Should the pope be on trial?

Hot topics in delusion and rationalization.
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 11:59 am
Location: Portugal/Germany

Should the pope be on trial?

Post by Megalodon »

Well, this is a bit biased, since I find the pope one of the most despicable persons on Earth, but I have to ask:

Do you think that the pope should be tried for crimes against humanity?

I suppose a case could be done for many other things, but my pet peeve is the way the bastard condemns the use of condoms.
It is estimated that 5 million new HIV infections occurred worldwide during 2003. Of those, 95% were in developing countries.

If we consider that only 10% of these people would have had safe sex if the "representative of god on earth" didn't forbid it, then 500 000 peoples would not have been infected with a mortal disease in 2003 alone.

I realize that people have brains, and should be able to think by themselves. However, when you're dirt poor and completely ignorant, if an "Holy man" threatens you with eternal damnation, you might be coerced into many things, including killing yourself in a slow, terrible way.

That for me is so criminal as giving the order to shoot them down. And to add insult to injury, you're almost a saint and doing it for their own good...

So that's what I'm asking Santa this Xmas: the pope in an International Court (that's how much I think it will happen :( )

Thoughts, opinions, hate mail?
Come on in! The water is just fine...
User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 86044
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Not quite Chicago

Re: Should the pope be on trial?

Post by Abdul Alhazred »

Crimes against humanity? Absolutely absurd.

The Pope does not prevent me or anyone from having safe sex. And having promiscuous unprotected sex is not obeying the Pope.

He's not real big on the "eternal damnation" line these days either.

So he doesn't hand out condoms in churches? They are easy enough to obtain, anyway.

If the Pope actually ruled the world, you might have a point.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
The arc of the moral universe bends towards chaos.
People who believe God or History are on their side provide the chaos.
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 11:59 am
Location: Portugal/Germany

Re: Should the pope be on trial?

Post by Megalodon »

Abdul Alhazred wrote:The Pope does not prevent me or anyone from having safe sex.
Curious, I thought I had replied to that argument in the OP... oh, wait, I did.
And having promiscuous unprotected sex is not obeying the Pope.
You don't have to be promiscuous to be infected. Numerous new cases are of wives infected by their husbands, inside marriage (and vice-versa). Using condoms is a measure that could save their lifes, but is put aside.
He's not real big on the "eternal damnation" line these days either.
Maybe you should rephrase that...

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM

"Hell is a state of eternal damnation"
So he doesn't hand out condoms in churches? They are easy enough to obtain, anyway.
Not if you believe it's a sin, in addition to the sin you're going to commit in the first place.
If the Pope actually ruled the world, you might have a point.
If you think that the Catholic church doesn't have power to stop many of such infections, maybe you should get informed. The vatican not only condemns the use of condoms, as it also spreads propaganda about their utility as prevention.
Crimes against humanity? Absolutely absurd.
Maybe, but you're going to have to argue your case better than that before you convince me.
Come on in! The water is just fine...
User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 86044
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Not quite Chicago

Re: Should the pope be on trial?

Post by Abdul Alhazred »

I guess my agument boils down to that I don't believe in mind control.

The Catholic Church is very strong politically where I live. Too strong.

Yet private organizations and government schools alike get the safe sex message out, anyway.

How strong it the Church where you live? Are condoms illegal?

Is anyone preventing gay rights groups from getting the message out? And I don't just mean talking against them.

I'm in favor of promoting safe sex. And encouraging people to ignore the Pope. I actually do both of these things.

That's really all that's needed, not what amounts to a holy war against the Pope.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
The arc of the moral universe bends towards chaos.
People who believe God or History are on their side provide the chaos.
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 11:59 am
Location: Portugal/Germany

Re: Should the pope be on trial?

Post by Megalodon »

Abdul Alhazred wrote:I guess my agument boils down to that I don't believe in mind control.

The Catholic Church is very strong politically where I live. Too strong

Yet private organizations and government schools alike get the safe sex message out, anyway.

