Should the Pope be tried for genocide?

[Michaelangelica]

Given the Pope's stand on Condoms and the devastating effect that this is having on poor catholic countries (Like S. Americas) Should he bought to the World Court and tried for murder?

 

Many Catholics believe (incorrectly) that all his utterances are infallible.

 

I am told that it is still Church policy that a male infected with AIDS can't use a condom when having sex with his wife. I believe there was a meeting of Bishops to discuss this issue. I still can't believe it, as to me, encouraging such behavior makes the Church officials an "accessory to murder".

California Penal Code Section 31 wrote:

31. All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, not being present, have advised and encouraged its commission, and all persons counseling, advising, or encouraging children under the age of fourteen years, or persons who are mentally incapacitated, to commit any crime, or who, by fraud, contrivance, or force, occasion the drunkenness of another for the purpose of causing him to commit any crime, or who, by threats, menaces, command, or coercion, compel another to commit any crime, are principals in any crime so committed.

 

In South Africa alone, 600-1,000 people are thought to die every day because of Aids.

 

Pope says condoms are not the solution to Aids - they make it worse

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5923927.ece

Vatican defends Pope over 'condoms increase the problem of Aids in Africa' controversy

 

By Nick Pisa

Last updated at 2:04 AM on 19th March 2009

The Vatican has defended Pope Benedict's opposition to the use of condoms to stop the spread of AIDS as activists, doctors and politicians criticised it as unrealistic, unscientific and dangerous.

Vatican defends Pope over 'condoms increase the problem of Aids in Africa' controversy | Mail Online

 

Video

Pope tells Africa 'condoms wrong'

BBC NEWS | Africa | Pope tells Africa 'condoms wrong'

 

EATG condemns statement of Pope

 

Brussels, Belgium – March 24, 2009 – The European AIDS Treatment Group (EATG) has noted with dismay and strongly condemns the statement of Pope Benedict XVI in which he, the pontiff of more than 1.1 billion Catholics in the world, tried to discourage the distribution of condoms, even to prevent HIV.

 

The EATG believes that the Pope should immediately withdraw this statement and apologise for its contents and its possible catastrophic impact on the AIDS epidemic and the quarter-century fight against it.

This fight is largely based on inventing, advocating and promoting sound prevention techniques, including a strong emphasis on the use of condoms.

 

Scientific evidence suggests that the consistent use of male and female condoms prevents the transmission of the virus in approximately 80-90% of cases.

While debates about the effectiveness of condom use in the prevention of the transmission of HIV in particular populations are ongoing, preventing nine out of ten infections means nine out of ten lives saved among people who use them.

The Pope has no right or moral authority to decide over the lives of those people.

 

We, as an organisation of people living with HIV and their advocates from across Europe, believe that the Pope's stance is not only dangerous in terms of public health, but is also dangerous because it prevents people living with HIV from protecting their partners. Christian people living with HIV are thus discouraged from using condoms to protect their partners from HIV infection.

This is turn may expose them to stigma, violence and criminal prosecution, and discourage open discussion and disclosure of HIV status.

The Pope has no right or moral authority to decide about the lives and prevention choices of people living with HIV, their partners or unborn children.

 

The EATG strongly supports condom use as a measure of HIV/AIDS prevention . More specifically, in its HIV prevention policy, EATG recommends

● „if you are going to have unprotected sex, always disclose your own status.”

● „if you are unable or unwilling to disclose, always use a condom or do not have penetrative sex.”

● „if your partner’s HIV status is different from your own or unknown to you, always use a condom or do not have penetrative sex.”

 

EATG also emphasises that it is important not to baase behaviour on mere assumptions about the HIV status of partners.

 

We urge Pope Benedict XVI and the Holy See to immediately withdraw this detrimental, inconsiderate and potentially harmful statement, to apologise for its contents, and to acknowledge the true place and benefit of the use of condoms in the prevention of the spreading of HIV around the world.

 

About the EATG:

The EATG’s mission is to achieve the fastest possible access to state of the art medical products, devices and diagnostic tests that prevent or treat HIV infection or improve the quality of life of people living with HIV, or who are at risk of HIV infection.

