Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Alan S

Pope to OK condoms

Recommended Posts

On-in-2

I am a Catholic. The Pope did NOT give the okay to using condoms. What he said was that in the case of a male prostitute, it could be a sign of an awakening moral conscience to use a condom in order to prevent the spread of AIDS. The Pope was also not endorsing: 1. Male prostitution 2. Sex outside of marriage.

 

The Pope's position is that you shouldn't be doing those things, but IF you are already, it is a sign that you aren't completely dead morally if you use a condom, IF your intention is to prevent the transmission of AIDS (and, maybe, other STDS).

 

People very typically run right over conditionals in public and private life. You will very often be misunderstood if you use one...a conditional!

 

I was baptised, first communioned and confirmed a catholic.

 

The pope, while prohibiting safe sex and failing to help prevent disease, is a proven apologist and enabler of child molesters and aberrant practices by the priests and others of this supposedly holy order.

 

They are liars...from the pope down.

 

It's time humanity woke up and saw the fruit in the cake.

 

Har de har har har

 

Pete of New Hampshire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyMan

I am a Catholic. The Pope did NOT give the okay to using condoms. What he said was that in the case of a male prostitute, it could be a sign of an awakening moral conscience to use a condom in order to prevent the spread of AIDS. The Pope was also not endorsing: 1. Male prostitution 2. Sex outside of marriage.

 

The Pope's position is that you shouldn't be doing those things, but IF you are already, it is a sign that you aren't completely dead morally if you use a condom, IF your intention is to prevent the transmission of AIDS (and, maybe, other STDS).

 

People very typically run right over conditionals in public and private life. You will very often be misunderstood if you use one...a conditional!

If that truly is his thinking then...well, isn't that a bit like saying suicide is one of the worst sins because not only do you kill but have no way of asking forgiveness. But if you put your seat belt on before you drive off the cliff....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InternetTough

I am a Catholic. The Pope did NOT give the okay to using condoms. What he said was that in the case of a male prostitute, it could be a sign of an awakening moral conscience to use a condom in order to prevent the spread of AIDS. The Pope was also not endorsing: 1. Male prostitution 2. Sex outside of marriage.

 

The Pope's position is that you shouldn't be doing those things, but IF you are already, it is a sign that you aren't completely dead morally if you use a condom, IF your intention is to prevent the transmission of AIDS (and, maybe, other STDS).

 

People very typically run right over conditionals in public and private life. You will very often be misunderstood if you use one...a conditional!

 

I was baptised, first communioned and confirmed a catholic.

 

The pope, while prohibiting safe sex and failing to help prevent disease, is a proven apologist and enabler of child molesters and aberrant practices by the priests and others of this supposedly holy order.

 

They are liars...from the pope down.

 

It's time humanity woke up and saw the fruit in the cake.

 

Har de har har har

 

Pete of New Hampshire

 

 

Where did you get that "information"? The Catholic Church is not a religious order, it is the Catholic CHURCH.

 

You should read the Wikipedia article(5-13-2010) on Catholic sex abuse cases. The last sentence on page 2 (of 38) reads, "...it has been shown that the rate of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is not higher than in society, other public institutions and other religious denominations." On page 4 it says that between 1950 and 2002 , 10,667 people in the US made allegations against 4,392 priests (about 4% of all 109,694 priests who served during this time). From page 6: "Many of the reported acts of sexual abuse involved fondling or unspecified abuse." Pg.11 " Only one in four of the allegations were made within 10 years of the incident that gave rise to the allegation.Half of the allegations were made between 10 and 30 years after the incident and the remaining 25% were reported more than 30 years after the incident." What is interesting is that MOST of the incidents occurred between 1965 and 1974. (pg.14) Also, 80-90% of the incidents involved adolescent males, not children. The terms pederast and child molester properly apply to those who committed crimes against prepubescents. The present Pope has NOT been a protector of sex criminals, and the past Popes weren't even aware of most of the allegations, as they weren't even made until decades later.

 

 

 

 

So...let's do some arithmetic. 109,694-4392=105,302. You would count the 105,302 with the 4392. That is not justice. According to Newsweek, the percentage of Catholic priests involved in sex crimes is not greater than for the population at large. (All statements from the same Wikipedia article.)