How strong it the Church where you live? Are condoms illegal?
Well, if you read my OP, you can see that I stress that most of the infections occur in developing countries. Although I might believe that the church has a great deal of power in the US or some european countries, that pales in contrast with their power in Africa or Latin America.
Is anyone preventing gay rights groups from getting the message out? And I don't just mean talking against them.
Not in my country, maybe not in yours, but I'm talking about a different hemisphere.
I'm in favor of promoting safe sex. And encouraging people to ignore the Pope. I actually do both of these things.
Good for you... I wonder if you would do the same in a small town in Colombia, for instance? Please don't take this as an attack... it's just a question I pose to myself, and I haven't answered...

I'm talking of places were there is no widespread access to information. In such places, people rely much more on the church for guidance.

An organization like the church depends on misery and ignorance to thrive. I have no evidence, but I wouldn't be suprised if there was a real policy of the church to keep people in both states. Yes, I'm cynical...
That's really all that's needed, not what amounts to a holy war against the Pope.
I agree with you, and I know that there are leaders too powerful to ever be subjected to such trials, but one can always wish :)

Who knows, maybe Santa will read my letter :D
Come on in! The water is just fine...
User avatar
Azraphael
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Slightly west of the Centre of the Universe

Post by Azraphael »

Developing nation or not, why should the blame for an individual's actions be shifted onto the Pope? At the end of the day, it is the (albeit in many cases uninformed) decision of the people themselves that brings about the trasmission of STDs.

The Pope doesn't make laws... he expresses the opinions of the Catholic church. The fact that so many people in the world accept those opinions as a complete and coherent set of 'correct' behaviour that is not to be questioned isn't the Pope's fault, it's their own.

Asking that the Pope be brought up on charges of crimes against humanity is ridiculous. You might as well bring up General Motors for the same thing, since they make the cars that people get killed in every day. Or Bill gates up on hacking charges, because some hackers might actually use Windows operating systems to hack into systems (ok, so most probably use Linux, but I'm just making a point here).

I think this idea is indicative of a major problem in society in general... no one wants to take responsibility for his/her own actions or decisions. Everyone is looking for someone else to take the fall. There seems to be precious little accountability these days.

While I might not agree with everything the Pope has to say, I certainly agree with his right to express those opinions. Whether you, as an individual, choose to follow those opinions is entirely your decision.

~Azraphael
[i]Knowledge is just opinion you trust enough to act upon.[/i]
User avatar
Azraphael
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Slightly west of the Centre of the Universe

Post by Azraphael »

Another thought:

The Pope is not telling people to have unprotected sex. He is simply telling them that, according to the Catholic church, condoms are wrong. Abstinence is always an option, one that is often recommended by the church. Therefore, it is not the Pope's recommendation that people go have unprotected sex, only that they shouldn't have protected sex. It's a subtle difference, but one that is important in my opinion.

Basically what I am getting at is that the opinion that people should not do something does not equate to the idea that they should do something else. Since the Pope is promoting a negative (don't use condoms), I don't think he is responsible for the decision people make as to the alternatives (ie abstinence or unprotected sex).

~Azraphael
[i]Knowledge is just opinion you trust enough to act upon.[/i]
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 11:59 am
Location: Portugal/Germany

Post by Megalodon »

Azraphael wrote:Developing nation or not, why should the blame for an individual's actions be shifted onto the Pope? At the end of the day, it is the (albeit in many cases uninformed) decision of the people themselves that brings about the trasmission of STDs.


If the matter was so simple, then there wouldn't be legal protections against coercion and fraud. Sometimes the decision of a person is the responsability of a third party
The Pope doesn't make laws... he expresses the opinions of the Catholic church. The fact that so many people in the world accept those opinions as a complete and coherent set of 'correct' behaviour that is not to be questioned isn't the Pope's fault, it's their own.
Again, from the OP "I realize that people have brains, and should be able to think by themselves. However, when you're dirt poor and completely ignorant, if an "Holy man" threatens you with eternal damnation, you might be coerced into many things, including killing yourself in a slow, terrible way"

Now the point is, if someone gains influence over you, and uses that influence in a way that harms you, is it moral or not?
Asking that the Pope be brought up on charges of crimes against humanity is ridiculous. You might as well bring up General Motors for the same thing, since they make the cars that people get killed in every day. Or Bill gates up on hacking charges, because some hackers might actually use Windows operating systems to hack into systems (ok, so most probably use Linux, but I'm just making a point here).