For more information, visit the EATG website: Eatg - Eatg

 

Contact:

Nicole Heine

Policy Adviser

European AIDS Treatment Group

Place Raymond Blyckaerts 13

1050 Brussels, Belgium

Tel: 00 32 2 626 96 43

Fax: 00 32 2 644 33 07

EATG condemns statement of Pope / Press Releases / Press & Publications / Eatg - Eatg

 

so how many commandments did the Pope just break?

Open Left:: Pope: Condoms Spread AIDS

[lawcat]

Wow. What a topic!

 

The answer is of course no. Let's examine this.

 

The Pope is charged with murder-genocide. Murder-genocide is an "actus reus" crime. In essence the Pope would have to be mentally culpable of the crime and and the one to have acted.

Genocide is any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

 

First, the Pope does not intend to kill any group--his intent is to preserve catholic virtues. Second, the Pope's message is not invidious to any national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, other than its own religious group. Nor is the Pope imposing measures to prevent birth among the group--just the opposite.

 

But here the charge would be that the Pope is (1) intentionally, (2) killing, (3) members of the catholic religious group, which fits genocide definition. Here, certainly the Pope is not intentionally doing the killing--he is not committing the act. So this fails.

 

So, as you say, he can be charged as an accessory to genocide. "An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal. Here, the crime is genocide. So there has to be someone who is committing genocide as a prinicipal actor to which the Pope is an accessory, for the Pope to be charged as an accessory. However, here, no one group or person is committing genocide. Rather, if someone knowingly infects another with AIDS, that person is committing individual crime. So accessory to genocide fails.

 

Since genocide fails, then the issue falls out of the World Court and becomes an issue of any specific State.

 

So, the last option is accessory to individual murder in a specific State. "An accessory must generally have knowledge that a crime is being, or will be committed. A person with such knowledge may become an accessory by helping or encouraging the criminal in some way, or simply by failing to report the crime to proper authority."

Here, the Pope does not directly communicate with parishoners and does not know their individual problems. The act would have to be imputed on him through the acts of priests. In essence, an individual priset may have knowledge that intentional sex by person with AIDS is illegal--a crime in that State--and that priest may encourage it, and thus become an accesspry under the laws of the State. But the Pope does not act on any specific knowledge himself. So the Pope is merely negligent in his policies under the laws of a particular State.

 

So, the best that the victims or a State can do is impison an individual priest in a particualr State, and this has happened sometimes in some countries.

[enorbet2]

I don't really mean to be cynical since I do believe in the rule of Law, not of men, but perhaps, lawcat, instead of playing defense attorney for someone clearly culpable of wrongdoing (and I haven't even mentioned the Nazi sympathizer rule reversals) you might play prosecutor, an angel's advocate if you will (surely defending helpless millions not to mention humanity's highest good, reason, can't be construed as devilish).

 

I'm guessing, through fast and loose conspiracy law, or even better, *terrorist* laws maybe even under the old "alien and sedition" counter-libertarian laws, he might be convicted of urging others to commit undeniably criminal acts. After all if some Church leader said "God just told me that End Times are here, and every good parishioner should 'drink the KoolAid'" the charge should be something more than malpractice let alone no charges at all, don't you think?

 

With great power comes great responsibility (even comic book writers know that) and these people need to feel the cost of that power from time to time, especially when condoning the people and concepts that murdered many millions in Armenia and Germany and now all over Africa. At the very least the World Health Organization and the United Nations should collectively and publicly censure such criminal actions as they would any powerful leader who did so, IMHO. Since when is elitism and double-standard supposed to be part of Catholic dogma? ;)

 

Just in case you think I have some anti-catholic or anti-theist axe to grind, I don't. Rule of Law requires ALL people are equally subject. As bad as doctoring has gotten at least their dogma begins with "Do no harm".

[lawcat]

I don't really mean to be cynical since I do believe in the rule of Law, not of men, but perhaps, lawcat, instead of playing defense attorney for someone clearly culpable of wrongdoing (and I haven't even mentioned the Nazi sympathizer rule reversals) you might play prosecutor, an angel's advocate if you will (surely defending helpless millions not to mention humanity's highest good, reason, can't be construed as devilish).".

