*sits down with popcorn*

*awaits entrance of Larky and Trade-off*

Not much else would make you proud to be a Catholic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEhtOhwL8xk&feature=related

*wonders if he cut the fuse too short*

"Any evidence for that, or is it based on what you believe to be true?"


Are you really using that as a challenge to a statement about what is true?

Or are you going to use it as a springboard to tede on about faith and how his statemetn means he must support your views?

Hang on.

Israel and the Vatican are made up countries. Are the only real countries mozzy ones?

Benedict is just as much a Head of State as those of several other diminuitively sized "nations" such as Lichtenstein (exists to provide neat source of money laundering), Monaco (money laundering plus gambling and the voyeuristic pleasure of watching the antics of the House of Monaco) and similar nations.

I feel much more maligned by honouring visits of "Heads of State" such as Gadaffi, frankly.

Yes, yes, and yes again.

You seriously think a lack of religion was the cause of Hitler and WW2?

P&P - societies (and humans in general) need something to look up to and give them focus, whether it's God, Richard Dawkins, Adolf Hitler or the Communist Party.

Even as an atheist, I'd rather be in a relatively stable society with its values based on the 10 Commandments rather than one based on socio-economic greed and jealousy.

Cerr: what makes you think one excludes the other? Look at America - their neocons are only too proud to proclaim their allegiance to the 'moral teachings' of the 10 commandments and 'judeo-christian philosophy', yet America symbolises greed. There Will Be Blood. Sums it up. Off for lunch now back later m8s.

What catholic position exactly? the one were cardinal de Trujillo was warning his audience that condoms are secretly made with microscopic holes to allow the AIDS virus to pass through? that's supported by science?

Well yes that's always the final irony of it all, apparently the wizard derives his morality from GOD, who's FCUKING SO AWESOME he basically created everything and listens to your prayers, and not even Chuck Norris could kick his ass- but no, his magic powers stop when the church needs MONEY. Funny, that.

The efficacy of condoms in real life situation was not the object of Trujillo's warning though. He specifically cherry-picked the bits of scientific study he wanted and used them out of context. I don't know about you Pain, but once someone stoops to that low a level of intellectual dishonesty, I'm not really inclined to believe any subsequent thing they say about condoms.

As for homosexuality, you're right, the church won't change because it's founded on dogma. I prefer reason to dogma.

No, his stats were correct in that he didn't make them up and relied on scientific findings instead. The dishonesty was in using them in isolation to suggest you shouldn't use condoms because they let the AIDS virus through - that was an untruth. Had he correctly considered the entire results and not cherry-picked those that happened to fit his thesis, he would have come to a different conclusion. That, is intellectual dishonesty. It discredits someone. You want to listen to discretited people - go ahead. Your problem.

Trujillo's views are not isolated. His arguments were the basis for telling hiv-stricken countries not to use condoms. You still think the catholic view on condoms is defendable? I find it incredible that you would trust someone like the pope to say what's best to prevent HIV over the medical and professional opinion of the WHO, who warned against the holes-in-condoms claims. You trust the pope, rather than thousands of qualified health professionals, on matters of sexual health? That's mental. They're all wrong, then? countless doctors, nurses, voluntary workers.... all wrong on sexual health, only the pope is correct? really?

The porous condom fallacy WAS used as the basis for warning people off condoms:

"The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.

The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

So while in theory, the church thinks interrupting the natural consequences of sex is wrong, in practice they peddle pure lies about condoms to people who don't know any better.

So you adhere to that - you're telling me you never use condoms? IF you get/are already married, are you telling me you'll only have sex to have kids? Personal question, so I won't hold it against you if you prefer not to answer. Curiosity, mainly.

"I'd get offended if you inflated a load of them with helium and let them loose in a Catholic Church, but that sort of stunt is generally the preserve of the most hideous individuals."

