Look - the Pope isn't evil!

Basically, the Pope has said that if you use a condom to prevent disease transmission, that is better than not using one and knowlingly infecting someone with something.

I suspect he has always thought this, as have most other catholic theologians 0 but has only now been able to express it openly.

Horribly biased article from the Guardian that describes the historical Vatican position as both "wicked" and "romantic" in the opening paragraph:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ban-overturned

People have been jumping up exicitedly about this all day, but I fail to see the interest really - at least not the way left-leaning Liberals do. The position is an obvious case of opting for the "lesser Sin" between two Sins, which is pretty central to catholicism in its various denominational varients.

Shock horror.

So, have at boys.

Sex before marriage is great.

End of thread.

I don't get his example, shoudn't he be more concerned about the facts they are prostitutes in the first place?

The Vatican spin machines waters down the comunication:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religio...-condoms_N.htm

nothing to see here...more along.

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I don't get his example, shoudn't he be more concerned about the facts they are prostitutes in the first place?

Rhyfelwyr your better than this.

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Rhyfelwyr your better than this.

Wut that wasn't an attack (thought about having a little troll but didn't). I don't have an issue with the Vatican's stance on contraception, makes me feel a bit out of place though, normally its the crazy Proddies like me that should be spoiling everyones fun and saying you can only do enjoyable things if they have a practical purpose eg sex for procreation.

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.

Obviously using the condom would have the benefit of preventing the risk of aids, I just don't think it fits into his example since the issue with aids is not a direct part of the moral issue. I mean, people generally don't set out to give people aids when they have unprotected sex, so wearing a condom has nothing to do with the morality of the act. It's more a case of being unaware of the dangers in most cases I would think.

So I wasn't meaning to troll, I was just having a sasaki moment in being ridiculously rigid in my interpretation of things and being a bit of a stickler for 100% correctness in setting the parameters for the discussion or something. You know I don't even know what I am talking about right now, too many long days of late.

Does it matter small kids don't get pregnant anyway

Originally Posted by Fragony

Does it matter small kids don't get pregnant anyway

Originally Posted by Fragony

Does it matter small kids don't get pregnant anyway

but now you can put a condom in your kid's pocket when you send him to church....an important step!

In nomines patris, et fallatio, and spiritus sanctionless

And He looked down, and He saw that it was Good, and He smiled.

Originally Posted by Fragony

In nomines patris, et fallatio, and spiritus sanctionless

Charming.

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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."

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Charming.

Maybe such old arts will once be more accepted, but for now it's latex armour +1, 75% disease resistment

Originally Posted by Fragony

Maybe such old arts will once be more accepted, but for now it's latex armour +1, 75% disease resistment

It's actually 100% for those of us who know how to use one.

Originally Posted by HoreTore

It's actually 100% for those of us who know how to use one.

Yeah but I hate them they squeeze you to blue smurfdom and I'm absolutely no goliath. Use them of course but the catholics used to be onto something, condoms suck.

Originally Posted by Fragony

Yeah but I hate them they squeeze you to blue smurfdom and I'm absolutely no goliath. Use them of course but the catholics used to be onto something, condoms suck.

Bah, you barely notice having the thin ones on.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

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

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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

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

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

But If I'm not here to take a stand against religon who will?

Unlike Horetores cliched and passee attack on the commoner. I focus more on the machinene of christianty which is constantly qaushing the individual scientest and philosihper.

If my attention span and soberity hold you may get a debateable reply out of me.

BBC, more nuanced: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11813319

As the journalist says, our world is impatient with subtly.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

BBC, more nuanced: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11813319

As the journalist says, our world is impatient with subtly.

So, you can't use condoms unless you are really going to do irrerprable harm to someone (IE give them AIDS). It's these sort of moral gymnastics that are so frustrating. There is nothing logical about it at all, it smacks of damage control.

It isn't so much subtly as its "Well clearly we're wrong and our position makes no sense but a baby or the clap people will get over" It's always facts to fit theroy with the chruch.

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

But If I'm not here to take a stand against religon who will?

Unlike Horetores cliched and passee attack on the commoner. I focus more on the machinene of christianty which is constantly qaushing the individual scientest and philosihper.

If my attention span and soberity hold you may get a debateable reply out of me.

You do realise I'm a Christian philosopher (not, I should add, a "Christian Philosopher"). My initial training was in Plato and Aristotle, not Augustine.

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You do realise I'm a Christian philosopher (not, I should add, a "Christian Philosopher"). My initial training was in Plato and Aristotle, not Augustine.

Ok then pray tell why one should belive in something that has been constantly been proven to be wrong, backwards, and biased?