 

I thought about it, but did not want to go into Nazi crimes factual pattern, because it would be off tpoic. Here, we are talking strictly about factual pattern of the Church's decision to spiritually urge believers against the use of condoms, regardless of possible life-threatening STD transmission.

 

The Nazi factual situation presents a different problem. There, the State prima facie acted to exterminate a specific ethnic or religious group. And, there may be an argument that the Church was an abbetor to the State--the principal actor. But here, facts do not support any such thing.

 

In addition, the priori--the first--question is whether the Church is doing something outside of its power. Here, the Church is not. The Church is setting forth spiritual guidelines and the Church has no power to control actions of individual believers. Unlike in some sects the Church exerts no duress or imprisonement over parishoners and is not forcing them to act one way or the other (Jonestown, or Waco). The Church is not a secular soverign.

 

In addition, even in cases of dictators such as Saddam or Milosevic or Stalin, the first question is whether the principal is doing something outside of its power prima facie, as a matter of law, so that the issue can be litigated. For example, Milosevic and Saddam and Stalin and Hitler were using "military" to resolve internal State problems, and to imprison and eliminate specific targeted civilian groups abroad. This is a prima facie no-no for sovereigns..

 

I'm guessing, through fast and loose conspiracy law, or even better, *terrorist* laws maybe even under the old "alien and sedition" counter-libertarian laws, he might be convicted of urging others to commit undeniably criminal acts. After all if some Church leader said "God just told me that End Times are here, and every good parishioner should 'drink the KoolAid'" the charge should be something more than malpractice let alone no charges at all, don't you think?".

 

Whetehre the Church's religious message is "undeniably criminal" is a matter of State law, In addition, it is a religoius message. no different than a call for jihad, or a call for racial segregation, or a call against abortion, etc. Again, religious organizations are not secular soverigns and are not held to same standards; they do not have secular power.

AS a policy matter, since you appear to be calling for one, I would ask: what kind of public outrage would you expect if religious leaders were subjected to State's persecution on grounds of spiritual messages? I would expect a great outrage and backlash towards State from a majority of public. It just does not work.

[Boerseun]

Excellent thread!

 

However, I don't think there's much of a case towards genocide or even manslaughter. I don't think equating this in any way to Holocaust genocide will bear any fruit.

 

Rather, if precedent is sought, one should look towards class action campaigns in the mold of class action against cigarette companies:

 

They (tobacco companies/the catholic church) sell a product (tobacco/everlasting life), which they believe is beneficial to you (cool attitude, relaxation, etc./you get to live forever), which requires certain behaviour modifications on your side (you have to light a cigarette and suck on it and inhale the smoke for it to work/you are not allowed to wear condoms) which is demonstrably bad for you and can even be fatal (it causes lung, mouth and throat cancer and can lead to numerous other diseases, chiefly cardiovascular/can result in you contracting AIDS). The culpability on their side lies in them denying this in the face of overwhelming scientific proof (lung cancer can be caused by inhaling lots of stuff, cancer simply "runs" in the plaintiff's family/immorality causes AIDS).

 

Now, faced with the reality that the Catholic Church is a worldwide organisation, and causes higher costs to the Health Departments of all countries concerned by having those countries now deal with an increase in AIDS patients, this class action should be launched by the affected countries in the World Court. Granted, no legislation anywhere allows for this - but this should be the obvious route to take.

 

Seeing as this cannot be done, countries should lay the bill for the increase in AIDS cases due to the Catholic stance on condoms at the feet of the Archbishop representing the Catholic Church in their country - because expediting a class action of this nature against the Church in a court of law in the Vatican City will bear absolutely zero fruit due to the bias of the court.

 

But I think a class action in the line of action against tobacco companies given the proper jurisdiction would be the way to go.

[sanctus]

But doesn't all this end up in the question: is it right or wrong not to act?

I mean, the pope is just being coherent with what can be termed as the belief of the church. So he does not say something which would diminuish the number of new AIDS-infected persons, he just keeps up wat the church always said. So he does not act to diminuish, but his non-action does not increase (because the church always was against condoms nothing new there) the newly infected.

