ChatterBank0 min ago
I am disgusted
154 Answers
Pope John Paul II.This man presided over a clerical abuse coverup and contributed to an AIDS epidemic. And now they want to make him a saint?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by soaps. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
In the case of the man who thought he could give his HIV infection away, was it not a case of him misunderstanding what had been said to him?
If the doctor had said: 'If you continue to have unprotected sex you will harm your partners,' he might have acted differently.
The nuances of language need to be taken into consideration.
If the doctor had said: 'If you continue to have unprotected sex you will harm your partners,' he might have acted differently.
The nuances of language need to be taken into consideration.
Sandy, yes, I think he might have, but people like him take everything that's said to them literally. You give something to someone, therefore you don't have it any more. However, the point I was making was that this naive mentality is what the church is, in many instances, dealing with and yet they don't take that into consideration at all.
Sqad, the church taught him that the use of condoms is a sin - so he doesn't.
Sqad, the church taught him that the use of condoms is a sin - so he doesn't.
naomi....
<<<Sqad, the church taught him that the use of condoms is a sin - so he doesn't.<<
Oh! yes he does and so does a significant number of Catholics put two fingers up to the Pope on the use of condoms. The "devout" Catholics will do whatever the Pope edicts but there is a sizeable percentage that will use condoms.
So......there should be no spread of AIDS due to the Church, assuming that the "devout " Catholics are indeed "devout"
So the devout Catholics dont play away...cus the Pope has told them not too.
The non devout Catholics wear condoms.
So what has the Church got to do with the spread of AIDS
<<<Sqad, the church taught him that the use of condoms is a sin - so he doesn't.<<
Oh! yes he does and so does a significant number of Catholics put two fingers up to the Pope on the use of condoms. The "devout" Catholics will do whatever the Pope edicts but there is a sizeable percentage that will use condoms.
So......there should be no spread of AIDS due to the Church, assuming that the "devout " Catholics are indeed "devout"
So the devout Catholics dont play away...cus the Pope has told them not too.
The non devout Catholics wear condoms.
So what has the Church got to do with the spread of AIDS
Again Sqad....so what if a devout Catholic is married to a not devout Catholic?
My mates Mum is a devout Catholic. She even sent £50 to the Pope when she was pregnant for him to pray that she had a little girl. Her husband was not devout...far from it. She wouldn't divorce though because it went against her religion...so she put up with years of misery.
My mates Mum is a devout Catholic. She even sent £50 to the Pope when she was pregnant for him to pray that she had a little girl. Her husband was not devout...far from it. She wouldn't divorce though because it went against her religion...so she put up with years of misery.
The canard that the RC Church has helped in the spread of HIV-AIDS is easily refuted. Good Catholic's who followed the churches teachings would not have got themselves infected and would present no threat to anyone.
Sinners would hardly listen to the church as they made their way down the primrose path to perdition.
Sinners would hardly listen to the church as they made their way down the primrose path to perdition.
ummmm
.<<<.so what if a devout Catholic is married to a not devout Catholic? <<<
I don´t know how common this is, but that situation should be sorted out between the participants. Are you assuming that the non devout Catholic is "playing away"...if so, that has nothing to do with the Church. If the non devout Catholic IS playing away, he will be wearing a condom for his own safety and will not transmit HIV to his wife. If he doesn´t wear a condom whilst playing away, you are assuming that he isn´t wearing one because the Church told him not to....but he is "no devout"......so nothing to do with the Church.
Now whether his devout wife will let him have intercourse with a condom is up to them both, but if she demands intercourse without a condom because of the "Church" and he agrees, then it is nothing to do with the Church if she gets HIV it is because of foolish "non devout Catholic" agreeing to it.....nothing to do with the Church.
.<<<.so what if a devout Catholic is married to a not devout Catholic? <<<
I don´t know how common this is, but that situation should be sorted out between the participants. Are you assuming that the non devout Catholic is "playing away"...if so, that has nothing to do with the Church. If the non devout Catholic IS playing away, he will be wearing a condom for his own safety and will not transmit HIV to his wife. If he doesn´t wear a condom whilst playing away, you are assuming that he isn´t wearing one because the Church told him not to....but he is "no devout"......so nothing to do with the Church.
Now whether his devout wife will let him have intercourse with a condom is up to them both, but if she demands intercourse without a condom because of the "Church" and he agrees, then it is nothing to do with the Church if she gets HIV it is because of foolish "non devout Catholic" agreeing to it.....nothing to do with the Church.
If I was the Pope, and couldn't care less about AIDS, I'd want to see a steady increase in the number of little R.C.s running around. HIV positive or not. If African 'concrete thinking' assists in replication, then all well and good. Outside Africa, adherence to the doctrine for religion's sake, is just as good. More R.Cs, less critical thinking, that's what we need, and if you think differently then we'll proclaim another Inquisition. After all, it worked very well last time, didn't it ?
Sqad...you just don't understand it. She doesn't demand her husband wears a condom because it is against her religion to do so. She doesn't deny him sex because it's her wifely duty even though she may suspect that he's been playing away.
Do you think someone who has aids due to 'playing around' is going to demand that he uses a condom with his wife? Do they even know they have aids?
Do you think someone who has aids due to 'playing around' is going to demand that he uses a condom with his wife? Do they even know they have aids?
ummmm...I DO understand..LOL.......she is not going to let him have sex with a condom because her religion tells her she musn´t and HE who may or may not have HIV wants a jump.
Is that it?
