Cameroon makes final preparations for Pope Benedict XVI's visit...

Full story: Newsday 95
Work crews finished renovating sites Monday and choirs practiced inside a soccer stadium where more than 100,000 faithful are expected for a Mass this week with Pope Benedict XVI. Full Story
First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Dan

Omaha, NE

#84 Apr 2, 2009
CRAIG wrote:
Jesus did not die for black people. The sooner we drop this farce the better off we will all be.
Horrendous, whether you really believe it or posted it as some sort of bad joke.
Dave

Minneapolis, MN

#85 Apr 2, 2009
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You confused me, Dave-you described condoms as "the one tool" in the post I responded to.
Condoms aren't an option for the Pope to employ. Admit it seems circular, but I think you would understand that he can't present something as an option if it isn't one for him.
I do understand that condoms aren't an option for the pope. My understanding of why the Catholic originally church forbade the use of contraception was that they believed that a man's sperm was in fact the seed and all a woman's role in reproduction was the vessel to accept that seed and give birth to the child meaning that the use of condoms or masturbation was akin to abortion.

Seeing how we now have a much better understanding of reproduction you'd think the Catholic Church would rethink this issue, at least internally. So while the pope may not be able to come out for condoms until they officially reverse their rule, you'd at least think he'd refrain from preaching against their use. He doesn't have to encourage their use and can still preach abstinence without ever mentioning condoms. Instead he's still touting the old (and I mean old) party line, which brings us to this discussion.
Dave

Minneapolis, MN

#86 Apr 2, 2009
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Horrendous, whether you really believe it or posted it as some sort of bad joke.
I guess that depends on your beliefs or lack thereof. As a non-believer, that statement doesn't affect me one way or the other. Now if you're a believer, and you happen to be black, I'd hope that your faith would overwhelm any value you might put in that statement.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#87 Apr 2, 2009
Dave wrote:
<quoted text>
I do understand that condoms aren't an option for the pope. My understanding of why the Catholic originally church forbade the use of contraception was that they believed that a man's sperm was in fact the seed and all a woman's role in reproduction was the vessel to accept that seed and give birth to the child meaning that the use of condoms or masturbation was akin to abortion.
Seeing how we now have a much better understanding of reproduction you'd think the Catholic Church would rethink this issue, at least internally. So while the pope may not be able to come out for condoms until they officially reverse their rule, you'd at least think he'd refrain from preaching against their use. He doesn't have to encourage their use and can still preach abstinence without ever mentioning condoms. Instead he's still touting the old (and I mean old) party line, which brings us to this discussion.
Agree or disagree with the 'party line', it IS the party line.

While you are very rational, I'm kind of amazed at the hysteria over the Papal comment, as if they would reasonably expect a different response.
Dave

Minneapolis, MN

#88 Apr 2, 2009
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Agree or disagree with the 'party line', it IS the party line.
While you are very rational, I'm kind of amazed at the hysteria over the Papal comment, as if they would reasonably expect a different response.
You're right; a lot of the comments are rather hysterical. I think for the most part the people making those comments are just expressing outrage at the statements by the pope in wake of the tragic situation over there. Not that they'd expect him to do/say anything differently. The outrage would probably be better directed at the Catholic Church and their dogma, but as the pope is the face of that church and he's making the statements he's a natural target.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#89 Apr 2, 2009
Dave wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right; a lot of the comments are rather hysterical. I think for the most part the people making those comments are just expressing outrage at the statements by the pope in wake of the tragic situation over there. Not that they'd expect him to do/say anything differently. The outrage would probably be better directed at the Catholic Church and their dogma, but as the pope is the face of that church and he's making the statements he's a natural target.
Targeting the RCC and their dogma for outrage would be even more sophomoric, if that's possible, than the hysteria over what the Pope said. It would be much more useful to petition approval of or assistance with condom distribution from, say, mainline protestant denominations who have no religious objection to their use. I wonder why that's never mentioned?