Yes, you might say that, but it would be a silly argument.Apples and oranges come to mind...
The pope condemns the use of condoms inside a marriage, if one of the spouses is infected. We are not even talking about promiscuity or sex outside of marriage here.
I think this idea is indicative of a major problem in society in general... no one wants to take responsibility for his/her own actions or decisions. Everyone is looking for someone else to take the fall. There seems to be precious little accountability these days.
I'm glad you were able to get that idea, although I have no idea were you took it from. I'm pretty much accountable for what I do, thank you very much, and the persons that are getting hurted by this medieval frame of mind would never think in blaming the pope for their fate.
What I'm trying to discuss here is the morality of letting all these infections occur in the first place, when there was a real possibility of avoiding them.
While I might not agree with everything the Pope has to say, I certainly agree with his right to express those opinions. Whether you, as an individual, choose to follow those opinions is entirely your decision.
There are legal limits to free speach, you know?
Come on in! The water is just fine...
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 11:59 am
Location: Portugal/Germany

Post by Megalodon »

Azraphael wrote:Another thought:

The Pope is not telling people to have unprotected sex. He is simply telling them that, according to the Catholic church, condoms are wrong. Abstinence is always an option, one that is often recommended by the church. Therefore, it is not the Pope's recommendation that people go have unprotected sex, only that they shouldn't have protected sex. It's a subtle difference, but one that is important in my opinion.
I agree that it is important, and it could be a way out, if the pope didn't condemn the use of condoms as protection inside a marriage. That way, what he is saying is that if your spouse gets infected, you should either die with him/her or not have sex, wich by the way is one of the reasons for having a catholic marriage anuled (IIRC)
Basically what I am getting at is that the opinion that people should not do something does not equate to the idea that they should do something else. Since the Pope is promoting a negative (don't use condoms), I don't think he is responsible for the decision people make as to the alternatives (ie abstinence or unprotected sex).
My point is that he is. If you know that the alternative will, in general, not be followed, removing the only protection available will cause deaths. If you know this and do it anywy, than your a criminal.

It would be like removing a fence encirculing a dangerous but inviting lake and putting up "no swimming" signs. Of course the final decision is always of the swimmer, but I can see a case for dangerous negligence.
Come on in! The water is just fine...
User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 86044
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Not quite Chicago

Post by Abdul Alhazred »

Megalodon wrote: There are legal limits to free speach, you know?
In the USA, the limits are libel, slander, direct personal threats of violence, inciting riots, creating stampedes, child pornography, and that's about it.

Libel and slander are torts, the others are crimes.

Even Nazi propaganda is allowed (though not important).

And I also think the USA way is right, in this respect. Many disagree both right and left.

Furthermore I think you vastly overestimate the actual power of the Pope. This isn't the 1500s.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
The arc of the moral universe bends towards chaos.
People who believe God or History are on their side provide the chaos.
User avatar
Azraphael
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Slightly west of the Centre of the Universe

Post by Azraphael »