I thought the most hideous individuals were rapist pedophile priests and representatives of the church who spread lies about porous condoms to gullible populations.... but no, you're right, a floating condom prank is far worse. I like how your priorities are set.

It's a pity Cleric doesn't post any more. A debate between Pain and Cleric would be worth investing in lots of popcorn.

Pain dEpice

"You'll also welcome the news that the Church has spent the last decade or two addressing the issue of abuse, to the extent that the occurance of child abuse is now substantially lower than a great majority of other institutions."

Even if it has spent the last two decades addressing the issue, it had a long way to come:

"This court, although it regards the arguments presented in favour of removal in this case to be of grave significance, nevertheless deems it necessary to consider the good of the Universal Church together with that of the petitioner, and it is also unable to make light of the detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke with the community of Christ's faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner. " (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8612596.stm)

- said then Cardinal Ratzinger to Oakland Bishop John S Cummins regarding the Bishop's request that a paedophile priest be de-frocked. Just to be clear, he is putting the good of his church and the "young ... petitioner" (i.e.: a priest in his mid-30s, above the interests of the boy he was fcuking (14). Now Pope Benedict. Morally upstanding individual. Just the kind of person we should be inviting to this country.

Uh, yeah, I spent some time with Ray before he went and I just wanted to say that I think we should all remember that Ray, by the end, he loved Jesus. Now, I know, Liz, there's no proof for Jesus, but then there's no proof for lots of things, like science or the stock market and we believe in them. Look, what I'm trying to say is that if I was dying and I decided that even though I'd never particularly been into, say, Enya before but that now I really, really was into Enya and that in fact, I thought Enya was great and that Enya died for our sins and I wanted an Enya themed funeral with pictures of Enya and lots and lots of mentions of Enya, then I think it would be a bit bloody rich for my sister to ban all mention of Enya from my funeral. Yeah?

Pain - have you ever considered that it's religion that takes morality from humans, and not the other way round?

After all, since religion and gods are a man-made invention that's the logical conclusion of the origin of morality.

(unless you care to provide evidence that there IS a god of course... a cross-dressing, ex-nazi Jugend virgin will not convince me, personally.. something more evidential? proof of some sort?)

"It sounds like an excuse, I admit, but you need to understand what he was doing and in what environment. To be fair, the press has got there now and the attempts to implicate the Pope have fallen away, because it's a nonsense."

What I undrstand he was doing: putting the interests of the Universal Church before those of a 14 year old who had been (and continued to be) anally raped. He says as much in the letter.

My reaction: Whether it is illegal or not, I find it morally reprehensible.

Please tell me where I have mis-understood, or why my reaction is wrong.

Pain, Lord Halifax is absolutely slaying you on the debating front here. There is a saying about when one is in a very deep hole one might stop digging, or something yet you carry on. You clearly try way too hard for this to be a wind up or tun hunt, although you do wind people up and have an impressive tun record.

I have posted in the past that I was brought up C of E but I have come to the conclusion that there is a God or some other sort(s) of Higher Power but He/She/It is a seriously cruel and vindictive deity and I certainly have no faith in Him/Her/It. I may be in a minority of one on this board in that with various other faiths including the belief that no God exists all represented.

Sadly, the more you prattle on about how great and wonderful you faith and your Church is in spite of the evidence, yes, Lawyers, EVIDENCE, that other posters, most of whom are lawyers, keep bringing up, the more I think how seriously

D
E
K
C
U
F

you really are. I realise this is harsh, but as Lord H says, you should step back a bit and look at how you appear to other educated people.

Heh @ tractor driver

*yawn*

Catholic who's less informed and less open-minded than he'd like to think accuses anti-catholics of clubbing together to attack Catholic NON-SHOCKA.

You start these arguments, Pain. Primarily because you get attention - albeit mostly negative - and it feeds your ego.

So stop whining when you get "attacked".

Perhaps if you were more secure in your faith, you'd get on with practising your beliefs and wouldn't find it so necessary to bang on about it all the time on a messageboard.