 

Recently, a foreign child molester (not someone who preyed on pubescent males, but a pederast) was found in the Philippines. I suppose it is time to cry pervert against all the foreigners living in the Philippines. Do you really think that they, as a group, are more sexually moral than the Catholic priesthood, as a group? Foreigners living abroad are another group regarded with suspicion by the local firebrands. In Korea, I don't know how many times I have overheard the word "byuntae" (pervert) by Koreans talking in my immediate presence. Many Koreans thrill to sensationalistic TV shows about foreign English teachers and their (purportedly) evil lives.

 

By the way, there are 1,000,000,000 Catholics. So we are ALL liars? Do try to think more carefully.

Edited by InternetTough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InternetTough

I am a Catholic. The Pope did NOT give the okay to using condoms. What he said was that in the case of a male prostitute, it could be a sign of an awakening moral conscience to use a condom in order to prevent the spread of AIDS. The Pope was also not endorsing: 1. Male prostitution 2. Sex outside of marriage.

 

The Pope's position is that you shouldn't be doing those things, but IF you are already, it is a sign that you aren't completely dead morally if you use a condom, IF your intention is to prevent the transmission of AIDS (and, maybe, other STDS).

 

People very typically run right over conditionals in public and private life. You will very often be misunderstood if you use one...a conditional!

If that truly is his thinking then...well, isn't that a bit like saying suicide is one of the worst sins because not only do you kill but have no way of asking forgiveness. But if you put your seat belt on before you drive off the cliff....

 

 

Not at all. Using a condom shows a better intention if you don't want to get or spread AIDS because it just might work (in a specific incident). It is not at all like your counter example, which would have a much higher failure rate than condoms do, and would not involve protecting another person's life. Also, the only reason one would drive over a cliff would be to kill oneself, not to get a thrill. Putting on a seatbelt would work against the main purpose of the act. People who use condoms don't ever use them in spite of the fact that they diminish your chances of getting AIDS or STD (per act). They use them only BECAUSE they do that. The Pope does not defend professional homosexual sex, or the use of condoms.People say that he used the example of the male prostitute because it would leave out the prevention of pregnancy from the question.

Edited by InternetTough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BaniladBadBoy

By the way, there are 1,000,000,000 Catholics.

 

No condoms and 1,000,000,000 Catholics. I'm starting to see a trend here. stick_poke.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On-in-2

I am a Catholic. The Pope did NOT give the okay to using condoms. What he said was that in the case of a male prostitute, it could be a sign of an awakening moral conscience to use a condom in order to prevent the spread of AIDS. The Pope was also not endorsing: 1. Male prostitution 2. Sex outside of marriage.

 

The Pope's position is that you shouldn't be doing those things, but IF you are already, it is a sign that you aren't completely dead morally if you use a condom, IF your intention is to prevent the transmission of AIDS (and, maybe, other STDS).

 

People very typically run right over conditionals in public and private life. You will very often be misunderstood if you use one...a conditional!

 

I was baptised, first communioned and confirmed a catholic.

 

The pope, while prohibiting safe sex and failing to help prevent disease, is a proven apologist and enabler of child molesters and aberrant practices by the priests and others of this supposedly holy order.

 

They are liars...from the pope down.

 

It's time humanity woke up and saw the fruit in the cake.

 

Har de har har har

 

Pete of New Hampshire

 

 

Where did you get that "information"? The Catholic Church is not a religious order, it is the Catholic CHURCH.

I was including the Jesuits, Benedictines, Holy Cross, and all the other "ORDERS" that are part of this catholic behemoth.

 

 

You should read the Wikipedia article(5-13-2010) on Catholic sex abuse cases. The last sentence on page 2 (of 38) reads, "...it has been shown that the rate of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is not higher than in society, other public institutions and other religious denominations." On page 4 it says that between 1950 and 2002 , 10,667 people in the US made allegations against 4,392 priests (about 4% of all 109,694 priests who served during this time). From page 6: "Many of the reported acts of sexual abuse involved fondling or unspecified abuse." Pg.11 " Only one in four of the allegations were made within 10 years of the incident that gave rise to the allegation.Half of the allegations were made between 10 and 30 years after the incident and the remaining 25% were reported more than 30 years after the incident." What is interesting is that MOST of the incidents occurred between 1965 and 1974. (pg.14) Also, 80-90% of the incidents involved adolescent males, not children. The terms pederast and child molester properly apply to those who committed crimes against prepubescents. The present Pope has NOT been a protector of sex criminals, and the past Popes weren't even aware of most of the allegations, as they weren't even made until decades later.