I'll respond to both related posts in one here...
Megalodon wrote:If the matter was so simple, then there wouldn't be legal protections against coercion and fraud. Sometimes the decision of a person is the responsability of a third party
True, but those laws are based on the ability to quantifiably prove that the person doing the persuading was deliberately misleading the victim for his/her own personal gain. In matters of faith, that misleading cannot be proven, and the Pope isn't telling people to do these things for his own good. The Pope genuinely believes what he preaches, and unfortunately there is no way to quantifiably prove the existence, or non-existence of the Catholic version of Hell. Nor is there any way to quantifiably prove that not following Catholic doctrine will put your soul there for all eternity. So, I don't see how those laws would hold up in what is, essentially, a matter of faith.
Again, from the OP "I realize that people have brains, and should be able to think by themselves. However, when you're dirt poor and completely ignorant, if an "Holy man" threatens you with eternal damnation, you might be coerced into many things, including killing yourself in a slow, terrible way"
I agree that this could happen. All I'm getting at is the question of responsibility, and I don't think it falls on the Pope. Again, I think there is a difference between the Pope forbidding something, and the Pope actively encouraging something. If the Pope was telling people that it is God's wish that all people that are HIV positive have unprotected sex with uninfected people so that the disease can spread, that would be a different matter. All he is telling them is not to use condoms. Abstinence is still an option.
Now the point is, if someone gains influence over you, and uses that influence in a way that harms you, is it moral or not?
I think the difference is whether a) there is an active intent to harm, and b) whether the harm comes directly or indirectly. I do not believe the intent is there in this case, and the harm that comes about is indirect. The people in question do not contract HIV because the Pope won't let them use condoms... they contract HIV by having unprotected sex. If you can't have protected sex, there are 2 other options: unprotected sex or no sex at all. That choice is still up to the individual.
Yes, you might say that, but it would be a silly argument.Apples and oranges come to mind...
Granted... I was using extreme examples to show a viewpoint, something I have been guilty of before. It was meant to illustrate the point above re: indirect harm.
The pope condemns the use of condoms inside a marriage, if one of the spouses is infected. We are not even talking about promiscuity or sex outside of marriage here.
I don't think it's relevant what kind of sex we're talking about, only that it is unprotected. The Catholic stance against contraceptives has nothing to do with being married or not, as I will address later in this post.
I'm glad you were able to get that idea, although I have no idea were you took it from. I'm pretty much accountable for what I do, thank you very much, and the persons that are getting hurted by this medieval frame of mind would never think in blaming the pope for their fate.
No, but you did think of blaming the Pope, hence this thread. I don't think laying the blame on the Pope or Catholic church is the answer. Rather than blame them, wouldn't it make more sense to educate and the people affected? The only reason that the Catholic church has as much influence in developing nations as it does is because no one else is trying... at least not to the same degree.
What I'm trying to discuss here is the morality of letting all these infections occur in the first place, when there was a real possibility of avoiding them.
As above, educate and help the people rather than pin the blame somewhere that (IMO) it doesn't belong. Of course it's a tragedy that these infections take place, but I think the relative inaction of the First World is just as much a factor, if not moreso, than the teachings of the Catholic church.
I agree that it is important, and it could be a way out, if the pope didn't condemn the use of condoms as protection inside a marriage.
I think the difficulty here is that you aren't taking into consideration the reasoning behind the Catholic church's stance on birth control. They are against condoms, the pill, spermicide, etc. because they destroy the potential for life. The fact that condoms help mitigate the risk of transmitting disease isn't a factor in their decision one way or the other.

From a Catholic standpoint, sex is for procreation, not recreation. Anything that destroys the potential for a new life to come of sexual intercourse is against the rules. Therefore, condoms are against the rules. If there was some product that magically prevented the transmission of STDs without affecting the chances of pregnancy, the Catholic church would likely encourage its use. But, of course, such a thing does not exist and the Catholic church believes that the potential for a new life is more important than the prevention of disease.
That way, what he is saying is that if your spouse gets infected, you should either die with him/her or not have sex, wich by the way is one of the reasons for having a catholic marriage anuled (IIRC)
Close, but not quite right. Never consummating the marriage can be grounds for annullment, if the people choose to pursue it. It's a subtle difference, but essentially it means that the partners have never had sex at all, at any time since being married. If one partner contracts HIV (through a needle, say) after the couple was married and they consummated, then there is no grounds for annullment, even if they never have sex again.

Also, since the chances of an HIV positive couple having a child that is born healthy (if born at all) are small, the Catholic church would likely council abstinence even within the marriage. Concieving a child with HIV would constitute a significant reduction in the potential for new life, which is the core of what the Catholics are against. Once again, sex is for procreation, not recreation. If there is no reasonable chance of new life, then there is no reason to have sex.
My point is that he is. If you know that the alternative will, in general, not be followed, removing the only protection available will cause deaths. If you know this and do it anywy, than your a criminal.
I disagree. If more than one alternative to the forbidden item is available, then it is not up to those doing the forbidding to take responsibility for which of the other options people choose. Especially in this case, where one option would both prevent the destruction of potential for new life as well as prevent the transmission of STDs: abstinence.
It would be like removing a fence encirculing a dangerous but inviting lake and putting up "no swimming" signs. Of course the final decision is always of the swimmer, but I can see a case for dangerous negligence.
I think this analogy is invalid. The idea of taking down a fence implies a change in practice. The Catholic church can be accused of a lot of things, but changing their practices isn't one of them. If the Catholic church originally was for the use of condoms then changed their mind, then your analogy would fit. Since they have always been against them, they aren't taking down any fences. They put up the signs right from the start, notified people of the consequences (as they see them) and left people to their own free will.

