Look - the Pope isn't evil!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I just thought it was a strange example to use. If you go along with the church's view that prostitution is a moral sin, then saying they should use a condom to make it less bad is kind of like saying a murderer should kill his victims in a humane way and that this would be the first step on the road to taking moral responsibility as they put it.

I think that's exactly the idea - having unprotected sex when you know you have HIV is worse in the Poep's view than just being promiscuous.

Isn't that the basis of what every parent says to their children at a certain point?

"You're too young to have sex, but wear a condom."

[HoreTore]

I think that's exactly the idea - having unprotected sex when you know you have HIV is worse in the Poep's view than just being promiscuous.

Isn't that the basis of what every parent says to their children at a certain point?

"You're too young to have sex, but wear a condom."

My parents have never told me or any of my siblings anything negative about sex, nor that we shouldn't have any. Instead they've told us that we should protect ourselves without saying that our behaviour is wrong. They trusted our ability to make the right choices, and are of the opinion that sex is a good thing that they wouldn't want to spoil for us.

What's the result of that?

None of us have gotten pregnant or got anyone pregnant. None of us has had an STD. None of us has had a bad experience with sex. None of us judge and look down upon people who have multiple partners.

[Husar]

What's the result of that?

A horribly annoying pro-sex forum troll...

Oh yeah, I guess the pope is right, it's better to be promiscuous with a condom than to be promiscuous without one if there is a good chance you'll more or less kill the other person without one. sex = sin, sex + infection = sin² or so.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think that's exactly the idea - having unprotected sex when you know you have HIV is worse in the Poep's view than just being promiscuous.

Well I guess that's a fair point then. Although less revolutionary than what people are making out.

Isn't that the basis of what every parent says to their children at a certain point?

"You're too young to have sex, but wear a condom."

I thank Jesus every day that my parents said no such thing to me.

[Beskar]

So the Pope isn't evil, because he says use a condom if you have an STD?

[Strike For The South]

Just another Catholic recantment in a long line of Catholic recantments.

Nothing more than a black stain on human progress, these little chardes people dance because one crazy Roman emperor had a crazy dream 2000 years ago is most trying on the soul.

Progress is made, the church complains, progress slows, the chruch gives in because there position was bloody indefensible in the first place, progress continues.

Religon is the ultimate roadblock to enlightenment the two are diametrically opposed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well I guess that's a fair point then. Although less revolutionary than what people are making out.

I think it's pretty blisteringly obvious, this man has been a theologian for around 60 years. To suggest he would do something "revolutionary" by accident is to massively underestimate him.

So the Pope isn't evil, because he says use a condom if you have an STD?

No, he isn't evil, and everyone who used the condom-thing as a reason to call him evil can now hopefully see they were barking up the wrong tree there. To see why it was such a delicate issue for him to address chec this out from the Gruniard: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...nd-fear-of-god

Theologically, they are correct - eternal damnation is worse than death, but the reasoning breaks down when you consider that they are also sinning by fornicating.

Just another Catholic recantment in a long line of Catholic recantments.

Nothing more than a black stain on human progress, these little chardes people dance because one crazy Roman emperor had a crazy dream 2000 years ago is most trying on the soul.

Progress is made, the church complains, progress slows, the chruch gives in because there position was bloody indefensible in the first place, progress continues.

Religon is the ultimate roadblock to enlightenment the two are diametrically opposed.

Wow, Strike, that Faith of your really died and left some bitterness behind.

[Strike For The South]

Wow, Strike, that Faith of your really died and left some bitterness behind.

Meh, I'm sure I'll mellow at some point

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Meh, I'm sure I'll mellow at some point

You could just mellow now, it's actually a choice, you know.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I think it's pretty blisteringly obvious, this man has been a theologian for around 60 years. To suggest he would do something "revolutionary" by accident is to massively underestimate him.

No, he isn't evil, and everyone who used the condom-thing as a reason to call him evil can now hopefully see they were barking up the wrong tree there.

I believe the issue wasn't that the Pope was merely being evil, rather that a hard and fast ban on condoms is grossly irresponsible given the daily reality where condoms basically save lives (if not from acute threat of death then at least from a needless STD infection). Merely suggesting that using condoms might not be so bad when you are having sex knowing you are infected by some STD is not nearly good enough. What if you don't know? It's not like those diseases are one night you had sex the next night you feel ill. For the type of STD which is effectively prevented by condoms there is an incubation time which varies, and for quite a few of those diseases you do not even need to have sex to get them.

Theologically, they are correct - eternal damnation is worse than death, but the reasoning breaks down when you consider that they are also sinning by fornicating.

Realistically, he was simply wrong. He still is. Not just merely wrong as in “sorry guys, but I mistranslated the Scripture here”, but every bit as wrong as the Romans who condemned the early Christians for being a bunch of incestuous terrorist cannibals -- to translate the 3 common accusations leveled against the Christians back then to a more modern rhetoric. Now the Christians eventually were accepted, then gradually given more and more power to the point that we ought to have been given a few tasters of divine wrath from the Pantheon. Of course no such divine wrath occurred, nobody has yet had to go and create a whole new human population by throwing rocks over their shoulder so it might be reasonable to assume those early Romans got it quite wrong.

So to sum up, as long as the argument for using condoms is grounded in a practical reality, I'll go for a few more lives saved from needless STDs, and continue to ignore divine beings at my peril. It has worked a good 2000 years for the Christians after all. I also would encourage everybody else to do likewise, and until the Catholic Church cottons on I can only hope that the Church will fade into irrelevance like the Romans did to the betterment of mankind.

[HoreTore]

I believe the issue wasn't that the Pope was merely being evil, rather that a hard and fast ban on condoms is grossly irresponsible given the daily reality where condoms basically save lives

I do not in any way believe the Pope is evil because he wants to ban condoms and sex in general.

I simply believe that he doesn't have a clue about what he's talking about, the pope is completely unaware of what sex even is, and the real problem is that people take the advice of someone who is completely ignorant on the subject.


Kinda like taking legal advice from a dolphin.