I have to say something about that. We ALL have some sort of moral code. We have at times “declared” that someone else’s moral code is wrong. I’ve done it myself. There is no obligation to coddle someone if we think their “code” is wrong.
Far fetched and ridiculous example:
I could tell you that you are a horrible person for liking asparagus. You are evil for buying it, because that only encourages farmers to grow more of that vile stuff. I hate it. Obviously then, no decent person would eat it. You decide I’m an idiot, and go on happily eating asparagus. Where was the coercion? Where was my “code of honor” being forcibly imposed? I could start a media campaign about the Evils Of Asparagus. Do people have to pretend they respect me, do they have to take me seriously? No, the can say “that guy is an asshole”.
We do not have to respect every opinion, every “code”, every “ethics”, every “morality” that comes along. Some are stupid and deserve no respect.
We declare other people’s codes are wrong by not adopting them as our own codes. If we thought the other people had the right moral code, we’d adopt that code.
I don’t see any difference between thinking “You’re wrong” and saying “You’re wrong.”
It’s a two-sided issue. On one side, you got The Dude In The Funny Hat who says don’t use condoms because they help spread aids. On the other side, you have the fools who believe what he says because they won’t think for themselves.
Which is the fulcrum upon which the argument against the RCC is based. Because their influence is so great, and finality of their “product” so compelling (eternal life in the kingdom of heaven or a lake of fire? hmm, lemme think) that the things they ordain as fact are taken by others as fact just because of their ordination, which is then to say that they are, even if indirectly, responsible for the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of people because of their stance on condom use.
Let’s please not gloss over the fact that we’re talking about a simple people here as well. Africa has an education system that is poor at best. The RCC isn’t preaching their lunacy to a group of academics, they’re targeting the lowest social strata while ignoring the reality of their daily existance.
Well, I am not Catholic, and I don’t agree with most Catholic beliefs, but if you believe, as they do, that they are talking about eternal truths handed down from God himself, then you certainly wouldn’t change those beliefs like hairstyles would you?
It’s silly-assed. Let us say that cars were 100% safe when driven at the speed limt, that no crashs could occur. But that they did occur when speeding. Thus the analogy is “don’t speed and you won’t need a seat belt” vs “well dudes will speed anyhow, so we should encourage seat belt use”.
But you can’t say that. Your example, much like the stance of the RCC, does not deal with reality. Cars are not 100% safe, and just as my example of the transfusion laid out, you might not even GET HIV from sexual “misconduct” or sinning :rolleyes::rolleyes:
You can deal with the fucking ‘what if’ scenarios until the sacred cow comes home, but the facts are that condoms prevent disease and the church has come out against them. That stance, no matter who it is taken by and for whatever reason is socially, morally and actually wrong. I don’t care WHY they think condoms are wrong, their stance kills people. Their words, their directions, their mandates, kill people in places where their words, directions and mandates are taken as absolute. Condoms are in wide use here, free to the general public in many places because we KNOW they work. Sure, abstinence works, sure you’re right, but if you do have sex anyhow and if you don’t glove up, then you could die and we all know it. THEY say don’t because THEY have their own twisted agenda based on teachings that couldn’t even have considered the existance of physical or medical contraception and choose wilfully to ignore the reality of the god damned situation.
I mean it’s not like the RCC has been against all forms of birth control, they stood behind natural ‘family planning’ from the 1800’s on forward to some extent, despite that stance then, they’ve continued to go backward in thought and teaching. It’s a bad idea for a silly reason and they should be ashamed for failing to stand up and acknolwedge the truth instead, choosing to push this misguided utopian ideal.
While that is true and I’ve never argued it is not, HIV/AIDS can be acquired in ways OTHER than sex and the use of condoms prevent the SPREAD of the deadly disease.
Of course, and if all the world were priests and nuns until marriage and had sex only for procreation once or twice in life, STD’s would likely not exist, that idea being no more outlandish than the RCC’s or, it seems, that of the good Dr.
Of course it’s silly to assume all people will be monogamous all their life (although I do practice “serial monogamy”), but it’s also silly to assume that foolish people who have casual sex will be wise enough to use condoms.
Now, I think that the Pope is wrong here in not accepting condoms for those that aren’t being faithful. But faithfulness is a better preventor than condoms, and so he’s got a point.
You shoudl not sleep around- but if you do, use condoms.
And the Easter Bunny really exists, there are pink unicorns, and
etc etc etc.
I just read an article (an editorial really) that says this pope has spent almost his entire career in “the magical kingdom” (the Vatican), and therefore has no idea whatsoever how things actually work in the real world. That could explain a few things.
However, when someone (his popeness) says condoms do not protect against diease, supports an official policy to keep people from getting or using them, and chooses to ignore any evidence to the contrary, I am far less inclined to be as “forgiving” as that editorial was. If people follow what you told them, and they die, YOU become responsible. Does this guy even realize that? I doubt it.
People who reinterpret their sacred texts or receive new revelations to match modern socials mores when politically expedient are more commonly referred to as “Mormons”.
All snark aside, the Church is not in the business of saving lives. They’re in the business of saving souls, and they believe that the use of contraception is a grave threat to salvation. They’ve held this position for a very long time- why would we expect them to change now?