Stephen Fry and Hitchens vs. the Catholic madness

[timoneill]

Nov 20, 2009 14:52:09 GMT toadie said:

Regarding HIV/condoms and the Catholic church, I am not so sure the siuation is quite as simple as you make out ('To pretend that the Catholic teaching on condoms isn't exacerbating a chronic situation in Africa and elsewhere is simply ludicrous.').
See Dr Edward Green's comments (He works for the Harvard AIDS prevention research project) in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html). He also has a similar letter in the Lancet (2009 May).

Thanks for the link - that was an interesting read. But all it's actually doing is identifying why condom use has been less effective in Africa than it has been in Thailand and Cambodia. These are mainly social reasons and therefore difficult ones to address, but they can be addressed. If, as that letter notes, fidelity-based education campaigns such as those in Uganda can have an impact then obviously such campaigns coupled with better education about how condoms help prevent infection as well would work even better.

But that isn't going to work while an influential institution is telling people that sticking a rubber on your willy is a "sin", due to some ossified Fifth Century theology.

[hawkinthesnow]

Even if it was the case that mainly Catholic countries had the highest rate of infection, that would not deter the Catholic hierarchy. The question of birth control was settled at the last Council with "Humanae Vitae". Pope Paul VI went against the advice of most of the Commitee that discussed this issue and continued with this ridiculous ban. He thereby landed any future Pope with a headache of a PR job to revoke it. Popes don't like contradicting their predecessors. It is not likely that will happen any time soon.

Most educated Catholics simply ignore the teaching, and it is as usual the poor and uneducated Catholics in the underdeveloped world that suffer.

I was listening to interview with the the retiring Archbishop of Wetminster recently. The interviewer challenged him on the Church's stance on contraception, and it's consequences, and the Archbishop defended it by saying that the Church has to defend a higher ideal of morality than that prevalent in the Western world. It seemed a rather trite remark really, coming from a man dressed in gorgeous robes and sat in an ornate chair, when people are slowly dying of an infection that might have been prevented by simply wearing a latex sheath.

However much right wing Catholics defend this teaching, the rest of us, Catholics and non Catholics recognise it for the nonsense it is.

[merkavah12]

Tim, James, everyone....

Believers and non-believers. I thank you. Your debate has been spirited, educational, and entertaining.

But be that as it may, the time has come for I to crush the arguments of both sides.

In your mutual zeal, none of you thought of the one argument, the one statement that could cripple both sides.

Now I unleash it! With but a click on this humble link, I will prove you all wrong!

Are you ready? Are you ready for this? Tell me, are you hanging on the edge of your seat?

BEHOLD!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJOZp2ZftCw

[Al Moritz]

Nov 20, 2009 2:55:20 GMT unkleE said:

Nov 19, 2009 11:04:36 GMT timoneill said:

However much Catholics like the Headmistress try to wave it aside, the child sexual abuse issue has done the Church massive damage. The insensitivity and hypocrisy with which it has handled the whole business simply does outweigh all the kindly nuns and shiny hospitals you care to mention. Not least because it continues to handle the whole business with ham-fisted insensitivity. ....... These guys are still totally out of touch with the genuine disgust and anger that their institution and their attitudes engender.

I am not a Catholic, but as a christian looking in from the outside, I must say I've thought pretty much the same. Repentance and forgiveness are two of the distinctives of christianity, and it is hard to find any reason or excuse for not following that path. It would help address the PR nightmare, but, much more importantly, it would be practicing what Jesus preached and doing something towards easing a lot of people's pain.

I am a Catholic and I agree. The scandal has done massive damage, and the response of the Catholic Church has been an absolute disaster.

And then of course, there would be the christian responsibility to do something tangible about making as much amends as is possible. I guess the fear in admitting guilt is that the reparations may be costly. But again (and this is easy for me to say) we/they are supposed to be following the teachings of a revolutionary who criticised people for giving too much importance to wealth. To adapt a famous saying: "What does it profit a church if it gains all the property and loses the people it's supposed to be caring for?"

