Yep, this had me utterly stumped, too. And I got no answer when I asked for clarification. tomndebb?
Abstinence is a practice favoured by RCC doctrines, and they are now taking advantage of the terrible human tragedy of AIDS to push their doctrinal agenda.
Saying that abstinence is a method of preventing STD transmission is pointless. STD MEANS “Sexually Transmitted Diseases”. Saying you will not get diseases transmitted by sex if you don’t have sex is true enough, but it is a ridiculous tautology.
I have seen books about safe skiing. NOT ONE of them begins with a chapter pointing out that the surest way to avoid skiing accidents is not to ski.
Surely the best way to prevent drownings is never to go on or near the water? But have you ever seen a booklet on water safety that says this?
Surely the best way to handle electricity safely would be not to have electricity in your house?
Another question. If STDs were all wiped out tomorrow, would the RCC change its position on sex and abstinence? I doubt it. Because their promotion of abstinence in regards to STDs has a lot to do with beating the drum for their own doctrines and little to do with a genuine concern for human health.
For many years now, reports have been coming out of Africa about gross falsehoods used by Roman Catholic hospitals and clergy to scare Africans away from using condoms.
The trouble is that verbal exchanges between priests and African villagers are not easy to prove with an internet cite.
But here we have one of the RCC hierarchy shooting his mouth off with these absurd rumours and getting caught at it by the media (the story seems to have had quite a bit of international distribution).
So if a high-placed African RCC leader says this, are we to assume that this kind of nonsense is restricted entirely to him? Or is it possible that this kind of scare tactic is being used very widely on Africans by the rank-and-file RCC clergy?
If not, I wonder why these stories of RCC clergy using these scare rumours keep seeping out of Africa? 
All just anti-Catholic urban legends, right? :rolleyes: .
They do. Really. I don’t know exactly how he went about it, but Ratzinger is widely credited, if that’s the right word, with putting the kibosh on liberation theology in Latin America. Don’t tell me he can’t do it now that he has MORE power in the RCC.
Some of the stuff that a some of the liberation theologians were saying was heretical…that the idea of the church hierarchy is wrong, that the church shouldn’t own property, that Marxism was right, that the poo should use violence against the rich as well as some other stuff. That’s directly contrary to the church’s teachings, and is heresy. So, the church cracked down on priests and theologians who were saying that.
What this bishop said was dumb but wasn’t heretical. There’s no explicit Catholic teaching that says that condoms are uninfected wth disease, so it’s not forbidden for a Catholic to believe that condoms are so infected. It’s dumb for them to think that, but it’s not heresy. Do you see the difference in these two cases?
Which was about 200 years after the book was put on.
The posting I was originally reacting to said that they would apologize in a couple of hundred years.
By the early 1800s they would have looked as stupid as . . . . . well, that Mozambique Archbishop with his tainted condoms story. . . .if they had continued to ban a book that said that the sun goes around the Earth.
But the actual apology for what they did to Galileo (if you can call the weak and self-serving pronouncment of Pope John Paul II an apology at all) came about 350-400 years later.
As I recall, John Paul II also gave some half-assed, self-serving “apology” for the Spanish Inquisition when he visited Spain in the 1980s or 1990s. I remember thinking that if there is an afterlife, the spirits of the thousands of poor people who died in horrible torment imposed by his organization in the name of the love of Christ would take cold comfort from his pronouncements. And that apology was about 400-500 year after the fact.
Unless you count that the last person burned by the Inquisition was in Mexico in the mid 1800s. In that case, the Papal “apology” set a new land speed record. 
The Catholic Church is a spiritual organization. Do you think they should be more concerned with saving life than they are saving souls? Do you think they should advocate people engage in behavior that will earn them damnation simply to lengthen their temporal lives?
FWIW, the Catholic Church is engaged in activities around the world to make our existence here on earth better, to save lives and to help the needy. The Catholic Church is interested in doing what is right here on Earth, in saving lives here on Earth, on doing good deeds here on Earth. But spiritual concerns have to trump that, it’s not an easy thing or a light decision to make. But if the Catholic Church has to choose between doing something that will probably save lives but almost certainly encourage people to sin and damn themselves to hell, and doing something that will probably cost lives but won’t encourage people to sin, the Church will choose the option that does not encourage sin every single time (or at least it should.)