 

I think non-action is a s bad a s acting wrongly, ergo the pope could be tried for genocide...but I know that that would not be a strong case.

[Michaelangelica]

I mean, the pope is just being coherent with what can be termed as the belief of the church. So he does not say something which would diminuish the number of new AIDS-infected persons, he just keeps up wat the church always said. So he does not act to diminuish, but his non-action does not increase (because the church always was against condoms nothing new there) the newly infected.

 

I think non-action is a s bad a s acting wrongly,

Very thoughtful replys Guys thanks.

So if we can't get him on genocide what laws is he breaking and who will try him?

Boerseun's idea of a class action might fly; but would it be tied up in cout for years while the Pope's victims died before a decision was reached. Whatever action was taken it would certanly get people talking about the issue at least. The C. Church is not immune to Public Opinion or the laws of the Lands(s). I read the Canadian Branch may go broke with the number of pedophile cases against them. They may have to sell some real estate or a Michael Angelo or two.

 

On "just being coherent with what can be termed as the belief of the church"

Hitler was just being cohent and consistant with his programmes and beleifs too

 

Looking of the history of contraception is informative

The concern is global and becoming increasingly an urgent policy issue in the face of overpopulation, competition over basic resources, and the devastating impact of STIs, such as HIV/AIDS.

 

While the desire to avoid pregnancy or an STI is an individual choice that has multiple positive benefits for population, gender and disease issues, the ethics of contraception remains a polemic and hotly debated topic, notably amongst Roman Catholics and other Christian denominations. Historically, controversy has surrounded contraception for as long as people have used it,

History of Attitudes towards Contraception - Wikigender.org

If I get an STD and it makes me sterile can I sue him?

 

Access to contraception is not just a “woman’s issue” but one that impacts her family, and has important consequences for gender equality, poverty, national economic development and health resources. International organizations such as the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) have stressed that access to contraception is a human right and is essential to protecting women's health. The UNFPA estimates that contraceptives prevent 215, 000 pregnancy related deaths each year, and the loss of 60 million years of healthy life.

If my mother/sister dies in childbirth can I sue him?

 

There are no explicit statements about contraceptive practices in either the Old or New Testament.

 

The missionary position was advocated as the most acceptable due to the erroneous belief that the sperm would ‘spill’ out in any other position. Sex during pregnancy was forbidden since it could not lead to procreation.

 

Poverty is first listed as a factor for using contraceptives in the early fourteenth century when the Dominican Peter de Palude (d. 1342) notes that coitus interruptus may be employed by some husbands “to avoid having more children than he can feed”. (Noomen, p. 220).

If my kid's die of kwashiokor can I sue him?

 

Both Aristotle’s History of Animals (in which he describes contraception by cedar oil and other contraceptive properties of plants) and Avicenna’s Canon of Medicine formed the basis of information on contraceptives amongst theologians in Western Europe by the end of the twelfth century. Included in the Canon of Medicine were lengthy descriptions of what Aristotle had called “poisons of sterility” (this was the term adopted by medieval theologians to refer to contraception)

 

The Church of England at its annual Lambeth conference in 1930 declared that “the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of Christian principles.” By 1958, Anglicans were allowed to use contraception provided that it was done in line with Christian princniples and consciousness.

 

Reacting to this reversal of the Anglican church on contraception, the Roman Catholic Pope Pius XI (r. 1922-1939) published an encyclical Casti cunnubi, which reiterated the ban on contraception:

. . .

One concession made to married couples was the practice of “the rhythm method” since the sexual act during a woman’s natural infertile period did not contradict God’s will.

Is this hypocrisy? The pill mimics a woman's period too?

 

Is the Scholarly German really being ignored anyway?

A

ccording to a 2004 study examining modern catholic sexual practices, the organization ‘Catholics for a Free Choice’ found high usage of contraceptive practices in predominantly catholic countries:

 

* Between 1990 and 1999, 74% of Argentine women used some modern method of contraception.

* Approximately 70% of married Catholic women in Bolivia have used some form of modern birth control.

* Over 90% of Catholics in Columbia have used modern contraception at some point.