In principle I agree, but it is not that simple. The problem is that, yes, the church has some superfluous wealth, but on the other hand the money for reparations comes from the 'simple folk' who give to the church to do the work that it is supposed to do. I personally am outraged at victims who want money from the church as reparation because, guess what, it is my money and the money of the other church goers, not an 'abstract money of the church'. Victims should get apologies and full repentance form the church and psychological counseling fully paid by the church, but to get an extra damage pay-off is simply outrageous -- it is stealing from the church goers, plain and simple. Here is how I and many other church goers have resolved the situation in Boston: we have refused to give any money to the annual collection of the archdiocese, until the reparations were resolved. Of course, this had bad consequences for the charities and programs of the diocese these 1 or 2 years, but I refused to willingly give any money to those victims. The church then was forced to sell some properties (good) and clean the house. Only after the settlements were reached, we gave money again.

It is interesting that the Australian Government has twice in the past two years made formal apologies to groups of people that Australia has treated poorly - indigenous Australians and child immigrants. These apologies have been labelled as tokenistic by some critics, but they have been very well received by the affected people, have created goodwill where there was little before, and may actually lead to some useful action.

Surely the Catholic church could learn from this (if it cannot learn from Jesus)?

Absolutely.

[Al Moritz]

Hawkinthesnow wrote:

Even if it was the case that mainly Catholic countries had the highest rate of infection, that would not deter the Catholic hierarchy. The question of birth control was settled at the last Council with "Humanae Vitae". Pope Paul VI went against the advice of most of the Commitee that discussed this issue and continued with this ridiculous ban.

Inspiration by the Holy Spirit does not necessarily work by democratic consensus.

He thereby landed any future Pope with a headache of a PR job to revoke it. Popes don't like contradicting their predecessors. It is not likely that will happen any time soon.

I don't get the impression that John Paul II and Benedict XVI ever had one uncomfortable minute with the doctrine. In fact, John Paul II has emphasized it on many occasions.

Most educated Catholics simply ignore the teaching, and it is as usual the poor and uneducated Catholics in the underdeveloped world that suffer.

My wife and I do not have children, simply because it didn't happen, but we have never used the pill and never had been planning to. As for the population issue, in Europe birth control has had disastrous effects. The French and German governments are so worried that they have given extra incentives to couples to have children. In 2005 I read a study that in 2040, with continuing trends, Germany will have a population with an average age of 60. This would be a dying society, literally and in terms of innovation. And where would all the pension money come from? Of course, this will not happen, not the least because of immigration, but the immigration issue is already another source for tension within the population, and it will get worse.

I was listening to interview with the the retiring Archbishop of Wetminster recently. The interviewer challenged him on the Church's stance on contraception, and it's consequences, and the Archbishop defended it by saying that the Church has to defend a higher ideal of morality than that prevalent in the Western world.

I agree.

coming from a man dressed in gorgeous robes and sat in an ornate chair,

What does that have to do with anything? This is not a rational argument.

when people are slowly dying of an infection that might have been prevented by simply wearing a latex sheath.

Really? Then please read this interview with the director of the Harvard AIDS Prevention Research Project,

www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/marchweb-only/111-53.0.html

However much right wing Catholics defend this teaching, the rest of us, Catholics and non Catholics recognise it for the nonsense it is.

Good for you.

