Yes, he does share moral responsibility for that ill–otherwise, he may not share responsibility for the good of sending the guilty to jail. He’s knowingly participating in a system that sacrifices the good of the occasional individual in order to protect the good of the group. How can he not share responsibility for choosing to make this sacrifice?
Daniel
No, I don’t want to dictate how the church should behave. However, I live in the world, and the actions and the attitude of the Catholic church do have a small bearing on my life. So it’s not suprising that I have an opinion.
I’m sure that you can think of many groups you aren’t a member of that you have an opinion about.
To expand on what I mean about rules, I don’t believe it’s possible to write an all-encompassing moral code. The golden rule is a pretty good approximation, but even that can’t cover all situations.
This is not the pope you are looking for.
I am incredibly disappointed in this choice for the new Pope - although I’m not surprised. The Church continues to display its obstinancy in making the changes necessary to heal itself. It is long past time for women to have equal ranks among the clergy and for priests to marry. The masculine model of a celibate son and the feminine ideal of a virgin mother are toxic for The Church. Benedictine the 16th will not fix these problems.
Considering how much the church actively works against me, then why shouldn’t I push back?
Do you believe that it is always obvious what the right thing to do is? I do not.
Those who believe that Pope Benedict XVI has sprung full-grown and brand-new from the brow of Cardinal Ratzinger are kidding themselves. He was the top advisor to John Paul II since 1981; he is a known quantity.
That said, the Church has a perfect right to choose him as Pope if the known quantity he represents is where they want to go. It’s none of my business except for where I am required to oppose the Church’s teachings in the civil sphere.
Well except children who got it from mommy… women who were raped… men who got bad blood transfusions… teens who were told sex is evil and didn’t buy condoms.
Its very easy to think of AIDS as a gay and sinner disease… but its shutting out reality. Your SO WRONG on this one Airman. I expected better of you.
As for Ratzinger… why would you think he is a good man ? We are bashing him on account of his history (he has been around some time you know)… you just labeled him “good man” and said nothing to support that.
I know you don’t. But that’s because you don’t believe that Jesus Christ was the divine Son of God, that he appointed Peter as the first Pope of His Church on Earth, that each suceeding Pope has been chosen by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and that the Church teaches infalliably on matters of faith and morals.
I do.
Are you serious? All gay people should become celibate? That sounds reasonable to you?
To me that sounds inhumane and cruel, especially since monogomy would work just as well, would be more realistic and would provide for healthier and happier lives.
I don’t believe your friends, by the way. Celibate my ass.
Pardon my ignorance, but how are tainted blood transfusions the fault of the Catholic Church?
You’re absolutely right. If everyone listened to the Church’s teachings on sexual morality, there would not be an AIDS crisis, or at least, it would be vastly reduced. Here’s the thing: nobody is listening. They haven’t listened in the past, they aren’t listening right now, and they aren’t going to start listening any time real soon. The Church’s plan may sound great on paper, but out in the real world, it’s failing utterly. I’m not blaming the Church for that. As you say, people shouldn’t pick and choose which parts of their religion they want to follow. But human nature being what it is, they are going to do just that, anyway. It’s stupid, and hypocritical, and irresponsible. Do you think it needs to be lethal, too? Do people deserve to die because they aren’t being good Catholics? The Church can keep preaching abstinence. But it can also use its vast wealth and influence to take measures that are effective in the fight against the AIDS epidemic. In this situation, the Church is like a man on a beach with a life preserver, try to shout swimming instruction to a drowning man. Learning to swim is a better way to stay alive, but if the guy in the water isn’t listening, you throw him the damn life preserver. You don’t let him drown just because he wasn’t following your instructions.
Well I sure hope your having sex only for procreation Bricker… if you’re such a good catholic
It’s not. The fault lies in the assumption that people who have AIDS have it because they broke Church rules and therefore are responsible for whatever fate befalls them. The one thing that can allow people to follow Church rules AND be safe are condoms. The Church as lied about their effectiveness and as discouraged their use, based primarily by blaming AIDS on a lack of following doctrine.
If a large percentage of people are infected not because of sexual contact, but via blood, mother to child, infected needles (injection, not drugs) then following the Churchs rules on condoms will do no good.
But will stop them from spreading it.
For the two men and one woman I know personally, it appears to be the right choice, reached after prayerful consideration. I don’t say it’s the workable choice for all, but neither is it impossble for anyone to achieve.
I know a man who claims it’s impossible for him to be monogamous. He loves his girlfriend, but he can’t stay faithful to her. He loved his ex-fiance, but couldn’t stay faithful to her.
Is it inhumane and cruel to demand fidelity of him?
I grant the possibility that two may be lying. I don’t believe it, and I know them. You don’t. I think that makes my take on the issue more informed than yours - but I do acknowledge that it’s possible I’m mistaken.
The third man is not lying. He lives in circumstances in which it would be virtually impossible for him to have sex with anyone, male or female. He requires near-constant medical care.
I don’t know who is a Catholic around here, so perhaps they have already addressed this and I just don’t know it. That said, I’d like to hear what the SDMB Catholics think about Ratzinger.
No, I’m not wrong. If you get sick because you do not take the proper precautions it’s on you. The discussion started about sex, that’s where it remained, and then you guys came out with all the other justifications for every other circumstance, and in spite of all that the fact remains that if you get sick because you didn’t protect yourself it’s your fault, no matter what kind of justification/misdirection you can try to come up with. Nowhere did I mention sinners or homosexuals, so I’d thank you all to stop putting words into my mouth.
You tell me why you think he’s NOT a good man and we’ll go from there. I can think of a few million people offhand who would disagree with you.
And you, of course, don’t give a damn how much misery enforced Catholic sexual morality would cause gays and lesbians. Or how many people would kill themselves rather than face a life of sexless, loveless isolation.
Haven’t you figured it out yet? Everything is the Church’s fault, except for the things that are George W. Bush’s fault.