* Between 1990 and 1998, the number of Chilean women using contraceptives increased from 19% to 26%.

 

In addition, the study found that

 

* In Kenya, 40% of Catholic women admitted to using modern contraceptives;

* In Mexico, 91% of polled Catholics agree that adults should have access to contraceptives;

* In the Philippines, 94% of respondents said it is important “to have the ability to control one’s fertility or plan one’s family.”

All from

History of Attitudes towards Contraception - Wikigender.org

 

the mainstream non-fundamentalist Protestant churches had accepted contraception. [5]

Rejection of Pascal's Wager: The Catholic Church and Contraception

 

Isn't there apossibility of pregnacy even with contraceptives?

Method Failure Rate

IUD 6.0%

Pill 7.3%

Condom 15.8%

Diaphragm 22.0%

Spermicides 30.2%

Rhythm Method/NFP 31.4%

 

The pope calls the rhythm method the natural method but the real reasons are obvious. First it calls for abstinence from sex for a long period of time, something the church had always wanted married couples to do. Second, the method is inherently less reliable than all other methods, which makes a mockery of any serious attempts at family planning.

Rejection of Pascal's Wager: The Catholic Church and Contraception

 

This is an interesting time-line

history Church attitude to contraception sex act - Google Search

 

The change in attitude toward contraception came at the same time that people gained better understanding of the physiological processes involved in reproduction. Prior to the nineteenth century most people thought that new life was transmitted in the male semen and the role of women was to receive and nurture it. The ovum was discovered in 1827, and the relationship between ovulation (the production of a fertilizable egg) and the menstrual cycle was completely worked out in the late 1920s

Contraception - Everyday Christianity - Whole Life Stewardship - God's World - Urbana.org

 

In his opinion, Father Bernard Häring, a very controversial moral theologian who has contradicted both Paul VI and John Paul II on this issue, is "that giant moralist of this century." Schmidt quotes his judgment on Humanae vitae: "Almost all real splendor is lost when it becomes evident that the whole document is directed toward one goal-to endorse total assent and submission to all utterances of the pope, and above all on one crucial point: that the use of any artificial means for regulating birth is intrinsically evil and sinful, without exception." Schmidt also cites the judgment of a "wise" Dutch bishop, Willem Beckers, who said in 1963 that "the Church does not have answers" on these complicated issues. "Leave it to the married couple," he said. "It is a matter for their own consciences."

Catholic Insight : Humanae : Pre-history of Humanae vitae

In the past, the report says (without providing evidence), fears that any human intervention tended to destroy the gifts of nature held back human progress; many interventions in medicine were prohibited for this reason, "and only little by little, with the progress of medicine and science, have the possibilities of intervention for the good of the person and sometimes even for the good of the community been acknowledged

.

 

Some people consider that oral or anal sex, extramarital sex, homosexual acts, and masturbation are pleasurable. The Church has condemned such acts mainly because they are a violation of the procreative purpose which sexual acts are supposed to have; if this is left out of consideration, why should the Church object to people enjoying themselves in these hitherto forbidden ways?

So we all turn to pedophilia instead? Can pedophile priests sue him?

[Michaelangelica]

How Vatican roulette kills embryos

 

The rhythm method - the only form of contraception approved by the Catholic Church - may actually be the source of mass-scale embryo carnage.

Or so at least says Luc Bovens, a professor of philosophy at the London School of Economics.

 

Part of Catholics' opposition to the contraceptive pill, he points out, is that it in the event that a woman ovulates despite it and the egg is fertilised, then the pill's effect on the lining of the uterus may prevent the resulting embrryo from implanting. Since, according to Church doctrine, life begins at fertilisation then that can technically be interpreted as an abortion. Ditto for the intrauterine device (IUD).

In natural menstrual cycles, free from hormonal or pharmaceutical or mechanical manipulation, there is an optimal time of conception - within a day or two of the egg being released from the ovary. Leave them too long and they start to pass their prime, less able to carry the genetic recipe for a healthy baby.

So, Bovens says in the Journal of Medical Ethics, it's reasonable to assume that some of the rhythm method's effectiveness comes not from preventing the egg and sperm getting together in the first place, but from the creation of runt embryos that don't stand a chance of passing muster in the great Darwinian survival race. Add a decaying uterus lining later in the cycle and the poor clump of cells doesn't stand a snowball's.