[unkleE]

Nov 22, 2009 12:09:40 GMT Al Moritz said:

In principle I agree, but it is not that simple. The problem is that, yes, the church has some superfluous wealth, but on the other hand the money for reparations comes from the 'simple folk' who give to the church to do the work that it is supposed to do. I personally am outraged at victims who want money from the church as reparation because, guess what, it is my money and the money of the other church goers, not an 'abstract money of the church'. Victims should get apologies and full repentance form the church and psychological counseling fully paid by the church, but to get an extra damage pay-off is simply outrageous -- it is stealing from the church goers, plain and simple. Here is how I and many other church goers have resolved the situation in Boston: we have refused to give any money to the annual collection of the archdiocese, until the reparations were resolved. Of course, this had bad consequences for the charities and programs of the diocese these 1 or 2 years, but I refused to willingly give any money to those victims. The church then was forced to sell some properties (good) and clean the house. Only after the settlements were reached, we gave money again.

I'm very interested to hear this Al. I didn't necessarily mean that victims should automatically get some windfall payout, only that unwillingness to pay whatever is appropriate (and I can't really say) should not be an issue. And I didn't mean that your giving should be directed there, but that existing property and other wealth should be used - which in fact is what your actions achieved.

My main concern remains that obeying Jesus and caring for people are given higher priority than preserving church wealth or dignity, whether in the Catholic church or elsewhere. Congratulations on your actions which assisted to some degree in that.

[Al Moritz]

However much right wing Catholics defend this teaching, the rest of us, Catholics and non Catholics recognise it for the nonsense it is.

By the way, "right-wing" as I am according to your standards, I voted for Obama. "The world is not black and white, Jack, it is grey", to quote a great line from the movie Clear and Present Danger.

[jamierobertson]

Karma for almoritz - and I'm a Protestant!

[hawkinthesnow]

Nov 22, 2009 12:18:09 GMT Al Moritz said:

Hawkinthesnow wrote:

Even if it was the case that mainly Catholic countries had the highest rate of infection, that would not deter the Catholic hierarchy. The question of birth control was settled at the last Council with "Humanae Vitae". Pope Paul VI went against the advice of most of the Commitee that discussed this issue and continued with this ridiculous ban.

Inspiration by the Holy Spirit does not necessarily work by democratic consensus.

Much of the work of Vatican 2 was done by special commissions. The one set up to examine the question fo sexuality was made up of medical experts and theologians. Their findings were that there was no serious theological objection to it, and certainly no medical objection. The only other method acceptable at the time was notoriously unreliable, and resulted in much misery from unwanted pregancies. Families were driven into poverty and misery because of the church's official teaching, particularly where large Catholic populations predominated - Ireland for example. The reason that the commission's recommendations were rejected by the Pope at the time where that he was afraid that if he overturned the ban on artificial contraception he would be changing a high profile teaching of the church, and he did not want to do that.
The notion that the Pope's decision was inspired by the Holy Spirit is laughable. This was about church politics, nothing more. In any event, as I understand it, current Catholic teaching has it that the Holy Spirit can speak through any channel He wants. The church is after all, more than the hierarchy.

He thereby landed any future Pope with a headache of a PR job to revoke it. Popes don't like contradicting their predecessors. It is not likely that will happen any time soon.

I don't get the impression that John Paul II and Benedict XVI ever had one uncomfortable minute with the doctrine. In fact, John Paul II has emphasized it on many occasions.

My point was that even if they had wanted to, they would find it difficult. There would be no point now anyway, most Catholics simply do what they think best, whether the hierarchy like it or not.

Most educated Catholics simply ignore the teaching, and it is as usual the poor and uneducated Catholics in the underdeveloped world that suffer.

My wife and I do not have children, simply because it didn't happen, but we have never used the pill and never had been planning to.

I fail to see the relevance of this.

As for the population issue, in Europe birth control has had disastrous effects. The French and German governments are so worried that they have given extra incentives to couples to have children. In 2005 I read a study that in 2040, with continuing trends, Germany will have a population with an average age of 60. This would be a dying society, literally and in terms of innovation. And where would all the pension money come from? Of course, this will not happen, not the least because of immigration, but the immigration issue is already another source for tension within the population, and it will get worse.

So what are you suggesting - that people be forced to have children to pay their parent's pensions? This is all very interesting, but has nothing to do with the question of whether the Catholic church has the right to tell people not to use condoms.