~Azraphael

(edited to add clarifications and fix typos)
[i]Knowledge is just opinion you trust enough to act upon.[/i]
ceo_esq
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 3:11 am

Post by ceo_esq »

Megalodon wrote:Well, this is a bit biased, since I find the pope one of the most despicable persons on Earth, but I have to ask:

Do you think that the pope should be tried for crimes against humanity?
Is the pope's stance on artificial contraception the principal reason you find him so despicable? If so, is your overall assessment of the pope tempered at all by his widely recognized achievements in the fields of social justice and humanitarianism? He's won dozens of major human rights awards; he's generally conceded to have played an important and positive role in the downfall of Communism. Usually even the pope's worst detractors express frank admiration for some of his accomplishments. I'm not saying the fact that the pope is one of the most admired people in the world conclusively establishes that he's not a despicable person, but the fact that your overall opinion is noticeably at odds with the prevailing view ought to indicate that the cause of the discrepancy merits some further examination.

Do you think it is impossible for reasonable people to share the pope's views on artificial conception? You seem to be condemning him essentially for espousing a long-held religious and philosophical teaching of the Catholic Church, and apparently the only thing saving hundreds of millions of orthodox Catholics from a similar accusation of "crimes against humanity" is the accident of his office, which gives the pope's beliefs a special influence (although, of course, the pope's view on artificial contraception is not original to him but is based in Catholic orthodoxy).
Megalodon wrote:I realize that people have brains, and should be able to think by themselves. However, when you're dirt poor and completely ignorant, if an "Holy man" threatens you with eternal damnation, you might be coerced into many things, including killing yourself in a slow, terrible way.
Even if that were what has happened here (which is a very tenuous proposition), it would not by itself, in any sense of criminal law, relieve you of responsibility for your own actions. And of course there are countless people who are neither poor nor ignorant who adhere to the same position as the pope.

At any rate, to see how far removed your argument is from the ordinary understanding of "crimes against humanity", I suggest that you consult the relevant portions of the Rome Statute. And before you waste any time on speculation that this situation could be shoehorned into, say, article 7.1(k), be advised that no serious person familiar with international penal jurisprudence is going to agree with you. The notion of prosecuting this pope for "crimes against humanity" is ludicrous. I interpret your suggestion as merely a hyperbolic expression of your distaste for and frustration with Catholicism, which may or may not be gravely misplaced.
Megalodon wrote:An organization like the church depends on misery and ignorance to thrive. I have no evidence, but I wouldn't be suprised if there was a real policy of the church to keep people in both states. Yes, I'm cynical...
You're not only cynical, you're entirely misled about the nature and motives of the Catholic Church. I share plenty of criticisms of that particular institution, but alleging that an organization (and in particular, its current leader) that has labored so mightily to reduce the ills of poverty and to increase access to education is actually executing a policy to keep people poor and ignorant - well, it's going to meet with derision in all but the most uninformed or malicious circles.
Megalodon wrote:If the matter was so simple, then there wouldn't be legal protections against coercion and fraud. Sometimes the decision of a person is the responsability of a third party.
Sure, but are you suggesting that the pope has violated legal protections against coercion and fraud? And would they rise to the level of a crime against humanity? If so, how? If not, what's the relevance?
Megalodon wrote:Now the point is, if someone gains influence over you, and uses that influence in a way that harms you, is it moral or not?
Out of curiosity, what do you think is required in order for a person's act to be considered "immoral"?
Megalodon wrote:There are legal limits to free speach, you know?
Once again, please demonstrate how any relevant legal limits on free speech have been violated, and how the same could be brought within the scope of the definition of crimes against humanity.
Megalodon wrote:It would be like removing a fence encirculing a dangerous but inviting lake and putting up "no swimming" signs. Of course the final decision is always of the swimmer, but I can see a case for dangerous negligence.
Really? This sounds to me like an analogy (with several major flaws) to so-called "attractive nuisance" law. If the parties are adults, I can't see a case. And I've never seen an attractive nuisance case brought before an international criminal tribunal under the rubric of "crimes against humanity".
Azraphael wrote:From a Catholic standpoint, sex is for procreation, not recreation.
Strictly for the sake of accuracy, I'd point out that the Catholic Church appears to teach that procreation is the primary purpose of sex, but definitely not the only purpose.
User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 12735
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

