tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post4104020289888696319..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Condoms, Catholics and HIV - moreStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-72822827246959809562017-08-02T09:18:33.730+00:002017-08-02T09:18:33.730+00:00Firstly the mythical HIV virus goes through condom...Firstly the mythical HIV virus goes through condoms.<br /><br />The Pope is just doing Satans work by spreading the HIV=AIDS lie so they can poison more folk, Africans esp, with drugs, and kill them http://whale.to/aids.html<br /><br />If the Pope really wanted to help humanity he would tell them of semen retention, where u don't need no f..... condom http://whale.to/b/sex_tantra.html<br /><br />Ejaculation is pretty dumb, it throws a huge amount of energy out of your penis, one of the attractions of prostitution, not to mention it's similar to spinal fluid, so u deplete vital nutrients too.<br /><br />In 20 years, only 2 kids. Both we wanted.<br /><br />They couldn't flog the toxic pill either http://whale.to/drugs/pill.html<br /><br /><br /><br />Whale.tohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01117580693259568242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-64662573006261870642009-11-28T19:36:13.555+00:002009-11-28T19:36:13.555+00:00Mark - perhaps you are right. If so, that further ...Mark - perhaps you are right. If so, that further reinforces the main point I was making against a certain Catholic defence of the view that they cannot sensibly suggest to people that they ought not to have sex outside marriage, but if they do they share wear a condom.<br /><br />Your point about rules seems to me to be an example of "going nuclear":<br /><br />http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/12/letter-to-ibrahim-nuclear-option.html<br /><br />but perhaps I'm mistaken. Not sure what it's supposed to be, other than an insult.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-10700832020884442242009-11-28T18:53:57.102+00:002009-11-28T18:53:57.102+00:00I am of a mind that much so called philosphy is si...I am of a mind that much so called philosphy is simply wordy circumlocution which fits my father's view: "If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b*llsh*t". <br /><br />Philosophy is logic-based. In order to have "logic" one must have "rules" of logic, and that is where it all breaks down. The deifinitions of the rules are themselves subject to debate. So we are back to the premise that there are no absolutes. Which itself is subject to debate. (The "circum" of circumlocution.)<br /><br />But I digress without ever progressing. My issue is with the assumption that the advice "If you must rape someone, then wear a condom" is silly and inconsistent. I maintain that, in relation to rape, it is quite sound advice and is quite consistent with the nature and goals of the typical rapist. You have pre-supposed that the advice was given from a stance of compassion for the victim. However, from the standpoint of "protection" of the rapist, it is fantastic advice! He can decrease the probability of contracting an STD and avoid leaving DNA evidence that could be used to identify and convict him of the crime. Nothing silly or inconsistent there.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-87766239531054020192009-05-07T21:15:00.000+00:002009-05-07T21:15:00.000+00:00For the sake of madness I am suggesting you look a...For the sake of madness I am suggesting you look at things from the churches point of view - and attempt to understand this from inside the culture of catholicism....<br /><br /> The church provides a rule - it doesn't deal in exceptions. In short - thats not its job. The grey <br />areas of morality - such as this - become the subject of individual conscience and pastoral concern. In short there are two sides to this story. One the public sees - because you listen to the pronouncements of the vatican which are public - the other you dont - because you are not part of a parish church.<br /><br /> There is a dual force inside catholicism - thats why it is called catholicism - no part can ever be the whole - it is the pressure of multiple agendas which squeezes the church into life . In honesty I think the neo-liberal critique of the church is based on the assumption that you know what you are talking about - which can be dangerous. In your writings you are criticising a neo scholastic and certainly not a contemporary catholicism. <br /><br /> I can quite understand why you would want clarification from the church about this issue - but as an insider can I suggest you are looking at the wrong part. The grim realities are worked out on a personal parish level. Your approach Its a bit like watching the news and complaining they dont make you a cup of tea as well. Thats not an expectation of most television viewers. I can understand why someone might want that - but if they started saying the news was rubbish because of this - thats a different matter.b.b.b.