I was listening to interview with the the retiring Archbishop of Wetminster recently. The interviewer challenged him on the Church's stance on contraception, and it's consequences, and the Archbishop defended it by saying that the Church has to defend a higher ideal of morality than that prevalent in the Western world.

I agree.

I think he was talking nonsense. I am not aware of a prevalent moral code. This is just a prelate unhppy at the fact that people are working out their own values and not just allowing themselves to be told how to behave.

coming from a man dressed in gorgeous robes and sat in an ornate chair,

What does that have to do with anything? This is not a rational argument.

It's an observation not an argument, and I am entitled to make it. I should have added he lives in a Bishop's palace, and does'nt have to worry about a mortgage or feeding and clothing his children. He seemed apparently unconcerned with the consequences of this teaching in the real world.

when people are slowly dying of an infection that might have been prevented by simply wearing a latex sheath.

Really? Then please read this interview with the director of the Harvard AIDS Prevention Research Project,

www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/marchweb-only/111-53.0.html

I read it. It says that individuals wearing condoms are less at risk of contracting HIV.

"It may well make sense for an individual to use condoms every time, or as often as possible, and he may well decrease his chances of catching HIV. But we are talking about programs, large efforts that either work or fail at the level of countries, or, as we say in public health, the level of population."

Opponents of artificial contraception will use any scientific or sociological argument they can get their hands on to justify their view, but what it comes down to is a moral question -does the church have the right to intervene in people's lives to this level? The fact is that the church's opposition to artifical contraception has led to misery. Why do you think that there was such a backlash among Catholics following the publication of Humanae Vitae? This was the work of a man, a bachelor, presumably celibate, who had no real experience of the lives of ordinary working people struggling to raise families, who were being told that it was a sin to use sensible contraception in order to keep those families to a manageable size, that children were a gift from God, and that all Catholics should be "open to the gift" - in other word, take their chances with the rhythm method.

And sadly, Catholics are still being told that.

[hawkinthesnow]

Nov 22, 2009 18:16:33 GMT Al Moritz said:

However much right wing Catholics defend this teaching, the rest of us, Catholics and non Catholics recognise it for the nonsense it is.

By the way, "right-wing" as I am according to your standards, I voted for Obama. "The world is not black and white, Jack, it is grey", to quote a great line from the movie Clear and Present Danger.

Most Americans did, so what?

[hawkinthesnow]

Nov 24, 2009 22:34:19 GMT hawkinthesnow said:

Nov 22, 2009 18:16:33 GMT Al Moritz said:

However much right wing Catholics defend this teaching, the rest of us, Catholics and non Catholics recognise it for the nonsense it is.

By the way, "right-wing" as I am according to your standards, I voted for Obama. "The world is not black and white, Jack, it is grey", to quote a great line from the movie Clear and Present Danger.

Most Americans did, so what?

I'm sorry, that was uncalled for. My apologies.

[Al Moritz]

Nov 29, 2009 17:19:10 GMT hawkinthesnow said:

Nov 24, 2009 22:34:19 GMT hawkinthesnow said:

Most Americans did, so what?

I'm sorry, that was uncalled for. My apologies.

No problem, apology accepted. I didn't take it too seriously at the time

[teajay]

Ex-catholic myself. Don't for a second buy into the way the Catholic Church views itself, but are you guys serious when you say that Hitchens and Fry 'won' the debate? If that kind of thing is classified as a win then clearly logic plays no role in winning a debate. Both came across (in my opinion) as exceptionally willing to generalise and condemn Catholics in a way that no social group on Earth is subject to. Yes, let's hold the Pope accountable for actions linked to him by the most tenuous chain of causation imaginable, but God forbid we treat any other group in the same way, particularly atheists. That would be intolerable.

And the constant applause at the most vile stereotypes is as clear an indication as any that the crowd had made their mind up before the bishop took the podium.