I agree that the Pope is a big target and frankly, a convenient scapegoat.
Dave

Minneapolis, MN

#90 Apr 2, 2009
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Targeting the RCC and their dogma for outrage would be even more sophomoric, if that's possible, than the hysteria over what the Pope said. It would be much more useful to petition approval of or assistance with condom distribution from, say, mainline protestant denominations who have no religious objection to their use. I wonder why that's never mentioned?
I agree that the Pope is a big target and frankly, a convenient scapegoat.
Now you're making it sound like the pope has no responsibility for the RCC's stance here. You can't exactly call him a scapegoat for the policies of an institution that he's the head of. As far as condom distribution by protestant groups I honestly have no idea if thatís being done or not.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#91 Apr 2, 2009
Dave wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you're making it sound like the pope has no responsibility for the RCC's stance here. You can't exactly call him a scapegoat for the policies of an institution that he's the head of. As far as condom distribution by protestant groups I honestly have no idea if thatís being done or not.
He does not bear nominal responsibility for what the Church teaches-he's head of it, but they're not his opinions. The Church teaches about condom use. The Pope teaches what the Church teaches.

The disagreement is with the Church. Not enough of a disagreement to refuse the sizable human and financial resources that the Catholic church provides for relief, mind you-just enough to make it the Pope's 'fault' that the disease hasn't been checked by condom distribution thus far.
Dave

Minneapolis, MN

#92 Apr 3, 2009
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
He does not bear nominal responsibility for what the Church teaches-he's head of it, but they're not his opinions. The Church teaches about condom use. The Pope teaches what the Church teaches.
The disagreement is with the Church. Not enough of a disagreement to refuse the sizable human and financial resources that the Catholic church provides for relief, mind you-just enough to make it the Pope's 'fault' that the disease hasn't been checked by condom distribution thus far.
I spent 10 years in the Navy so I strongly feel that the person in charge bears responsibility for his/her command. In this case the pope's command is the RCC. Yes, the church's current stance is against the use of condoms, but that can change and he would/could be integral in that change. In the meantime if he recognized that the church's stance didn't make sense given our current level of understanding of the reproductive system, he could just not comment one way or the other until a change had been made.

Instead he continues to speak out against condom use meaning he is not making an effort to change the church's policies thereby becoming complicit with the bad policy. His job may very well be to enforce these rules, but he always has the option to buck the system/resign his post if he doesnít agree with what his job entails.

Take Nazi war criminals. Note that Iím not drawing any connection with the current pope and his past. Iím just using this as an example of responsibility. Many Nazis that were tried and convicted of war crimes used the defense that they were just following orders and thus werenít responsible. My position is that those Nazis had a better case as their consequences for disobedience were surely much more severe than what they would be for the pope if he chose to disobey the rules established by the church.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#93 Apr 3, 2009
Dave wrote:
<quoted text>
I spent 10 years in the Navy so I strongly feel that the person in charge bears responsibility for his/her command. In this case the pope's command is the RCC. Yes, the church's current stance is against the use of condoms, but that can change and he would/could be integral in that change. In the meantime if he recognized that the church's stance didn't make sense given our current level of understanding of the reproductive system, he could just not comment one way or the other until a change had been made.
Instead he continues to speak out against condom use meaning he is not making an effort to change the church's policies thereby becoming complicit with the bad policy. His job may very well be to enforce these rules, but he always has the option to buck the system/resign his post if he doesnít agree with what his job entails.
Take Nazi war criminals. Note that Iím not drawing any connection with the current pope and his past. Iím just using this as an example of responsibility. Many Nazis that were tried and convicted of war crimes used the defense that they were just following orders and thus werenít responsible. My position is that those Nazis had a better case as their consequences for disobedience were surely much more severe than what they would be for the pope if he chose to disobey the rules established by the church.
You make several assumptions, Dave.

I'm farily certain that the biology of the reproductive system isn't lost on the Pope nor the Magisterium. In the matter at hand, the issue isn't necessarily prevention of reproduction, rather the prevention of the transmission of disease.

The RCC principle teachings wouldn't necessarily have any basis to be modified in either case. They teach that sex should be used responsibly and one should be open to the gift of children. That's the essence of the whole thing, and encompasses the birth control, sex out of wedlock and abortion issues all in one shot.

