The Catholics are at it again

[Tyrone Biggums]

I don't think its really the case that religious african people catch AIDs more than others, its the fact that someting which can prevent the transferrence of the illness/disease whatever it is, is banned by a church. Therefore that churches followers are surely more at risk.

Lots of misinformation flies about in regards to the issue.

Msgr. Kevin Dowling, Rustenburg, South Africa
Monsignor Kevin Dowling, bishop of Rustenburg, South Africa, said in an e-mail that condoms are in line with Catholic teachings “in certain circumstances, [when] the use of a condom is allowable not as a contraceptive but to prevent disease.” He said of the HIV ministry program he administers, “We do not give out condoms, but people are fully informed about prevention methods and helped to make informed decisions about how they can protect themselves and, if they themselves are HIV positive, how they can avoid infecting someone else.”

Bishop Kevin Dowling, South Africa
Bishop Dowling, in an interview about HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment in South Africa said, "Abstinence before marriage and faithfulness in a marriage is beyond the realm of possibility here. The issue is to protect life. That must be our fundamental goal." Drawing attention to the especially difficult plight of women in the traditionally male-dominated societies of his diocese he continued, "My passion is for the women. I'm in that corner." About the African people, he says, "They must use condoms," maintaining his stance despite the Vatican’s continued opposition to such a policy.

The bigots on both sides of the fences cloud the truth.

 

[Simster]

Lots of misinformation flies about in regards to the issue.

So it's OK for you to say that being pro-religion, but not for anyone who isn't?


You're the hypocrite around here.

 

[aolstudios]

To much to write quicker if i post this.

go, Stephen, go

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Did you think before posting that? Your scattergun approach to shit-spreading does you no favours.

Seeing as you've levelled this accusation at me, perhaps you can highlight which things in life I find intolerable which you would find hypocritical?

I did think before I posted.

I thought about humanity as a whole and how we are ALL the same. Are you part of humanity? Do you display common traits found throughout humanity?

You take being called a hypocrite as an insult and get all antsy over it.

I take is as being a given as a normal person that I will on various things have a hypocritical position.

All i'm accusing you of is being normal...

 

[Westdene Seagull]

To much to write quicker if i post this.

I've never seen that before but Fry is one of my favourite speakers - intelligent and witty. Thanks - enjoyed that

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

"It has "sod" all to do with gay marriage." I see what you did there!

Back to the main point of your post:

Because its another example of the very irresponsible attitude of the Vatican!

From Wiki: "In 2005, the Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches of Africa embraced approximately 135,600,000 members of the 809,105,000 residents in Africa. In 2009, when Pope Benedict XVI visited Africa, it was estimated at 158 million.[1] By 2025, one-sixth (230 million) of the world's Catholics are expected to be African."

Therefore, were the Pope to confirm it is OK to wear condoms, this could have a dramatic effect upon the spread of Aids throughout Africa.

Hang on, Uganda has the highest amount of Catholics per head of population in Africa and it greatly reduced its rate of AID's in part to the Government and the Church devising its ABC policy which stands for "Abstinence, Be Faithful, or use Condoms.

That policy helped greatly reduce the incidence of AID's within that nation and was held up as a beacon of hope for other nations on how to combat the problem.

How can it be the Churches fault when Uganda shows that one of the most successful programs in Africa involved the church?

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

So it's OK for you to say that being pro-religion, but not for anyone who isn't?


You're the hypocrite around here.

It's nothing to do with being pro-relgion. It's about misrepresenting an opinion without actually reading jack shit on the issue.

You seem to think anyone who diagrees with you agrees with every single thing religion has been a privvy too.

Which is utter bullshit as most reasonable religious people will be horrified by the bad shit every bit as much as you would.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Hang on, Uganda has the highest amount of Catholics per head of population in Africa and it greatly reduced its rate of AID's in part to the Government and the Church devising its ABC policy which stands for "Abstinence, Be Faithful, or use Condoms.

That policy helped greatly reduce the incidence of AID's within that nation and was held up as a beacon of hope for other nations on how to combat the problem.

How can it be the Churches fault when Uganda shows that one of the most successful programs in Africa involved the church?

It's quite telling the order of the ABC. The Church is partly to blame for preaching an anti-condom agenda for many many years. Common sense would suggest that you get everyone to wear a condom and then deal with A and B later.

 

[The Large One]

I did think before I posted.

I thought about humanity as a whole and how we are ALL the same. Are you part of humanity? Do you display common traits found throughout humanity?

You take being called a hypocrite as an insult and get all antsy over it.

I take is as being a given as a normal person that I will on various things have a hypocritical position.

