, they are now being hypocritical, as sex with contraceptives is non-procreative by default.

Whoops.

Eh, they are taking the worse of two evils, I suppose. They only reason why they are allowing it is largely due to the massive AIDS epemics, especially in Africa. They realize non-procreative sex is going to happen, regardless of what they say, so they would rather not spread AIDS if it's going to happen at all. They are still going to promote non-procreative sex above all else, but since they realize that people will still have non-procreative sex, they are willing to compromise a little bit.

It's not necessarily hypocritical, just realizing that they people may not listen to what they say, and coming to a conclusion that is the lesser of two evils, so to speak.

Considering the Catholic Church own the largest condom manufacturers in the Vatican City, this may help their condom sales.:confused:

???? Any kind of source for this?

Actually Pope Benedict made a speech last year indicating that he believed that carnal pleasure could in fact bring people closer to God. Some have suggested that if he is able to cement such a position in church doctorine, he may be intending it as a springboard for peace with homosexual catholics. It also allows Pope Bene to legitimise contraception Trying to change the church however won't be easy, even for the Pope.

Well what do ya know. Huh. Things have changed quite a bit in the past several years since I left the Church, I guess. I'm really rather intrigued as to how he has come to such a conclusion, as for the carnal pleasures bit. Glad to see things have changed quite a bit, and I find myself getting drawn towards the Church again. At least a great deal moreso than most protestant sects, whom seem to be adopting some of the ideals of early Catholicism, spouting off how "evil" everything they don't agree with and such is, and damning people left and right.

So, meh. Who knows, the Church is becoming quite progressive, and far more compassionate that other sects.

I suspect the Pope may have reached his conclusion about carnal pleasures realising he needed it to modernise church policy in other areas. I don't have a link to his speech; but I believe he provides a very long and academic arguement to try and support his position.

I must say, that despite Benedict not being the populist figure of his predecessor; his academic nature and the potential for him to be a cautious, politically astute, reformer, makes me like this Pope against my better judgement.

Wow.

What's a condom? And more importantly, who's the Pope?



This is the Pope...


http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/2445/emperor03th0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I suspect the Pope may have reached his conclusion about carnal pleasures realising he needed it to modernise church policy in other areas. I don't have a link to his speech; but I believe he provides a very long and academic arguement to try and support his position.

I must say, that despite Benedict not being the populist figure of his predecessor; his academic nature and the potential for him to be a cautious, politically astute, reformer, makes me like this Pope against my better judgement.

Indeed, I was even a bit weary when Benedict became pope, but it is far more progressive than what most people conjectured, and he actually seems like quite a good choice as far as popes go. He may not be as popular was John Paul II, but he is definately doing very good things(in my opinion, that is) for the Church. He is giving the Church a pretty damn good name, really, and most of the assumptions against the Church are unfounded, misguided, or completely false. It isn't the corrupt institution that it was a few hundred years ago.

That, and I've found people who hate Catholics because they are Catholic. I've met people who didn't give a rats ass that I wasn't Christian or that I was Agnostic, but the second they found out that my family was Catholic, and had "Catholic Blood" in me, they practically despised my existance.

This is the Pope...

Phail. Someone beat you to it.

That, and I've found people who hate Catholics because they are Catholic. I've met people who didn't give a rats ass that I wasn't Christian or that I was Agnostic, but the second they found out that my family was Catholic, and had "Catholic Blood" in me, they practically despised my existance.

They give us Catholic-haters a bad name. :p

I despise the institution of the RCC on doctrinal grounds, but over half of my friends are Catholic. In fact, out of all of the female friends of mine, only three aren't. It's quite annoying, really, that people think that because I hate the institution, I hate the people.

This is the Pope...


http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/2445/emperor03th0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Funny. As in, not at all. I've seen that picture ten thousand times, and it only gets less funny every time. And really, he is hardly evil, corrupt, or nefarious. So really, it is about as funny as Friends. I.E. Not at all.

Funny. As in, not at all. I've seen that picture ten thousand times, and it only gets less funny every time. And really, he is hardly evil, corrupt, or nefarious. So really, it is about as funny as Friends. I.E. Not at all.

and you were asked by who? :upyours:

They give us Catholic-haters a bad name. :p

I despise the institution of the RCC on doctrinal grounds, but over half of my friends are Catholic. In fact, out of all of the female friends of mine, only three aren't. It's quite annoying, really, that people think that because I hate the institution, I hate the people.