The same argument could apply to a newly released egg that is fertilised by geriatric sperm, still hanging around from before the period of abstinence.

"If it is callous to use a technique that makes embryonic death likely by making the uterine wall inhospitable to implantation," Bovens writes, "then clearly it is callous to use a technique that makes embryonic death likely by organising one's sex life so that [fertilised] ova lack resilience and will face a uterine wall inhospitable to implantation."

The Sydney Morning Herald Blogs: Science

[Michaelangelica]

Pope charged with crimes against humanity in World Court

Criminal charges were filed against Pope Benedict XVI at the International World Court last week by two lawyers from the Pope's home state of Bavaria. The charges, which allege crimes against humanity, were submitted by Christian Sailer and Gert-Joachim Hetzel of Marktheidenfeld to Dr Luis Moreno Ocampo, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court at the Hague.

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-los-angeles/pope-charged-with-crimes-against-humanity-world-court

[dduckwessel]

The Pope is charged with murder-genocide. Murder-genocide is an "actus reus" crime. In essence the Pope would have to be mentally culpable of the crime and and the one to have acted.

 

I think the charge of genocide is an overreaction but then people always overreact 'after the fact'.

 

Concerning the crimes committed by priests, the reigning Pope was aware of the crimes and also aware that the offending priests were being moved to different diocese's around the world - most definitely on his orders. It's that which makes any pope guilty because he would have had the final say to reinstate the offending priests to different locations.

 

It's heartbreaking to watch documentaries of the devastating effects of those crimes. The victims were treated, by their own parishioners, as if they had committed the crime. I heard it myself from two Catholic friends of mine, they said (and I know they heard it from someone else) that 'the devil had used those children to tempt the priests into sin'. And yes I rebuked them but they're so used to having the RCC do their thinking for them! Victims of abuse subsequently went into a kind of exile, unable to function in the normal world and some committed suicide.

 

First, the Pope does not intend to kill any group--his intent is to preserve catholic virtues. Second, the Pope's message is not invidious to any national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, other than its own religious group. Nor is the Pope imposing measures to prevent birth among the group--just the opposite.

 

I personally don't blame the Pope per se, although he must take the brunt of blame, I blame the people who make demi-gods of their leaders and give them absolute power. When things go wrong (which is going to happen), they can then throw all the blame on their fearless leader.

[dduckwessel]

Just to clarify in case my previous point is misunderstood: I'm thankful for Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins for getting the ball rolling - the Catholic Church needs to be made accountable.

 

I personally think the RCC should be made to largely financially compensate every victim of sexual abuse and their families. As to the problem in Africa caused by lack of sanctioning use of condoms, the RCC should be made to house, feed, cloth, educate every orphan who lost both parents in aids-related deaths.

[chilehed]

Let me see if I have this right: the Catholic Church teaches against drug abuse and sexual acts outside of the bond of marriage (which acts are the cause of the vast majority of HIV infections), and yet it's responsible for these same folks not using condoms which are known to not reliably prevent the transmission of disease in any case?

 

I'm absolutely sure that someone who's shooting dope or engaging in risky sexual practices will avoid condom use after he hears that the Pope says he shouldn't use them... *rolleyes*

 

What a load of nonsense.

[dduckwessel]

I don't believe the Pope can be held accountable for the spread of aids, otherwise we'd have to arrest every leader for bad decisions he/she made on behalf of whole countries, companies and institutions. And unfortunately for the present Pope, he is paying for the mistakes of his predecessor (although I'm sure, given time, he will make just as many of his own).

 

Nevertheless, on moral grounds the RCC should make every effort to alleviate the suffering that aids has produced in Africa.

 

Let me see if I have this right: the Catholic Church teaches against drug abuse and sexual acts outside of the bond of marriage (which acts are the cause of the vast majority of HIV infections), and yet it's responsible for these same folks not using condoms which are known to not reliably prevent the transmission of disease in any case?