As a Catholic and someone who donates to many Catholic charities, I’m perfectly okay with this. It’s not my belief that Africans are especially inclined to use condoms nor do I think they are especially disinclined to use them because of anything the church says or does.
Your assertion that the Church should change its teachings, simply to prevent death is ludicrous and shows a fundamental misunderstanding not only of Catholicism but of Christianity in general. Christians have died in the past because they would not recant their belief, they are most certainly not going to change their fundamental beliefs even if it would possibly help people while in the temporal world.
Non-Christians often have trouble getting their minds around the fact that “dying” is not seen as the worst thing in the world to a Christian. Death is a sad affair because it separates loved ones from one another, it often comes with pain and tragedy. However, a far worse fate than death is to die without redemption and be damned eternally, forever separate from God. Far better to die living a life in accordance with the teachings of Christ than to live life in perpetual violations of His teachings and the other teachings of the Church.
Amen! “For to me life is Christ, and death is gain. If I go on living in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. And I do not know which I shall choose. I am caught between the two. I long to depart this life and be with Christ, (for) that is far better. Yet that I remain (in) the flesh is more necessary for your benefit.”
Yes, because there’s no evidence for souls or damnation; plenty for the existance of living people. Allowing baseless speculation to override the obvious reality, to the extent of abetting or causing widespread death and suffering, simply demonstates the fundamental evil of Catholicism. And all the other religions that do the same.
Oh, but it does show an understanding. It shows an understanding that they are in the wrong. “Simply to prevent death” indeed.
Which is why there is a fundamental incompatibility with being Christian and being good, not to mention rational.
And that sort of attitude helps show how malignant and demented Christianity is. How opposed it is to everything of value in the world.
But it is admittedly so. Whether or not you and I agree with the teachings, there is the spiritual belief that demands that this world is a temporary stay–a test even–and one should not sacrifice principle for the benefit of this material world.
If you really wanna nail Christians (or anyone else for that matter) point out how they don’t even live to their own standards. The Pope cruises around in a bulletproof car? Why? If it’s not God’s plan to send him home, God won’t inspire someone to shoot him. Does the Pope not believe this?
I dig (some) Christians, great and giving people, but the blatantly hypocritical sort should be fed to lions.
I hate to sound terribly cynical, but large organizations rarely need reasons for what they do. Rationales work just fine. I’m sure the High Pointy Hats could find some rationale for cracking down on their people in Africa, if they had the least interest in doing so.
This is why in my opinion Christianity is inherently evil, because on a fundamental level it is in love with death. Suffering is good for Catholics, remember Mother Theresa she was the official archetype of the Catholic view of pain and death. Suffer and die with Christ, what more could any human being want? In their world view human existence is just a side show ultimately meaningless compared to eternal “life.”
That’s simply not true. Christianity is all about making the most of your life through the grace of God and ulitmately being with Him later. The man with the talents who buries them and never does anything wrong, but doesn’t use them either and just waits for the master to return is not lauded for it.
Why do I suspect this reasoning only applies to Christians? Or are you going to defend Wahabbists the next time there’s a rant about a woman getting beaten to death for not wearing a burqa in public? After all, they’re only following God’s will in protecting her soul, and never mind the cost to her body.
Tell it like it is.
Hmm. Isn’t the position on the use of condoms itself a change in teachings designed to simply prevent death? I assume there was a time before them when their use was not officially addressed.
I would say also that simply saying souls should be prioritised over lives is itself not something you can always do. For example, the use of condoms in this instance is (among other things) designed to help stop the spread of AIDs. Yet, if a person is allowed the risk of catching it rather than taking on sin, wouldn’t that suffering in and of itself provide possible reasoning to convert away from Catholicism? In the big picture, do you not think that it’s possible the bad press gained for the Church by it’s position on this issue (even though you don’t agree with it) could turn people away from these teachings? It may be that comprimising the teachings in this instance might in the long run mean more Catholic converts.