And that's perfectly fine, really. You disagree with what the Church does, not the people. But I have met a growing number of people whom seem to just hate Catholics, period. However, my father has converted to Baptism, of all things, and after attending one of their masses(or whatever they call their services, I'm used to using "mass"), I could only shake my head, and wonder "Why?" Really, I can't believe some of the things they talk about, and it was rather odd to me hearing people how Jesus affected their life in some way or not, making it seem more like they were trying to convince themselves of their faith more than anything. Especially when little kids, whom were rather obviously coached by their parents as what to say, were saying things that no 5 year old would ever say in such an articulate way.

and you were asked by who? :upyours:

No one. But you know, it's a public forum. And I can speak my opinion at will. I don't need permission to do such. Such is the beauty of "public forums".

Actually Pope Benedict made a speech last year indicating that he believed that carnal pleasure could in fact bring people closer to God. Some have suggested that if he is able to cement such a position in church doctorine, he may be intending it as a springboard for peace with homosexual catholics. It also allows Pope Bene to legitimise contraception. Trying to change the church however won't be easy, even for the Pope.

-posts combined-

I suspect the Pope may have reached his conclusion about carnal pleasures realising he needed it to modernise church policy in other areas. I don't have a link to his speech; but I believe he provides a very long and academic arguement to try and support his position.

I must say, that despite Benedict not being the populist figure of his predecessor; his academic nature and the potential for him to be a cautious, politically astute, reformer, makes me like this Pope against my better judgement.

Excellent.

Considering the Catholic Church own the largest condom manufacturers in the Vatican City, this may help their condom sales.
???? Any kind of source for this?

Indeed. I wondered about that myself.

Actually Pope Benedict made a speech last year indicating that he believed that carnal pleasure could in fact bring people closer to God. Some have suggested that if he is able to cement such a position in church doctorine, he may be intending it as a springboard for peace with homosexual catholics. It also allows Pope Bene to legitimise contraception. Trying to change the church however won't be easy, even for the Pope.

If that's what he's trying, he'll be going against a lifetime of work--his own work. Don't get me wrong--I'd welcome the move--but considering his previous stances on homosexuality in the church, I think that's a stretch.

This is the Pope...


http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/2445/emperor03th0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

And this is the Pope on drugs...

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/fyi/student.bureau/12/06/brain.on.drugs/story.fried.eggs.jpg

(I'd so be going to hell, if it existed, for that one, if I already weren't for being a "pagan" non-beliver.

Also wonders if kids today will get that crusty oldy...)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5355758.stm

That is quite simply some of the dumbest shit I have ever seen, and typical of Catholic dogma to want to split hairs over specifically applied definitions of otherwise common words. It's why they're so confused. "Oh, I know this Pope said that, but he said it fallably, not infallably, so on the fourth Tuesday of a month with 2 full moons then it's OK to covet thy neighbors wife." "Ah, but this other Pope said this other thing infallably, so if your front door faces north and it's an ALTERNATE Tuesday, then you're a sinner." "No, no. That Pope wanted to do so infallably, but he never submitted the proper form in triplicate, so it doesn't count."

It's as easy as this: the Pope is "speaking infallably" when he is saying something that is correct. Period. A good example is, "all good Catholics believe X." That is an infallable statement coming from the Pope, since those who are Catholic profess the Pope to be the final arbiter in all matters of the interpretation of their doctrine and subsequent expression of their faith. Therefore anything he says about what Catholics believe will be correct, hence infallable. So if the Pope says, "all good Catholics do not use birth control" then that is infallable, and if you consider yourself a good Catholic then you will not use birth control. It is also incredibly dangerous, but thems the breaks. Another good example, which the article appears to dispute, is quoting from a historical text. If the Pope were to state, "The book titled X and written by author Y reads thusly..." and proceeded to read what the book says, that is infallable, because he's right because he's reading the damn book. If he reads from the book and issues the quote directly as if it were a true statement, and the book is or could be wrong, for example, if he were directly quoting some of Hitler's theories on the culpability of Jews for German economic hardship in the early 20th century, then that is fallable. When the Pope says something like, "condoms do not prevent the spread of AIDS," or "the sun revolves around the earth," then he is dead fucking wrong. Period. Even if that is what he truly believes to be the truth. If he's saying something that might be true but no one knows for sure, like, "There is a God," then he is issuing a fallable statement. That doesn't mean he is indeed wrong, just that he might not be right, so the possibility exists that he could be wrong, hence his statement posesses fallability. In review: Pope says, "All good Catholics believe that there is a God." Infallable. Pope says, "There is a God." Fallable.