 

Even in affluent America, adherents of the RCC dutifully abide by the Popes' ordinances. After all, they consider his decisions infallible in matters of the church. How much more influence would the Pope have on the poor and uneducated masses of Africa! The RCC is most certainly responsible for teaching against the use of condoms, which if the Pope had spoken in favor of condom use, the masses would have certainly obeyed.

 

My concern is that the real issue that began this whole thing will become obscured, which is the sexual abuse scandals and intentional cover-ups. The RCC must be made to largely compensate those individuals and families affected by the RCC's failure to be their brothers keeper.

[chilehed]

Nevertheless, on moral grounds the RCC should make every effort to alleviate the suffering that aids has produced in Africa.

The fact is that the Catholic Church is by far the single largest provider of medical aid in Africa.

 

The RCC is most certainly responsible for teaching against the use of condoms, which if the Pope had spoken in favor of condom use, the masses would have certainly obeyed...

You mean like they obey the teachings against fornication, homosexuality and drug abuse?

 

Your line of reasoning is incoherent. The problem isn't that folks are listening to the teachings of the Catholic Church, the problem is that they're ignoring the teachings. No reasonable person can deny that those who observe Catholic teaching on sexual morality and drug abuse have vastly lower rates of STD infection that those who do not, and that if everyone observed those teachings infection rates worldwide would be many orders of magnitude lower than they are.

 

It's disingenuous to tout condoms as a means to combat infection when it's well known that they are far from effective even when used properly, and then blame infection rates on the folks who point to a simple and utterly reliable method that actually works. Those who do so are poisoning the well themselves, and if anyone is culpable it's them.

[chilehed]

Pope charged with crimes against humanity in World Court

Criminal charges were filed against Pope Benedict XVI at the International World Court last week by two lawyers from the Pope's home state of Bavaria. The charges, which allege crimes against humanity, were submitted by Christian Sailer and Gert-Joachim Hetzel of Marktheidenfeld to Dr Luis Moreno Ocampo, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court at the Hague.

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-los-angeles/pope-charged-with-crimes-against-humanity-world-court

This reminds me of something my dad told me once: "Any nitwit with $20 can file court papers against you; if you've never been sued then you might not be amounting to much in the world."

[CraigD]

I am told that it is still Church policy that a male infected with AIDS can't use a condom when having sex with his wife. I believe there was a meeting of Bishops to discuss this issue.

I don’t know of any statement issues by a meeting of Bishops on the subject of condom use, but according to many news sources (eg: this 2010/11/21 LA Times article), the Pope and other Catholic church officials are not opposed to all condom use, and do not deny that it helps prevent the spread of HIV. Quoting from the LA Times article:

Pope Benedict: There can be single justified cases, for example when a prostitute uses a condom, and this can be the first step toward a moralization, a first act of responsibility in developing anew an awareness of the fact that not everything is permissible and that we cannot do everything we want.

 

Bishop Kevin Dowling: [People at risk of spreading HIV] should use a condom in order to prevent the transmission of potential death to another.

Their position appears to be that people should not have sex with many partners, increasing their risk of contracting HIV, but people that do, such as prostitutes of customers of prostitutes, should try to prevent “transmitting death” by using condoms.

 

The fact is that the Catholic Church is by far the single largest provider of medical aid in Africa.

I’m aware that Catholic charities (strictly speaking, these NGOs aren’t the same financial and governance entity as the church, but can reasonably be considered a family of organizations) do a lot of good work, not only in Africa, but where I live in America. I’ve worked with a lot of them.

 

However, chilehed, do you have a reference for this claim? Many non-Cacholic NGOs provide aid in Africa, and I simply don’t know how much each gives.

 

The problem isn't that folks are listening to the teachings of the Catholic Church, the problem is that they're ignoring the teachings. No reasonable person can deny that those who observe Catholic teaching on sexual morality and drug abuse have vastly lower rates of STD infection that those who do not, and that if everyone observed those teachings infection rates worldwide would be many orders of magnitude lower than they are.