Post by Skeeve »

ceo_esq wrote:Strictly for the sake of accuracy, I'd point out that the Catholic Church appears to teach that procreation is the primary purpose of sex, but definitely not the only purpose.
Well, yes, at least that's not the only purpose according to the Father at M. Carmel, or maybe St. Stevens, in Niles, he said, if I heard correctly, that another purpose is to make sure that all gays die of AIDS, or something like that.

Needless to say, the report is second-hand, I am quite confident that if they recognized me at all which they have no reason to be able to do they'd not let me into their attempts to cast magic spells at all.

And adding, well, as I said secondhand. I do not visit houses of the IPU except sometimes for old-fashioned breakfasts or turkey dinners.
Then Skank Of America could start in...
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 11:59 am
Location: Portugal/Germany

Post by Megalodon »

You've been busy :shock: :)

First of all let me start by saying that my OP was overdone, because I was trying to bait someone. Instead I've received polite and well thought answers, and I thank you.
Azraphael wrote: True, but those laws are based on the ability to quantifiably prove that the person doing the persuading was deliberately misleading the victim for his/her own personal gain.


And I defend that they are doing it to further the control they have over people. Power is the ultimate personal gain.
In matters of faith, that misleading cannot be proven, and the Pope isn't telling people to do these things for his own good. The Pope genuinely believes what he preaches, and unfortunately there is no way to quantifiably prove the existence, or non-existence of the Catholic version of Hell.
Yes, but on the other hand, they allow the "natural" ways of birth control, and even the pill in some exceptions, to protect a womans health... So there is no reason for the condemnation of condoms, and for recomending abstinence in case of one of the spouses getting infected.

You could easily only allow the use of condoms during the infertile period of the woman... It makes no sense, and it's claiming lives.

Or is there a passage in the Bible speaking against it?
"Thou shall not bag thy weiner..." :)
So, I don't see how those laws would hold up in what is, essentially, a matter of faith.
I understand your point, and I know it's easy to argue against mine (I did it myself in the OP). Legally it's opening a can of worms, and politically is a suicide.
But I'm sure you can see the validity of my peeve, even if you don't agree with the trial thinghy.
I agree that this could happen. All I'm getting at is the question of responsibility, and I don't think it falls on the Pope. Again, I think there is a difference between the Pope forbidding something, and the Pope actively encouraging something.
I think will not agree on this point... From my point of view, power brings with it responsability. Once you get the amount of power over people that the pope has, you are responsible for the result of your words.
If the Pope was telling people that it is God's wish that all people that are HIV positive have unprotected sex with uninfected people so that the disease can spread, that would be a different matter. All he is telling them is not to use condoms. Abstinence is still an option.
In 1988, while addressing the International Congress of Moral Theologians in Rome, the pope said that a hemophiliac with AIDS cannot use condoms so as not to infect his wife during sex.