To say that there has only been one occasion since the First Vatican Council (1870) that a Pope has issued an infallable statement means that there are some serious doctrinal deficiencies that need to be addressed, because the rest of the world has come a long way since then. It also causes one to wonder what it is about Popes or Catholicism or perhaps just life in the Vatican that eschews the statement of absolute truths.

...within marriage, where one partner already had HIV - how does this help anything? monogamous married couples (the only people the church is *considering* allowing to use them) are beat only by celibates for low likelihood of STDs. the church has nothing to do with this problem. if they want to help stop the spread of AIDS, they should approve gay marriage and encourage monogamous gay relationships.

...within marriage, where one partner already had HIV - how does this help anything? monogamous married couples (the only people the church is *considering* allowing to use them) are beat only by celibates for low likelihood of STDs. the church has nothing to do with this problem. if they want to help stop the spread of AIDS, they should approve gay marriage and encourage monogamous gay relationships.

Unnameability2 lifts up the Little Rock you've been hiding under since the 80's.

Hello in there? Hey, HIV and AIDS isn't just a gay thing anymore. We found out we were wrong. Infection commonly occurs in any sexually promiscuous individual, gay or straight, simply because the more partners you go through the more you increase the likelihood one of them is going to have HIV and you're going to catch it. While I agree that gay people should be able to have a marriage relationship and that they should have the same rights as straight people, they aren't the "mosquitos" of HIV, so encouraging their monogomous relationships is going to help about as much as encouraging monogamous straight relationships. People need to stop messing around if they are in a monogamous relationship and we all need to use birth control, specifically condoms, if we are at all concerned that our partner, monogamous or otherwise, has been sleeping with people who might have infected them with HIV.

If that's what he's trying, he'll be going against a lifetime of work--his own work. Don't get me wrong--I'd welcome the move--but considering his previous stances on homosexuality in the church, I think that's a stretch.

Ratzinger was never a liberal; but he has always been a moderate and a reformer back to the 50s and during his days as a Professor. He's never been a person to openly challenge church policy; he wouldn't be Pope if he was.

Most people (incorrectly) associate Bene with hard line views for three reasons:
1) He sure isn't pretty.
2) He served as Prefect of the Doctorine of the Faith, which meant he had to do John Paul II's dirty, hardline work.
3) He was a German forced in the Hitler Youth. He must be the evil Nazi Pope!

I'm not saying he's going to change church policy of homosexuality, that would be suicidal. Instead he'll take more tempered steps as seen, and leave the door open for direct action on homosexuality at a future time. Try and satisfy liberals without angering the conservative majority.

I thought this would be conditional, like "Pope may OK condoms... if condoms look like his white hat."

Or Pope-Flavored Condoms. For Her Displeasure.

Stuff like that.
Or, "Pope approves condoms - as long as there's a hole at both ends"

I view the Pope in the same way i view Papa Smurf. He always seems nice and wise, always tries to teach a moral at the end of each episode and is the leader of a completly ficticious cast of characters.

Bonus points if you can guess who Gargamel represents! ;)
Your Mom!

On the question of AIDS in Africa apart from the obvious humanitarian issues what concern is it of the Vaticans?

It is unsound sexual practices that is helping spread AIDS.

If these people were Catholic you wouldn't expect them to be doing acts against Catholic doctrine.

If they aren't Catholic the onus shouldn't be on the Catholic Church to solve the problem with Condoms.

Blaming the Catholic Church for Africa's AIDS problem is just foolish.

Phail. Someone beat you to it.
I did, in post #32 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11988640&postcount=32).

Ra Ra Ratzinger, Rome's greatest love machine.......

That is quite simply some of the dumbest shit I have ever seen, and typical of Catholic dogma to want to split hairs over specifically applied definitions of otherwise common words. It's why they're so confused. "Oh, I know this Pope said that, but he said it fallably, not infallably, so on the fourth Tuesday of a month with 2 full moons then it's OK to covet thy neighbors wife." "Ah, but this other Pope said this other thing infallably, so if your front door faces north and it's an ALTERNATE Tuesday, then you're a sinner." "No, no. That Pope wanted to do so infallably, but he never submitted the proper form in triplicate, so it doesn't count."