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-61177531745790606532009-05-07T19:34:00.000+00:002009-05-07T19:34:00.000+00:00What point are you making exactly, BBB? After all,...What point are you making exactly, BBB? After all, the Church tells us not to sin, but then tells us what to do if and (inevitably) when we do - repent. If it can say that, then why can't it tell us not to have sex outside marriage, but can also add: but if you do, use a condom?Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-46552149553526122422009-05-07T19:26:00.000+00:002009-05-07T19:26:00.000+00:00Stephen Perhaps we should bring out a second catec...Stephen Perhaps we should bring out a second catechism - a guide for people who don't want to follow the first catechism - then we could bring out another called "the catechism for people who arent quite managing to follow the 2nd one". This could go on infinitely - where would you like it to stop - or are you actually writing one without knowing it ?b.b.bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-39414715699853122802009-04-24T20:42:00.000+00:002009-04-24T20:42:00.000+00:00Oh casuistry! What verbal quibbles are committed i...Oh casuistry! What verbal quibbles are committed in thy name......anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-35556965658340281462009-04-24T19:52:00.000+00:002009-04-24T19:52:00.000+00:00Gentlemen,
I don't know to what extent (if any) a...Gentlemen,<br /><br />I don't know to what extent (if any) any of you reads German, but here is a link to a German 'official' RC Web-Site:<br /><br />http://www.katholisch.de/9456.html<br /><br />I just found.<br /><br />which is about a prospective possibility of the Holy See's admitting of condom use _in particular cases_. <br /><br />This is of course far below what you expect and it's only a possibility... . <br /><br />The title of the contribution is, like, 'The matter rests at a general 'no' to condoms', the logical stress lying in this case on the word 'general'. <br /><br />The thing, if it ever goes beyond the stage of 'prospects' and 'working papers', will be a first top-level instruction of this sort, but, to my knowledge, far from only non-top-level one.Wojciech Żełaniechttp://www.wnswz.strony.univ.gda.plnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-52146626978132352912009-04-24T09:08:00.000+00:002009-04-24T09:08:00.000+00:00The RC Church always speaks "with an air of moral ...The RC Church always speaks "with an air of moral certainty and superiority", because it gets its information direct from God. What else do you expect?<br /><br />I would find its delusions of grsndeur more pathetic and amusing than galling, were it not for the immense practical harm it does which makes me very angry.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-21036961663143738942009-04-24T08:37:00.000+00:002009-04-24T08:37:00.000+00:00But, if we are going to change subjects and talk a...But, if we are going to change subjects and talk about the role of porn in spreading HIV, there are various differences between the RC case and porn case worth noting, whether or not the justify a difference in attitude, such as:<br /><br />The porn industry does not advocate non-use of condoms, unlike the RC Church.<br /><br />I believe the industry (the mainstream industry, I mean - not amateur stuff) is fairly well self-monitored, with porn stars being checked for HIV very regularly and having to show they are clear.<br /><br />To present images of something for titillation is not to suggest it is a good idea to go and do it yourself (cf. movies about the mafia, murder, etc.)<br /><br />The Church does not merely explicitly say "do not use condoms", it:<br /><br />(i) does so with an air of moral certainty and superiority, which (understandably, I think you'll agree) is particularly galling!<br /><br />(ii) spreads false (or at least highly dubious) information about condoms as scientifically established "fact".<br /><br />These last two facts alone legitimize a our sense of outrage, I think.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-57594872116868393412009-04-24T08:18:00.000+00:002009-04-24T08:18:00.000+00:00Hi WZ
Your post about porn is interesting but you...Hi WZ<br /><br />Your post about porn is interesting but you have now changed subject - the question you raised was - how likely is it that the RC Church's promoting condom use for those who choose not to be chaste would have much effect. You suggested not at all likely, and suggested no evidence to suggest otherwise. Well, now you have given up denying there is good prima facie evidence for that claim, and switched to accusing those who criticize the Church of inconsistency (cos we don't also criticise the porn industry). Even if we are inconsistent, that would not mean we are not right to criticise the Church, would it?Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-49709136737620121562009-04-24T05:49:00.000+00:002009-04-24T05:49:00.000+00:00Also, WZ, you conveniently ignore the fact that HI...Also, WZ, you conveniently ignore the fact that HIV/AIDS is transmitted by other means than sexual intercourse. Injection of drugs using dirty needles is a major source of infection. Also ignorance of the fact that one is HIV-positive, because of failure to be tested. Both of these are common sources if infection, especially in third-world countries. They make tranmission through 'sin-free' condomless sex within marriage highly likely.