As the church doesn't condemn sex (even for recreational purposes) inside the marriage, this seems very much like incitement to spread a lethal disease...
I think the difference is whether a) there is an active intent to harm, and b) whether the harm comes directly or indirectly. I do not believe the intent is there in this case, and the harm that comes about is indirect.
See above.
The people in question do not contract HIV because the Pope won't let them use condoms... they contract HIV by having unprotected sex. If you can't have protected sex, there are 2 other options: unprotected sex or no sex at all. That choice is still up to the individual.
But the church doesn't preach abstinence either... And then there are the cases when someone suspects the spouse might be having a risky behaviour, but is not sure if there is an infection. Abstention would go against the teachings of the church, as well as the use of protection.
I don't think it's relevant what kind of sex we're talking about, only that it is unprotected. The Catholic stance against contraceptives has nothing to do with being married or not, as I will address later in this post.
I'm trying to mantain the case within the marriage, so that I don't have to fend arguments about the church proibition of sex outside it.
No, but you did think of blaming the Pope, hence this thread.
I would prefer to call it a call for discussion over responsibility... It was a bit of a troll, but it got the attention. I hold the pope responsible, true. But I think I'm arguing my point, instead of just pointing a finger and saying "there...there he is, he's to blame"
I don't think laying the blame on the Pope or Catholic church is the answer. Rather than blame them, wouldn't it make more sense to educate and the people affected?
Unfortunately, I cannot do that in large scale. However maybe posting in an internet forum helps a bit. And yes, I think that a discussion over the responsibility of church in these deaths might educate someone who sees it.

On the other hand, one can educate people against charlatains, but does that mean that you shouldn't actively try to cease their activities?
The only reason that the Catholic church has as much influence in developing nations as it does is because no one else is trying... at least not to the same degree.
I have to agree with you. :(
but I think the relative inaction of the First World is just as much a factor, if not moreso, than the teachings of the Catholic church.
I agree with you, but let's skin a cat at a time, ok?
I think the difficulty here is that you aren't taking into consideration the reasoning behind the Catholic church's stance on birth control. They are against condoms, the pill, spermicide, etc. because they destroy the potential for life. The fact that condoms help mitigate the risk of transmitting disease isn't a factor in their decision one way or the other.
Actually I don't know why they are against such things, since they accept both natural methods and the pill... but on the other hand, they don't have to be internally consistent, do they?
From a Catholic standpoint, sex is for procreation, not recreation. Anything that destroys the potential for a new life to come of sexual intercourse is against the rules.
Sorry, but you are wrong there. The church doesn't advocate abstinence in the case of sterility or after the menopause. It doesn't have to do with life. I guess it has to do with control over peoples lives.
Close, but not quite right. Never consummating the marriage can be grounds for annullment, if the people choose to pursue it. It's a subtle difference, but essentially it means that the partners have never had sex at all, at any time since being married. If one partner contracts HIV (through a needle, say) after the couple was married and they consummated, then there is no grounds for annullment, even if they never have sex again.
You are right, I believe.
Also, since the chances of an HIV positive couple having a child that is born healthy (if born at all) are small, the Catholic church would likely council abstinence even within the marriage. Concieving a child with HIV would constitute a significant reduction in the potential for new life, which is the core of what the Catholics are against. Once again, sex is for procreation, not recreation. If there is no reasonable chance of new life, then there is no reason to have sex.
Your thought is logical, but it's not the position of the church... please see above.
I disagree. If more than one alternative to the forbidden item is available, then it is not up to those doing the forbidding to take responsibility for which of the other options people choose. Especially in this case, where one option would both prevent the destruction of potential for new life as well as prevent the transmission of STDs: abstinence.
We'll have to agree in disagree, if my arguments above don't persuade you :)
I think this analogy is invalid. The idea of taking down a fence implies a change in practice. The Catholic church can be accused of a lot of things, but changing their practices isn't one of them. If the Catholic church originally was for the use of condoms then changed their mind, then your analogy would fit. Since they have always been against them, they aren't taking down any fences. They put up the signs right from the start, notified people of the consequences (as they see them) and left people to their own free will.
I also didn't like it so much... but it was what I came up with in short notice :wink:

Cheers
Come on in! The water is just fine...
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 11:59 am
Location: Portugal/Germany

Post by Megalodon »

ceo_esq wrote: Is the pope's stance on artificial contraception the principal reason you find him so despicable? If so, is your overall assessment of the pope tempered at all by his widely recognized achievements in the fields of social justice and humanitarianism? He's won dozens of major human rights awards; he's generally conceded to have played an important and positive role in the downfall of Communism. Usually even the pope's worst detractors express frank admiration for some of his accomplishments. I'm not saying the fact that the pope is one of the most admired people in the world conclusively establishes that he's not a despicable person, but the fact that your overall opinion is noticeably at odds with the prevailing view ought to indicate that the cause of the discrepancy merits some further examination.