Hilarious. :rolleyes:

It's as easy as this: the Pope is "speaking infallably" when he is saying something that is correct. Period. A good example is, "all good Catholics believe X." That is an infallable statement coming from the Pope, since those who are Catholic profess the Pope to be the final arbiter in all matters of the interpretation of their doctrine and subsequent expression of their faith. Therefore anything he says about what Catholics believe will be correct, hence infallable. So if the Pope says, "all good Catholics do not use birth control" then that is infallable, and if you consider yourself a good Catholic then you will not use birth control. It is also incredibly dangerous, but thems the breaks. Another good example, which the article appears to dispute, is quoting from a historical text.

Not everything the Pope says falls under unfallibility. It applies when speaking on dogmatic teachings. See the word dogma in that sentence? It means the questions posed cannot be doubted. Not even in the slightest bit. Hence, the most recent time infallibility was used was by Pius XII and the Assumption of Mary. It doesnt apply to whenever the Pope speaks. The fact that views on the nature of homosexuality and evolution have changed shows that the Pope is not infallible on every subject. Maybe you would understand if you knew what you were talking about.

Side note: Natural Family Planning/Rhythm Method are Catholic-sanctioned birth control, so your example is out. And "believe" is different from "do."

If the Pope were to state, "The book titled X and written by author Y reads thusly..." and proceeded to read what the book says, that is infallable, because he's right because he's reading the damn book.

You have no grasp of what the concept of ifallibility is, do you?

If he reads from the book and issues the quote directly as if it were a true statement, and the book is or could be wrong, for example, if he were directly quoting some of Hitler's theories on the culpability of Jews for German economic hardship in the early 20th century, then that is fallable. When the Pope says something like, "condoms do not prevent the spread of AIDS," or "the sun revolves around the earth," then he is dead fucking wrong. Period. Even if that is what he truly believes to be the truth. If he's saying something that might be true but no one knows for sure, like, "There is a God," then he is issuing a fallable statement. That doesn't mean he is indeed wrong, just that he might not be right, so the possibility exists that he could be wrong, hence his statement posesses fallability.

See, you need to learn how to differentiate between what the Pope physically speaks and what is written in encyclicals and other Papal document. The Assumption of Mary might be true, but no one knows for sure, and yet that was verified by inallibility because it is dogmatic. Infallilibility onlly applies to dogmatic teachings. It doesnt apply to condom use.

In review: Pope says, "All good Catholics believe that there is a God." Infallable. Pope says, "There is a God." Fallable.

Here, since you couldnt grasp the idea, here's an idiot's primer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

To say that there has only been one occasion since the First Vatican Council (1870) that a Pope has issued an infallable statement means that there are some serious doctrinal deficiencies that need to be addressed, because the rest of the world has come a long way since then. It also causes one to wonder what it is about Popes or Catholicism or perhaps just life in the Vatican that eschews the statement of absolute truths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Instances_of_papal_infallibility

Oops, you are too damn stupid to understand the concept so you denounce it. Condom use is no absolute truth. What happened to Mary's body is a question of faith.

Pray tell, what doctrinal deficiencies need to be addressed?

Not everything the Pope says falls under unfallibility. It applies when speaking on dogmatic teachings.

It applies when he is saying something that is correct; when he says something that lacks fallibility. Period. That is what the word "infallible" means. Since he will always be correct when speaking on dogmatic teachings as they relate to the Catholics, that is one set of instances in which he will be speaking infallibly. If he says, "The Earth is round," that is also an infallible statement, though completely unrelated to Catholic dogma.

It means the questions posed cannot be doubted. Not even in the slightest bit.

Yes. That is exactly what the word "infallible" means. You have spoken infallibly.

Hence, the most recent time infallibility was used was by Pius XII and the Assumption of Mary.

I personally find that disturbing, but I have no data to show otherwise, so...

It doesnt apply to whenever the Pope speaks.

Yes, it does. It applies whenever anyone speaks. Whatever anyone says anywhere at any time may be categorized as either fallible or infallible. You can't just decide that an absolute is true in one case and not true in another because you don't like the implications.

The fact that views on the nature of homosexuality and evolution have changed shows that the Pope is not infallible on every subject. Maybe you would understand if you knew what you were talking about.

The idea that the Pope has the capacity to be fallible was never at issue. Maybe you would understand that if you knew what you were talking about.

Side note: Natural Family Planning/Rhythm Method are Catholic-sanctioned birth control, so your example is out.

My example said "if" and if the Pope said that all good Catholics do not use birth control, that is an issue related to Catholic dogma, and therefore he would be speaking infallibly. So my example is "in." I didn't say he DID say that, but if he did, then he would be correct. Or are you disputing the infallability of the Pope on the subject of Catholic dogma, an idea which you supported earlier?