<br /><br />If the RC Church is serious about reducing the spread of AIDS, why does it not campaign against drug misuse and for regular testing as vigorously as it fulminates against the use of condoms? Presumably because it is not really concerned to halt the spread of AIDS any more than it wants to see sensible population limitation - the burgeoning number of new people coming into the world being an even greater threat to humanity's survival. The RC Church, I suppose, relies on primitive Malthusian doctrine to deal with this problem rather than advocate any concerted human action to mitigate it, which would be 'sinful'.<br /><br />The trouble with the RC Church - as with most Churches and Islam - is that they rabbit on endlessly about sexual 'sins', which pruriently obsess them, instead of attempting to tackle the far greater evils of nuclear threat, war, genocide, hunger, poverty and disease. To outsiders they present themselves as a bunch of ignorant celibate [officially, anyway] old men indulging in what is a form of religious pornography.<br /><br />As a positive social force in the 21st century the RC Church is worse than useless - it is retrogressive.<br /><br />But then it always has been.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-11855274218407812232009-04-23T23:49:00.000+00:002009-04-23T23:49:00.000+00:00Re: Porn and condom use
Similar arguments are mad...Re: Porn and condom use<br /><br />Similar arguments are made against violence in television and video games - that they promote violence in real life (e.g. the storm caused by grand theft auto). Not explicitly of course, as in "you must go out and be violent!", but implicitly. <br /><br />Now which of those two maps to the RRC and condoms, and which maps to the porn industry and condoms? Any encouragement of a lack of condom use by porn is implicit, not explicit. That difference has moral difference to, in my judgment. <br /><br />I honestly don't know (not that I've ever asked, though...) anyone who would not use a condom because they saw a pornstar not using one... but then, I don't know anyone either who would be violent, because movies and computer games are violent. There are surely such individuals out there, however, who are more open than most to implicit suggestion. Should we remove then all implicit suggestions deemed damaging? Difficult question that I am not sure I know the answer to. I know what I think in the explicit case though - they should be the objects of criticism.Kosh3https://www.blogger.com/profile/12311933575987511650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-54465774894987588832009-04-23T23:31:00.000+00:002009-04-23T23:31:00.000+00:00"Oh c'mon, now you're just being cynical."
No, I'..."Oh c'mon, now you're just being cynical."<br /><br />No, I'm recognising that authority/power needs significance/purpose to exist. <br /><br />"Plausible, yes, but this plausibility logic is not monotonic, if I may use this comparison. There are over a milliard (billion) Catholics in this world, how many of them do you know? Besides, not all Catholics are alike and in great many of them their Catholicism is just declarative."<br /><br />It's not clear what you are arguing. That all Catholics don't have these hidden beliefs or attitudes? But I never claimed they did. In the post you are responding to I claimed the opposite, in fact. <br /><br />If you are simply saying: "look, there is great diversity amongst Catholics, don't seek to give them all the same motives", that is completely compatible with what I have said.<br /><br />"Well, refraining from condoms is very easy, to begin with, nothing to do with the amount of self-control and self-mastery you have to have in order not to indulge in illicit sex ... . <B>The point is: few, if any, Catholics who during illicit intercourse refrain from condoms do this BECAUSE OF the Church condom-ban.</B> More often, much more often, just because it (i. e. refrain) is easier than its opposite."<br /><br />The bolded just begs the question. <br /><br />To preempt something I suspect you might try and implicitly argue - it doesn't have to be that they fail to use condoms for the <I>exclusive</I> reason that the RCC tells them not to. It just needs to be one reason they hold (alongside, say, sex just being straight up better without condoms) for not doing so. So long as considerations of church wishes are a part, there is culpability earned. It would be a tremendous mistake to suppose that our reasons for acting are often or always singular.<br /><br />...I'm not sure what the Derrida story was supposed to show? (Derrida was a He, btw).