All i'm accusing you of is being normal...

Please, who do you think you're trying to talk down to - an idiot? I understand fully the tone of your post.

So, are you going to offer an example of humanity where I take two equals not being treated equally as tolerant?

 

[LamieRobertson]

If you're against marriage in general then fine but if you're against gay people getting married because they are, well, gay - what else can it be other than homophobia ? You would be discriminating against some one based on their sexuality - how is that either right or moral ?

Sorry don't agree..the sanctum of marriage was for a woman and a man...that doesn't automatically give it the right to be the same for a same sex couple who may of course be recognised as a partnership...and i don't think that makes me homophobic etc etc...but i respect your opinion

Popping out to work to get wet now..will look back later..probably after the match

 

[Westdene Seagull]

..the sanctum of marriage was for a woman and a man...

Says who ? Oh yes the church !

 

[Southwick_Seagull]

To much to write quicker if i post this.

Great post. Should of put the Hitchens one up as well.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

It's quite telling the order of the ABC. The Church is partly to blame for preaching an anti-condom agenda for many many years. Common sense would suggest that you get everyone to wear a condom and then deal with A and B later.

Preaching to who? Catholics? As I've asked previously show me the statistics where Catholics have the highest rate of AIDs and I will gladly put my hand up and say guys, you were right.

There seems to be some assumption that if a Catholic clergyman says one thing the whole worlds listens, which of course is rubbish. Even when it's shown that Catholics Bishops don't mirror what the Pope says the same diatribe with no statistical basis keeps getting spouted.

It's like saying if David Cameron says something all of the French people listen and follow what he says.

As for the order, if it's working then what is the issue? If nations with no Catholic influence are experiencing higher rates of AIDs then that's more telling in the fact their policies to reduce the disease are sadly failing.

 

[chimneys]

...the sanctum of marriage was for a woman and a man...that doesn't automatically give it the right to be the same for a same sex couple who may of course be recognised as a partnership...and i don't think that makes me homophobic etc etc...

"...that doesnt automatically give it the right to be the same for a same sex couple...." Surely you agree that statement is discriminatory therefore homophobic? Again, substitute black/white for heterosexual/homosexual. That would be overtly racist so why any difference for sexual orientation?

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Says who ? Oh yes the church !

Perhaps the problem was they never patent the word itself. Personally it all seems to be a lot of semantics over a word.

The Gays want the word and a lot of the non-gay community don't want to give it up.

If it was only about having a legally binding agreement which a marriage is, then civil unions offer the same protection.

So it has to be about the word.

 

[ROSM]

Isnt that a bit of a sweeping statement? I thought the "christian church" would include all christians from whatever denomination within the christian faith, which must surely include some that believe gay marriage is not abhorrent? Or are you suggesting that in order to be a true Christian you must be against gay marriage?

It's not a sweeping statement - its a quotation from the church of england marriage service.

Given that it has been said for many hundreds of years then surely you can understand that there will be some who will disagree with same sex marriages. By the same token there will be some who have never set foot in a church who will also disagree. And just to balance it off there will be many christians and non believers who agree with same sex marriages.

But it is a matter of opinion and is based on what people believe (a bit like global warming where I'm sure there are some teachers who will cover it in school lessons but dont necessarily agree with the view).

I personally support same sex marriages.

As for the worry that it is being read in 2500 churches - given the average attendance is 95 per service then that's just under 250,000 people who will hear it. Slightly less that those who attend BNP meetings or much less than those who read Richard Littlejohn.

 

[Doc Lynam]

Great post. Should of put the Hitchens one up as well.

 

[beorhthelm]

As for the worry that it is being read in 2500 churches - given the average attendance is 95 per service then that's just under 250,000 people who will hear it. Slightly less that those who attend BNP meetings or much less than those who read Richard Littlejohn.

less than go to watch live football too, apparently. yet as football fans, we have less than the religious types enjoy.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Perhaps the problem was they never patent the word itself. Personally it all seems to be a lot of semantics over a word.

The Gays want the word and a lot of the non-gay community don't want to give it up.

If it was only about having a legally binding agreement which a marriage is, then civil unions offer the same protection.

So it has to be about the word.

In which case, if it's only about a word, why is the Catholic church so bothered about it ? It's a very simple solution - allow gay couples to get married and allow hetrosexual couples to have civil partnerships. Then it's all fair and equal to everyone. It's rather telling that the subject had hardly hit the headlines until the diatribe from the Catholic church at the weekend.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

less than go to watch live football too. yet strangly we have less political power, as football fans, than the religious types have.

Would you give political power to Millwall fans?