So to blame religion we must have a husband and wife that are not religiously "compatible" and he may or not have HIV..........OK...blame religion.
Is that it?
So to blame religion we must have a husband and wife that are not religiously "compatible" and he may or not have HIV..........OK...blame religion.
Sqad, unless you are winding us up, for someone who claims to be a medical professional I'm very surprised at your naivety. I can only presume you are completely unfamiliar with the developing world, and Africa in particular, because you appear to be missing the point completely - you too Sandy. No, he doesn't use condoms. I posted that story in response to Huderon who said that people can make a choice, but you don't seem to understand that the people I'm talking about are uneducated, they still live in tribes and they are not intellectually equipped to make informed choices. If a preacher tells them they will burn in hellfire for using a condom, they believe him. Yes, the church must definitely shoulder some of the responsibility for the spread of Aids.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3176982.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3176982.stm
Oh boy ... I knew I should have kept my keyboard locked up :-) OK so work is done for the day and I'll try and catch up ...
Beso, I have no problem with atheists presenting their views on religions, all I want to know is in what way the Catholic church's rules on sex and condom use contribute to the spread of AIDS. If you are a Catholic and follow the rules you are not going to spread AIDS, if you aren't a Catholic the rules don't apply to you. If you are a Catholic and decide to have sex outside of marriage, but then argue that the rules say you can't use a condom, that isn't down to the church - it's the PERSON who doesn't WANT to use a condom justifying their OWN wish by using one rule while breaking another.
Beso, I have no problem with atheists presenting their views on religions, all I want to know is in what way the Catholic church's rules on sex and condom use contribute to the spread of AIDS. If you are a Catholic and follow the rules you are not going to spread AIDS, if you aren't a Catholic the rules don't apply to you. If you are a Catholic and decide to have sex outside of marriage, but then argue that the rules say you can't use a condom, that isn't down to the church - it's the PERSON who doesn't WANT to use a condom justifying their OWN wish by using one rule while breaking another.
Huderon, I've told you why the church's ruling on use of the condom contributes to the spread of Aids. Check out the link I posted. Aids is rife in the developing world and, yes I am an atheist, but I can't ignore the Catholic church because I happen to care about the fate of people who are intellectually unequipped to reject superstitious dogma in order to protect their own health and that of their unborn children.
Notafish, I've seen that video. Very emotive it is too. I haven't read the book Fry referred to, but I doubt that More personally tortured people. My guess is that Fry was referring to the fact that More was Lord Chancellor at the time, a position which made him responsible for dealing with legal cases, and that during his period as chancellor 6 people were burned at the stake for heresy (which is what printing, distributing and reading the bible and other protestant books was classed as).
Now being burned at the stake is a painful way to die, but it was the law at the time. And More himself vigorously denied torturing people. More's boss would have been in favour of the law (having written a work in support of the church as well as having acknowledged the supremacy of the church). It wasn't till Henry fell out with the church over the little matter of a divorce that his attitude towards the church changed. And since More did not go along with Henry, preferring to stay faithful to the (Catholic) church he wound up being beheaded for treason.
Oh, one other minor point Fry missed out regarding torture .. torture was not usually used (and had not been used for some time) to extract confessions from people. It was usually used to extract the names of the accomplices of people who had been already tried and convicted, and was not finally abolished in England until 1772.
Now being burned at the stake is a painful way to die, but it was the law at the time. And More himself vigorously denied torturing people. More's boss would have been in favour of the law (having written a work in support of the church as well as having acknowledged the supremacy of the church). It wasn't till Henry fell out with the church over the little matter of a divorce that his attitude towards the church changed. And since More did not go along with Henry, preferring to stay faithful to the (Catholic) church he wound up being beheaded for treason.
Oh, one other minor point Fry missed out regarding torture .. torture was not usually used (and had not been used for some time) to extract confessions from people. It was usually used to extract the names of the accomplices of people who had been already tried and convicted, and was not finally abolished in England until 1772.
NOX, I'm not denying that women do not always have the choices they should have, all I have said is that if you are A) Catholic and B) follow the church's teachings on sex you are NOT going to contribute to the spread of AIDS. So tell me, in what way do those teachings contribute to the spread of AIDS ?
Now certainly is hubby is going to put himself about there is a very good chance that he'll come home and infect his wife, but that is the result of HIS actions and not the teachings of the church.
Now certainly is hubby is going to put himself about there is a very good chance that he'll come home and infect his wife, but that is the result of HIS actions and not the teachings of the church.
Nox
///But religion Squad affects the spread of Aids, that is a well documented fact, because the Catholic church prohibits the use of condoms and the lack of using condoms leads to an increase in the spread of the HIV virus. ///
Religion does not spread the virus, people do, and in Africa most of them are not Catholic, so using condoms should not be a problem for them. However (apart from the issue of availability) it obviously is, as it seems to be for a lot of men elsewhere - I never liked using them and I'm fairly sure that I'm not unique. That had sod all to do with religion and an awful lot to do with personal preference and choice, for which the Catholic church cannot be responsible
///But religion Squad affects the spread of Aids, that is a well documented fact, because the Catholic church prohibits the use of condoms and the lack of using condoms leads to an increase in the spread of the HIV virus. ///
Religion does not spread the virus, people do, and in Africa most of them are not Catholic, so using condoms should not be a problem for them. However (apart from the issue of availability) it obviously is, as it seems to be for a lot of men elsewhere - I never liked using them and I'm fairly sure that I'm not unique. That had sod all to do with religion and an awful lot to do with personal preference and choice, for which the Catholic church cannot be responsible