<br /><br />Re: the efficacy of condoms - certainly an empirical question, and if you have any reputable scientific sources to indicate what the RCC keeps saying, please share.Kosh3https://www.blogger.com/profile/12311933575987511650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-92133720088602269482009-04-23T22:24:00.000+00:002009-04-23T22:24:00.000+00:00Thinking that the case where the act is within mar...Thinking that the case where the act is within marriage might be illuminating I came across this - <A HREF="http://www.faith.org.uk/publications/Magazines/Jul06/Jul06NoteOnUseCondomInMarriageToPrevenHIVSpread.html" REL="nofollow"> article in "Faith"</A>If this is typical of the RCC approach, I am appalled. It seems to boil down to - "condoms are evil, even in marriage. You should not force the matter because rape is a sin, but it's OK'ish for her to commit suicide by letting you."wombatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-80337265552775953332009-04-23T21:52:00.000+00:002009-04-23T21:52:00.000+00:00I said "you dislike porn", but on reflection I'm n...I said "you dislike porn", but on reflection I'm not so sure. Your leering, drooling, detailed descriptions of its excesses make me suspect that you may be more than an occasional or casual viewer, and that your obviously intense interest in it does not stem from the loftiest of motives.<br /><br />You would be none the worse for that, professor - sex is a universal human interest, and unlike the prurient religious who are so obsessed with it I do not regard it as either 'sacred' or filthy.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-54835716413766321792009-04-23T21:20:00.000+00:002009-04-23T21:20:00.000+00:00Well, WZ, you really have displayed the cloven hoo...Well, WZ, you really have displayed the cloven hoof with that diatribe!<br /><br />"I have no views, I am only asking questions."<br /><br />This reeks of humbug. Of course you have views, and they shine out through the sneering, contemptuous - not to say patronising - tone of your remarks.<br /><br />OK, so you dislike porn. But that is not the subject of this thread, which is the Catholic Church's attitude to HIV prevention and AIDS.<br /><br />You are an accomplished casuist [having attended all those universities - several of them Catholic - you should be]. But you make the mistake - which more sophisticated Catholic apologists don't - of underestimating your opponents' insight into Catholic theology, and you also display your own ignorance of Protestant and secular traditions.<br /><br />You really should know better than to try and score points by resorting to one of the oldest tricks in the book: namely, putting up a diversionary topic [porn] so that you can falsely claim that the Catholic attitude to condom wearing in the age of AIDS is a lesser evil by comparison. Have you never heard the saying that two wrongs don't make a right? <br /><br />There is an English story, which you may not have heard, about a Victorian servant girl who excused her illegitimate baby to her employer by saying "but it's only a very little one, madam". This is how your latest defence of the Catholic Church's condom docrtine strikes me.<br /><br />And as for your having no views, well really....<br /><br />Until this latest post of yours I had a great deal more respect for you. Now it has dawned on me that you are simply another Catholic propagandist, vainly trying to defend the indefensible.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-24490564799570347292009-04-23T20:45:00.000+00:002009-04-23T20:45:00.000+00:00Gentlemen,
OK, let us suppose that the Church giv...Gentlemen,<br /><br />OK, let us suppose that the Church gives in, and says: 'from now on let everybody who chooses to fornicate (which we disapprove, but still) wear condoms during intercourse'. <br /><br />I'd like to ask you who you think should come next, whose turn for analogous moral pressure, disparaging and condemnations from Secular Humanist Moralists it will be. <br /><br />In case you should have no cue, here is my proposal: The porn industry. <br /><br />'But', you'll say perhaps, 'we have nothing against porn, it's a neutral and sometimes even guite diverting thing, if anyone likes it, well, then let'im watch it'. So be it. But I am referring (not to porn in all generality but) to one specific point: condoms, and that which they are supposed to stop (in the context of our discussion).<br /><br />Porn sites are amongst the most frequently called up. (If any credence is to be given to Alexa.) Profits of porn manufacturers run into milliards of dollars, say some sources (unreliable?) On the topic of internet porn see this 'un, among many others:<br /><br />http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/projects-00-01/pornography/main.html<br /><br />from Stanford (which is not a Catholic University, to the best of my knowledge).<br /><br />Now an impressionistic surfing over various xxx-sites (and that is far from the only form in which porn is disseminated) reveals that intercourse with condoms plays a somewhat secondary role there, i. e. in the scenes and events therein depicted--to understate the matter a bit, right? In the contrary, there is a lot of naked, quite unshielded flesh there, including private flesh, and semen is being splashed all over the place. It is swallowed, rubbed in, and comes into contact with female (gay porn---male) body in an astounding variety of ways, for instance by being deposited directly on the eye-balls, which some sources says is very dangerous (HIV-wise). (Sources obviously untrustworthy... .)