And "believe" is different from "do."

OK, so what you're getting at is that if the Pope said, "All good Catholics do not believe in using birth control," then he would be infallible? If so, thanks for proving my earlier point about splitting hairs.

You have no grasp of what the concept of ifallibility is, do you?

My grasp of infallibility is fine. It appears to have eluded you. Here's an idiot's primer:

in‧fal‧li‧ble  /ɪnˈfæləbəl/ [in-fal-uh-buhl] –adjective
1. absolutely trustworthy or sure: an infallible rule.
2. unfailing in effectiveness or operation; certain: an infallible remedy.
3. not fallible; exempt from liability to error, as persons, their judgment, or pronouncements: an infallible principle.

See, you need to learn how to differentiate between what the Pope physically speaks and what is written in encyclicals and other Papal document.

Wow. So if the Pope writes down the very thing he says, it only counts when he says it? And if he wrote a lasting document, words written legibly on paper, whether you call it an encyclical or whatever else you like, then we're to take that less seriously than if he speaks the words? What if it were a document that someone created by taking dictation from the Pope? I suppose that isn't directly written by the Pope's hand, so it probably doesn't count, either. What if the Pope reads something he wrote down earlier? Do we have to wait until he physically verbalizes the words to determine if they are infallible or not? Can he only be infallible to those who actually hear him speak the words? What about when that message is passed on, for surely even with the prevalence of television and radio in the modern world, the entire worldwide society of Catholics can't ALL be listening to him when he makes public announcements? If the Pope mutters to himself in his private chambers, and no one is around to hear him, did he really make a sound?

The Assumption of Mary might be true, but no one knows for sure, and yet that was verified by inallibility because it is dogmatic. Infallilibility onlly applies to dogmatic teachings. It doesnt apply to condom use.

Again, and using concepts that you have advanced, the BELIEF in the Assumption of Mary, i.e. if the Pope said that all Catholics believe in the Assumption, is infallible. If he said it DID actually happen, he is speaking fallibly because nobody will ever be able to prove for sure if it actually, physically happened or not. If he has actual proof that it happened, then saying that it DID happen would be an infallible statement. The exact same concept applies to condom use. "Condoms are bad," is a fallible statement, no matter who makes it. "Catholics don't use condoms," coming from the Pope is infallible if he excommunicates anyone who uses condoms. Not that he does that, or did indeed say that, but if he did say it and subsequently excommunicated anyone he found using condoms, it would be an infallible statement.

Here, since you couldnt grasp the idea, here's an idiot's primer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Instances_of_papal_infallibility

And again, you prove my point about Catholics splitting hairs about specifically applied definitions of otherwise common words. Infallible means what it means, not what you want it to mean when you want it to mean that. Infallibility as applied to the Pope is not different from infallibiilty as applied to you or I or anyone else. If an object that is capable of communication makes a statement that is incapable of being untrue, then it is infallible. If the Pope says something that is infallible, and then you turn around and repeat it verbatim, then you have also spoken infallibly, as the truth of the statement has not changed at all. You can say, "The Pope is infallible in these cases and not these cases," and if "these cases" of infallibility include statements that might be or are patently incorrect, then you have spoken fallibly in your definition of Papal infallibility.

Oops, you are too damn stupid to understand the concept so you denounce it. Condom use is no absolute truth. What happened to Mary's body is a question of faith.

While I agree with such a stance regarding the Assumption, I'd like to see any credible data at all that you might have supporting the idea that condom use does not do what the current, rather massive body of empirical and anecdotal evidence says that it does. If the idea that condoms are largely successful in preventing pregnancy and the transmission of STDs is not an absolute truth, it is my opinion that the world deserves to know, because it sure does feel a lot better without them.

Pray tell, what doctrinal deficiencies need to be addressed?

For starters, lets stick with the deficiency related to condoms above. If it is indeed true that the last time a Pope has spoken infallibly was in 1870, then there should also be things like automobiles, radio, television, genetic engineering, nuclear weapons and warfare, machine guns and a host of other inventions that the Catholic church ought to take a stand on, so an infallible statement of how Catholics ought to deal with them really ought to be issued. Perhaps the fallibility of statements made to date is yet another reason that Catholics are so confused, as you have grandly demonstrated.

Wow.

What's a condom? And more impotantly, who's the Pope?

:)