Do you think it is impossible for reasonable people to share the pope's views on artificial conception? You seem to be condemning him essentially for espousing a long-held religious and philosophical teaching of the Catholic Church, and apparently the only thing saving hundreds of millions of orthodox Catholics from a similar accusation of "crimes against humanity" is the accident of his office, which gives the pope's beliefs a special influence (although, of course, the pope's view on artificial contraception is not original to him but is based in Catholic orthodoxy).
Sorry, but I'll have to leave the reply to this for another post, or maybe not reply it at all. I'm sorry if you took offense at my distaste for the pope, but as long as it doesn't render my arguments irrational, just forget about it...

Even if that were what has happened here (which is a very tenuous proposition), it would not by itself, in any sense of criminal law, relieve you of responsibility for your own actions. And of course there are countless people who are neither poor nor ignorant who adhere to the same position as the pope.

At any rate, to see how far removed your argument is from the ordinary understanding of "crimes against humanity", I suggest that you consult the relevant portions of the Rome Statute. And before you waste any time on speculation that this situation could be shoehorned into, say, article 7.1(k), be advised that no serious person familiar with international penal jurisprudence is going to agree with you. The notion of prosecuting this pope for "crimes against humanity" is ludicrous.
I'm not so sure it's tenuous, and I don't agree that it had to be shoehorned into that article... It fits perfectly. As for being a ludicrous idea...well, you can try to convince me.
I interpret your suggestion as merely a hyperbolic expression of your distaste for and frustration with Catholicism, which may or may not be gravely misplaced.
It was, as you observed, hyperbolic, but not in the sense you're giving it. Not in the sense that there is no case, but in the sense that the case would never be made. I've
You're not only cynical, you're entirely misled about the nature and motives of the Catholic Church. I share plenty of criticisms of that particular institution, but alleging that an organization (and in particular, its current leader) that has labored so mightily to reduce the ills of poverty and to increase access to education is actually executing a policy to keep people poor and ignorant - well, it's going to meet with derision in all but the most uninformed or malicious circles.
Maybe I am malicious, but if you read Familiaris Consortio, you just happen to get the idea that the main objective is to get more followers, independently of the way they're going to spend their lives. I don't doubt that there are excellent persons in the church, as I happen to know some personally. But the institution as other things than the universal well-being in mind. Or maybe it's just me...
Sure, but are you suggesting that the pope has violated legal protections against coercion and fraud? And would they rise to the level of a crime against humanity? If so, how? If not, what's the relevance?
See my post to Azraphael above, please. As for the relevance, I would thing that questioning is always relevant, even if the wording is admitadelly inflamatory.
Out of curiosity, what do you think is required in order for a person's act to be considered "immoral"?
Sorry, but that is another thread. If you want to start it, I'll be happy to join, but it's hard to go through the volume of the argument as it is.
Once again, please demonstrate how any relevant legal limits on free speech have been violated, and how the same could be brought within the scope of the definition of crimes against humanity.
Incitement to comit a crime is in itself a crime. Spreading a lethal disease is a crime. Add to it the huge scale in which this is being committed and you'll get it.
Really? This sounds to me like an analogy (with several major flaws) to so-called "attractive nuisance" law. If the parties are adults, I can't see a case. And I've never seen an attractive nuisance case brought before an international criminal tribunal under the rubric of "crimes against humanity".
As I said in my previous post, it is not a good one. I'll try to do better in the future.

I'm sorry if it seems that I'm not taking too much time to answer your post, but if you read my replies to other posters you'll get a better idea of what my argument is...
Come on in! The water is just fine...
User avatar
Ceinwyn
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 6:30 pm
Location: Dumnonia

Post by Ceinwyn »

megalodon wrote:If the Pope actually ruled the world, you might have a point.
If there are still people on this planet who believe that a man wearing a funny pointy hat has all the answers to life, the universe and everything, then there will always be silly people willing to die for that man and that belief.
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 11:59 am
Location: Portugal/Germany

Post by Megalodon »

Ceinwyn

You might want to fix the qute... It was not me who wrote that

Cheers
Come on in! The water is just fine...