<br /><br />I am talking only of what an impressionistic, quarter-of-hour, costfree surfing may reveal. But these chaps obviously don't take money for such stuff, so there is nothing 'more' behind what that kind of surfing reveals... . So be it. <br /><br />Now, lemme ask you, gentlemen: Is it 'done' in the circles with which you converse and which you regard as your ethical and moral allies to raise as much criticism directed to the manufacturers of such flick---all those 'jizzbombs, 'gangbangs', 'bukkakes' or whaddayacallit---not on account of porn as such (which is, we agreed, perfectly OK) but what with all that semen proudly dealt out into all orifices of the female (or male, for gay) body and elsewhere --- as much criticism as is habitually raised by the same circles against the RC Church, and with as much vehemence? Are your friends as ready to call the makers of such stuff 'criminal', 'trigger-pullers', 'final-solvers' and what not as they are ready to call those names the Church and Pope? <br /><br />If your friends are so concerned about the Africans---which is of course laudable---may we safely assume that they are equally concerned about those not-only-Africans who watch such stuff (and I am talking only about what is accessible from every computer, and only about regular porn, not child-porn or other 'illegal' (I'm chuckling) porn) and who will want to imitate what they see? Or do your friends think those milions of mostly males who call up such sites far more often than they hear stern admonitions about condoms in church will NOT want to imitate what they see? ... Then your friends are a bit naive, sorry.. .<br /><br />One hates to impute anything base to anybody, and especially to one's friends' friends but---one almost cannot help thinking that those who pressurise the Church to bless condoms (and promiscuity, without which the former blessing is pointless) but next to never cry out a very loud 'STOP SHOWING THAT' to all those numerous 'jizzbombers' and 'facializers' simply know, at the bottom of their hearts, that if they did, the latter would either contemptuously ignore them, or else talk to them in a completely different fashion than do various folks from the RC Church; how? well, not exactly in in self-restrained, gentlemanlike fashion. .<br /><br />Or maybe your friends have already cried out 'STOP SHOWING THAT" to the makers of some xxxfacials or other --- except that their crying was hardly louder than a murine squeak, whereas their voices of protest against the 'criminal policies' of the RC Church were, like, leonine roars ('well roar'd, lion'...)? I have never heard the former, only the latter.<br /><br />With Anticant I quarrelled over imputations and the purity of intentions. Well, 'purity' is somewhat redolent of Catholicism so let us say 'honesty'. Honestly, the Pornographers with all their 'cum-bombs' and what not, are after all a bit better (to your friends) than are the asinine clergymen, or ... there are other reasons why the latter, not the former, are some Moralists' (quick to condemn hypocrisy, Catho-Nazism and what have you) favourite target...?<br /><br />I have no views, I am only asking questions.Wojciech Żełaniechttp://www.wnswz.strony.univ.gda.plnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-61751968204996962432009-04-23T19:41:00.000+00:002009-04-23T19:41:00.000+00:00Ad Anticant
'of the Church's teaching in the face...Ad Anticant<br /><br />'of the Church's teaching in the face of a worldwide lethal epidemic. Obviously, it hasn't been helpful in preserving the health of those who pay attention to it and have condomless sex'<br /><br />but this is a contradiction: 'pay attention to the Church's teaching and having condomless sex' in the overwhelming majority of cases, at least in the context of HIV-infections;<br /><br /> <br />' - even within marriage, which, according to the Church, is not sinful.'<br /><br />First of all, how numerous are the couples whose members have no extramarital sex condom-less or -ful, and yet who are HIV infected. I am sure that the Church has a solution for such untypical cases (this is something which peoples stamped by Protestantism, like the Anglo-Saxon, cannot understand: there are general rules, and there are exceptions for particular cases, this is Catholic, and Protestants often sneer at it, see the 'frogs on Fridays' example quoted by someone here).