 

Your numbers are limited. They don't include the rest of the world in which many more cases have developed.

 

Also your statement that the present pope is not a protector of criminals is just patently absurd. The memos in his own hand moving offenders to other parishes have been well outed from the catholic cloak of secrecy.

 

 

So...let's do some arithmetic. 109,694-4392=105,302. You would count the 105,302 with the 4392. That is not justice. According to Newsweek, the percentage of Catholic priests involved in sex crimes is not greater than for the population at large. (All statements from the same Wikipedia article.)

 

Recently, a foreign child molester (not someone who preyed on pubescent males, but a pederast) was found in the Philippines. I suppose it is time to cry pervert against all the foreigners living in the Philippines. Do you really think that they, as a group, are more sexually moral than the Catholic priesthood, as a group? Foreigners living abroad are another group regarded with suspicion by the local firebrands. In Korea, I don't know how many times I have overheard the word "byuntae" (pervert) by Koreans talking in my immediate presence. Many Koreans thrill to sensationalistic TV shows about foreign English teachers and their (purportedly) evil lives.

Irrelevant to the priesthood.

 

By the way, there are 1,000,000,000 Catholics. So we are ALL liars? Do try to think more carefully.

 

Not all liars, of course not...But from the top down...yes, liars are rampant. Always have been. Remember how the popes succession took place not so many years past? You don't want to discuss that, do you?

 

Har de har har har

 

Pete of New Hampshire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InternetTough

I am a Catholic. The Pope did NOT give the okay to using condoms. What he said was that in the case of a male prostitute, it could be a sign of an awakening moral conscience to use a condom in order to prevent the spread of AIDS. The Pope was also not endorsing: 1. Male prostitution 2. Sex outside of marriage.

 

The Pope's position is that you shouldn't be doing those things, but IF you are already, it is a sign that you aren't completely dead morally if you use a condom, IF your intention is to prevent the transmission of AIDS (and, maybe, other STDS).

 

People very typically run right over conditionals in public and private life. You will very often be misunderstood if you use one...a conditional!

 

I was baptised, first communioned and confirmed a catholic.

 

The pope, while prohibiting safe sex and failing to help prevent disease, is a proven apologist and enabler of child molesters and aberrant practices by the priests and others of this supposedly holy order.

 

They are liars...from the pope down.

 

It's time humanity woke up and saw the fruit in the cake.

 

Har de har har har

 

Pete of New Hampshire

 

 

Where did you get that "information"? The Catholic Church is not a religious order, it is the Catholic CHURCH.

I was including the Jesuits, Benedictines, Holy Cross, and all the other "ORDERS" that are part of this catholic behemoth.

 

 

You should read the Wikipedia article(5-13-2010) on Catholic sex abuse cases. The last sentence on page 2 (of 38) reads, "...it has been shown that the rate of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is not higher than in society, other public institutions and other religious denominations." On page 4 it says that between 1950 and 2002 , 10,667 people in the US made allegations against 4,392 priests (about 4% of all 109,694 priests who served during this time). From page 6: "Many of the reported acts of sexual abuse involved fondling or unspecified abuse." Pg.11 " Only one in four of the allegations were made within 10 years of the incident that gave rise to the allegation.Half of the allegations were made between 10 and 30 years after the incident and the remaining 25% were reported more than 30 years after the incident." What is interesting is that MOST of the incidents occurred between 1965 and 1974. (pg.14) Also, 80-90% of the incidents involved adolescent males, not children. The terms pederast and child molester properly apply to those who committed crimes against prepubescents. The present Pope has NOT been a protector of sex criminals, and the past Popes weren't even aware of most of the allegations, as they weren't even made until decades later.

 

Your numbers are limited. They don't include the rest of the world in which many more cases have developed.

 

Also your statement that the present pope is not a protector of criminals is just patently absurd. The memos in his own hand moving offenders to other parishes have been well outed from the catholic cloak of secrecy.