I agree. However, the problem, as you state, is that not everybody who submits to authority of the Catholic and other churched follows the teaching, which, with regards to sex, can be termed abstinence. Statistically, populations identifying as church members have higher rates of teenage pregnancy and venereal disease, which many reasonable people take to indicate that, worse than failing to prevent people from having high-risk sex, teaching abstinence prevents them from using condoms when they do (source: wikipedia article sexual abstinence)

 

It's disingenuous to tout condoms as a means to combat infection when it's well known that they are far from effective even when used properly,

This is simply false. Condom use reduces the risk of transmitting HIV by about 85% (source: wikipedia article condom)

 

Perhaps you’re using an unusual definition of “effective”, chilehed. Can you back your claim up with a link or reference?

[chilehed]

I don’t know of any statement issues by a meeting of Bishops on the subject of condom use, but according to many news sources (eg: this 2010/11/21 LA Times article), the Pope and other Catholic church officials are not opposed to all condom use, and do not deny that it helps prevent the spread of HIV...

Unfortunately most news sources employ people who are woefully incompetent to report on religious matters, and this is a classic example. The Pope most certainly did NOT say or imply that condom use is morally permissible, nore did he say or imply that it helps prevent the spread of HIV.

 

As Janice Smith put it,

“The Holy Father is simply observing that for some homosexual prostitutes the use of a condom may indicate an awakening of a moral sense; an awakening that sexual pleasure is not the highest value, but that we must take care that we harm no one with our choices. He is not speaking to the morality of the use of a condom, but to something that may be true about the psychological state of those who use them. If such individuals are using condoms to avoid harming another, they may eventually realize that sexual acts between members of the same sex are inherently harmful since they are not in accord with human nature.”

 

I’m aware that Catholic charities (strictly speaking, these NGOs aren’t the same financial and governance entity as the church, but can reasonably be considered a family of organizations) do a lot of good work, not only in Africa, but where I live in America. I’ve worked with a lot of them.

 

However, chilehed, do you have a reference for this claim? Many non-Cacholic NGOs provide aid in Africa, and I simply don’t know how much each gives.

Unfortunately it's been a while since I saw the study, and it was a hard copy. Certainly it's difficult to evaluate, you need to consider not only direct contributions from the Holy See but also the work done by the various religious orders as well as that sponsored directly by dioceses, parishes and individuals. But for example, in 2009 Catholic Relief Services alone provided over $200M in HIV related services, $248M in emergency aid, and $109M in agriculture aid worldwide. Of their total of $780M in operating funds, $156M was from private donations and only 5% of their expenditures were for operating expenses: 95% goes to the programs. Their HIV programs served more than 8 million people, distributed nearly 3M mosquito nets, completed drinking water projects in I don't know how many locations,... they have hundreds of programs worldwide. And that's just ONE organization.

 

So I find it disingenuous for people to imply that the Church isn't working to support the sick and needy around the world.

 

I agree. However, the problem, as you state, is that not everybody who submits to authority of the Catholic and other churched follows the teaching, which, with regards to sex, can be termed abstinence.

One who does not follow the teachings on sexual morality by definition does not submit to the teaching of the Church.

 

BTW, abstinence isn't really the best characterization for the Church's teaching because it implies that one should not engage in sexual relations. A better term would be chastity, which is defined as "the moral virtue which, under the cardinal virtue of temperance, provides for the successful integration of sexuality within the person leading to the inner unity of the bodily and spiritual being."

 

Statistically, populations identifying as church members have higher rates of teenage pregnancy and venereal disease, which many reasonable people take to indicate that, worse than failing to prevent people from having high-risk sex, teaching abstinence prevents them from using condoms when they do (source: wikipedia article sexual abstinence)

The problem here is that you need to be looking not based on whether or not people identify themselves as Catholic, but based on the degree to which they actually adhere to the teaching of the Church. There is no credible way that one can claim that a couple who remain chaste for the duration of their lives will be at any risk of contracting an STD.

 

 

This is simply false. Condom use reduces the risk of transmitting HIV by about 85% (source: wikipedia article condom)

 

Perhaps you’re using an unusual definition of “effective”, chilehed. Can you back your claim up with a link or reference?

If the brakes on your car worked only 85% of the time, you'd consider them to be effective? THAT's an unusual definition.

 

The fact remains that chastity works 100% of the time it's tried. That's not debatable.