<br /><br />Then, intramarital sex need not, it is true, but can be sinful, too, according to RC teachings (marital rape, for instance). This, again, difficult to understand for people from formerly mostly Protestant countries, not for religious but for cultural reasons. <br /><br />Judgments on various things we must make, that is perfectly true, but nothing new, either. It matters, though, that they should be thought-through judgments, not dictated by feelings, (re)sentiments, ideological preferences and other 'hidden agenda' (well, sometimes not hidden).Wojciech Żełaniechttp://www.wnswz.strony.univ.gda.plnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-44512906128078248562009-04-23T16:43:00.000+00:002009-04-23T16:43:00.000+00:00If I am correct in thinking that the Church's teac...If I am correct in thinking that the Church's teaching is that the use of condoms in ANY circumstances is sinful, and that is not going to change in a hurry, much of this discussion is futile. All that remains is for each of us - Catholic or otherwise - to make our own judgements about the social utility of the Church's teaching in the face of a worldwide lethal epidemic. Obviously, it hasn't been helpful in preserving the health of those who pay attention to it and have condomless sex - even within marriage, which, according to the Church, is not sinful.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-77859030466973894552009-04-23T16:10:00.000+00:002009-04-23T16:10:00.000+00:00Ad Anticant
'I am still unclear as to what your ...Ad Anticant<br /><br /><br />'I am still unclear as to what your view is.'<br /><br />And rightly so, because I have no view. <br /><br />In this thread, I have raised two problems (so my 'views' are problems, questions, 'troubles'), one concerning the consistency of the RC C's hypothetical admonition to use condoms while having extramarital sex with fortuitous partners (1); and one concerning the practical effectiveness of such an admonition (which I suspect would be negligible, so Stephen's campaign is Much Ado about Nothing) (2)<br /><br />To this, add (1a), the possible adverse effects (adverse in the eyes of the Church) of such an admonition upon its 'flock'---such as confusion, desorientation, false conclusions ('so it's alright now to sleep around?') and such. <br /><br />I'd be happy to see see these doubts of mine removed. Stephen has done some work in that direction, without removing them quite. <br /><br />A tentative compromise I struck with Stephen was: the Church ought, perhaps, say something like 'Killing, also killing by means of spreading, or risking spreading, sexually transmitted diseases is sinful, as you know; on how to avoid such killing listen not just to us, but also to your respective Goverment, doctors, pharmacists and others'. <br /><br />This is not without problems, too, which I explained in another posting, but a compromise is a compromise. <br /><br />'Here I stand, I can no further', as Dr. Martin Luther would have said (but not 'M. L. King')---at least pending further convincing arguments, or empirical arguments from statistics, refuting mu suspicion mentioned above under (2).<br /><br />Sorry for being prolix.Wojciech Żełaniechttp://www.wnswz.strony.univ.gda.plnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-90649682884510673722009-04-23T14:48:00.000+00:002009-04-23T14:48:00.000+00:00Well, maybe...
Getting back to the subject of thi...Well, maybe...<br /><br />Getting back to the subject of this thread, AIDS is a social issue and the teachings of the Catholic Church concerning condoms is another social issue. The question is, whether the latter [the Church's teachings] have a benign and alleviating effect upon the former [AIDS], or a toxic exacerbating effect.<br /><br />There is abundant evidence that the second proposition is the most accurate. Stephen asks, understandably, why the Church cannot modify its teachings about sex in accordance with the doctrine of the lesser evil.<br /><br />I agee with him, but don't think there is the slightest prospect of the Church doing so.<br /><br />I am still unclear as to what your view is.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-17208083140515195392009-04-23T14:05:00.000+00:002009-04-23T14:05:00.000+00:00Ad Anticant
'which any pope who takes his office ...Ad Anticant<br /><br />'which any pope who takes his office seriously must surely have that he is Christ's chief spokesman on earth.'<br /><br />I dunno, I really dunno, frankly. Methinks such a 'spokesmanship' can be (felt to be) legitimately claimed by mystics only.... . By no-one else. And that only to a very limited extent. <br /><br />Let alone 'chief spokesmanship'... . <br /><br />The Renaissance Popes (such as Alexander VI) might have cherished various illusions about themselves, that's true, if this particular one too---is bound to remain their sweet secret.<br /><br />Believing is a tricky matter, as know all epistemologists and epistemic logicians (provoking Steve's reproach to be raising a smoke-screen), and believing various things about your very self is even far trickier than average.... . You can believe that you believe something about yourself (for instance, you can believe that you're self-confident) without holding that latter belief in fact, in other words, you can err about your own beliefs about yourself... . This is one of the reasons why I wouldn't like to speak about anybody's personal beliefs, e. g. mine.Wojciech Żełaniechttp://www.wnswz.strony.univ.gda.plnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-20463543881360736062009-04-23T13:53:00.000+00:002009-04-23T13:53:00.000+00:00Ad Kosh3