 

 

So...let's do some arithmetic. 109,694-4392=105,302. You would count the 105,302 with the 4392. That is not justice. According to Newsweek, the percentage of Catholic priests involved in sex crimes is not greater than for the population at large. (All statements from the same Wikipedia article.)

 

Recently, a foreign child molester (not someone who preyed on pubescent males, but a pederast) was found in the Philippines. I suppose it is time to cry pervert against all the foreigners living in the Philippines. Do you really think that they, as a group, are more sexually moral than the Catholic priesthood, as a group? Foreigners living abroad are another group regarded with suspicion by the local firebrands. In Korea, I don't know how many times I have overheard the word "byuntae" (pervert) by Koreans talking in my immediate presence. Many Koreans thrill to sensationalistic TV shows about foreign English teachers and their (purportedly) evil lives.

Irrelevant to the priesthood.

 

By the way, there are 1,000,000,000 Catholics. So we are ALL liars? Do try to think more carefully.

 

Not all liars, of course not...But from the top down...yes, liars are rampant. Always have been. Remember how the popes succession took place not so many years past? You don't want to discuss that, do you?

 

Har de har har har

 

Pete of New Hampshire

 

 

WHAT scandal involving the papal succession? I am completely unaware of any. The cardinals meet and vote. It is boring.

 

The numbers of completely un-accused priests (96%) simply does not interest you, apparently. I used the examples from the USA because there is more information in the USA and the lawyer-lawsuit feeding frenzy is greatest there. As for world figures, there are over a half million priests, and the number of accusations against them, never mind convictions, is quite low, much lower than the world average for men. Take a similar group, say, the male population of Detroit, and count the crimes committed by the men there over fifty years, and then accuse the priests; or is that too rational for you?

 

I brought in the Philippines expat community and the Korean expat community also as comparison groups, and as a reminder that they have been targets of similar slanders of whole populations as you enjoy making. Whenever you are dealing with numbers of people over time, there is going to be a lot of crime of all sorts. You brought in the slander against the whole Church. You attacked the honesty and morality of every Catholic. Do you honestly think that the expat groups in the Philippines and Korea are immune to attacks made with a similar mentality? Or maybe you have no understanding of being a member of a group under possible attack, being a former Catholic in New Hampshire.

 

As for the present Pope's supposed moving of accused priests to other parishes, you'd have to fill me in on the details of that accusation so I could answer it. It is difficult to prove a negative. That's why justice (and law) demand that the accuser assume the burden of proof.

 

This has gotten away from condoms but I couldn't let your careless slander go unanswered.

Edited by InternetTough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
broden

Admin may feel differently but i don't mind this argument as long as it sticks to the technical

but it is going off topic for this thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fanboat

Back on the topic

I noticed Shell gas station proudly desplaying flavor condoms on the check out stand?

 

does anyone know why they are flavoured?

 

I though condoms were for birth contol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On-in-2

Admin may feel differently but i don't mind this argument as long as it sticks to the technical

but it is going off topic for this thread

 

 

You're right, Broden.

 

Back on topic...the pope would rather people perish in numbers from preventable disease than employ measures of contraception.

 

It's simple, really. Second century thinking crowding decisions in our modern age.

 

Condoms are not 'evil' nor are the people who use them committing any 'sins'.

 

Har de har har har

 

Pete of New Hampshire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
broden

though not exactly technical Pete i do believe everyone has a right to their opinion

i just hope this thread doesn't head down an ugly path

i dislike logging in and finding threads locked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alan S

It is getting very close to being locked, so lets keep to the subject please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
motorpsycho

Some what of a little too late. Well, Maybe the babyboomers will start a new trend by reducing stds and single mother satistics.

 

 

 

 

What I meant is that is far too late for those who have contracted uncurable diseases(stds) and those who have had unwanted pregnancies. The catholic church is no longer the dictator of ones being since it allowed predators to molest children who were there for protection. Women who were raped were force to give birth and forgive past actions. Why has it taken too long for the church to sccept that times are different from roman days and even then things were more liberal. It can not solve today's problems since its just another business that needs income in order to survive. How many people are still around to wish they never listen to the church and had use a condom? The old saying "god wanted it that way" lures people away from faith. Soon the biggest new religion will be Athiest if people start waking up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
til

Ok, I think its time to lock this thread, I don't see the discussion going anywhere useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..