Sex is being used 'irresponsibly' now in Africa (many cultural factors in play, but that's the crux). The integral change required to effect real progress against the spread of the disease is changing the behavior and/or the attitudes towards sexual behavior. You can have a gross of condoms for every man, woman and child on the Afincan continent (and they very well may have that number now) and it wouldn't mean a damn thing-it hasn't yet.

The Pope's/RCC's position cannot change as to do so would denigrate the status of the individual to the equivalent of a animal in heat that's enslaved to their primal urges. Concessions of "they can't help it-they'll do it anyway" is an argument I'd make if I believed the Africans (or anyone else) to be incapable of sentient thought. I feel that way about my dog, but not about people. They're not cattle.
Dave

Minneapolis, MN

#94 Apr 6, 2009
Not being a Catholic myself, I'll defer to your knowledge as to why the church forbids the use of contraception. I also understand why you feel the RCC cannot change their position on the issue.

Keeping all of that in mind we come back to the basic issue of is it responsible to preach this stance to a population who would greatly benefit from the use of condoms?

Now you can answer no to that question regardless of how often condoms are currently used. You'd have to acknowledge that at least part of the reason they're not using condoms is tied to the RCC's stance as they've been preaching it for quite a while.

Perhaps itís just hard for myself and other non-believers to wrap our heads around. Do you feel that a person would be better off to not use a condom even if it ultimately results in their death? For myself the answer is clear, but Iím not concerned with offending a god or religious organization. I guess if the choice is between using the condom and thereby going to eternal damnation or not using the condom, contracting AIDS, and dying, but still going to eternal glory in heaven, then your choice would be clear.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#96 Apr 6, 2009
Dave wrote:
Not being a Catholic myself, I'll defer to your knowledge as to why the church forbids the use of contraception. I also understand why you feel the RCC cannot change their position on the issue.
Keeping all of that in mind we come back to the basic issue of is it responsible to preach this stance to a population who would greatly benefit from the use of condoms?
Now you can answer no to that question regardless of how often condoms are currently used. You'd have to acknowledge that at least part of the reason they're not using condoms is tied to the RCC's stance as they've been preaching it for quite a while.
Perhaps itís just hard for myself and other non-believers to wrap our heads around. Do you feel that a person would be better off to not use a condom even if it ultimately results in their death? For myself the answer is clear, but Iím not concerned with offending a god or religious organization. I guess if the choice is between using the condom and thereby going to eternal damnation or not using the condom, contracting AIDS, and dying, but still going to eternal glory in heaven, then your choice would be clear.
On a purely pragmatic view, the answer would be "use the condoms".

Since that's not the view of the Church,)ANY church) by its nature, then the answer is "don't use condoms".

A tough one, for sure.
Dave

Minneapolis, MN

#97 Apr 7, 2009
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
On a purely pragmatic view, the answer would be "use the condoms".
Since that's not the view of the Church,)ANY church) by its nature, then the answer is "don't use condoms".
A tough one, for sure.
Okay, well I think we've discussed this as much as we can. Thanks for the rational discussion. I suspect we come from opposite sides of the aisle, but it's encouraging to know that there can be reason on both sides. Take it easy.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#98 Apr 7, 2009
Dave wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, well I think we've discussed this as much as we can. Thanks for the rational discussion. I suspect we come from opposite sides of the aisle, but it's encouraging to know that there can be reason on both sides. Take it easy.
Same to you and thanks!
AhSalamiMeMakum

Glen Cove, NY

#99 Apr 7, 2009
Will the nighrs put the great Poop in a pot?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/maloney9.htm...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Yaounde, Cameroon Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Yaounde Music Forum (Nov '12) Sep 1 Musikologist 9
Cameroon: Chinese Workers Abandon Construction ... Jul '14 Joe linda 2
A video released by the Nigerian Islamist extre... Jul '14 john 1
Two-Thirds of Congo Basin Forests Could Disappear (Dec '06) Jun '14 Watsa Mattau 4
Reunification: revisiting the Foumban deliberat... (Feb '14) Feb '14 FALCON-CREST 1
Government Recruits Thousands within Cameroon's... (Jan '10) Jan '14 nelvis 25
RTE Ten's top telly for today (Dec '13) Dec '13 Francesco Sinibaldi 1
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Yaounde, Cameroon People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••