'"May I ask if you've ever heard of such...Ad Kosh3<br /><br />'"May I ask if you've ever heard of such things?"<br /><br />Yes of course. The Pope's must make room for themselves as having something to say, after all.'<br /><br /><br />Oh c'mon, now you're just being cynical.<br /><br />'"Now are you sure, or anywhere near sure, that your imputations are correct?"<br /><br />For some Catholics, sure. For many or most? No I'm not sure. It is one plausible possibility though.'<br /><br />Plausible, yes, but this plausibility logic is not monotonic, if I may use this comparison. There are over a milliard (billion) Catholics in this world, how many of them do you know? Besides, not all Catholics are alike and in great many of them their Catholicism is just declarative. <br /><br /><br />'Refraining from sex may be much harder than refraining from condom use. Why commit two sins when you can commit only one? I accept though that there is something to the point you make; I respond by noting however that all that the RC does that is criminal here is not simply to tell them not to use condoms. It also tells people that using condoms does not work effectively to protect against HIV.'<br /><br />Well, refraining from condoms is very easy, to begin with, nothing to do with the amount of self-control and self-mastery you have to have in order not to indulge in illicit sex ... . The point is: few, if any, Catholics who during illicit intercourse refrain from condoms do this BECAUSE OF the Church condom-ban. More often, much more often, just because it (i. e. refrain) is easier than its opposite.<br /><br />See what I mean? I was once in a Department one faculty-member of which, a highly respected but somewhat ecccentric and not quite taken seriously professor was very much against the teachings of one Jacques Derrida (doesn't matter who she was). Now this Derrida once got invited by that University and was to come and give a talk. The faculty-member I mean distributed posters saying something like this: 'Out of protest against the visit and lecturing of Jacques Derrida at our University, all faculty-members, staff and students are kindly requested on that day [i .e. when the talk was scheduled] to wear shoes'. And, oh wonder, they WORE shoes on the day indicated... . Great success of a great authority? <br /><br />Better commit one sin than two? Sure. But non wearing a condom would have to be defined as a sin, which it is not yet, though in special circumstances some priests allow their use (for instance, in a married couple with one spouse infected), at least I have heard of such cases. <br /><br /><br />The issue of whether condoms are efficient as HIV stoppers is a separate one. As you rightly observed, viruses are too small for us to see, and so are pores in rubber, if any. In a (not at all RC) daily newspaper I have recently read that the said INefficiency is about 1/10 (one-tenth), i. e. condoms stop nine viruses in ten), which makes them appear rather inefficient as HIV-stoppers. But that's an empirical matter on which I cannot claim any competence and still less authority --- as little or less as the RC Church on how to live promiscuously and 'get away with it'... .Wojciech Żełaniechttp://wnswz.strony.univ.gda.plnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-1045109049214733212009-04-23T13:32:00.000+00:002009-04-23T13:32:00.000+00:00Ad Anticant
'I don't agree that anyone's personal...Ad Anticant<br /><br />'I don't agree that anyone's personal religious beliefs or unbeliefs are beside the point: they condition the individual's entire way of thinking about and relating to the world. They determine one's perceptions of reality. If you believe in the existence of a supernatural Creator or other Being, you think and behave quite differently - though not necessariy any more ethically - from someone who doesn't hold such beliefs.'<br /><br />Yeah that's perfectly true; I only intended to say: my personal (un)beliefs have nothing to do with the discussion we're conducting here. So as to avoid all kinds of _ad hominem_ arguments. <br /><br />'So your beliefs do shape your opinions. So does your age. I have lived through seven decades of the twentieth century and one decade of this one, and I am in no doubt whatever that in terms of immorality, criminality and systematic lying in high places the last ten years take the biscuit.'<br /><br />So does your age, that's very true. I can boast three decades less than you, so I must defer to you on this point. But also: the place where you have lived shapes your beliefs too; Now I don't know about your places but mine has been Poland, and you might have heard about the kind of things that were going on in that country say between 1939 and 1989? Horrible, horrible things.... . <br /><br />This topic reminds me of ballad entitled 'The Return' by Kipling, 'If England was what England seems' -- do you know it? I admire it, for all its 'jingoist' overtones.Wojciech Żełaniechttp://www.wnswz.strony.univ.gda.plnoreply@blogger.com