Jump to content
Science Forums

Should the Pope be tried for genocide?


Michaelangelica

Recommended Posts

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?

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

That’s a bad analogy, for the following reason:

 

If we say that the brakes on your car work only 85% of the time, it means that 15% of the time you attempt to use them, they fail.

 

The 85% reduction in the rate of HIV transmission does not mean that there is a 15% chance of an uninfected person becoming infected with the virus from having condom-protected sex once with an infected person. In the metastudy cited by the linked wikipedia article, on average, for a heterosexual couple, in which one partner is HIV positive, the other negative, who are sexually active for 1 year, always using a condom, the chance of the HIV negative partner becoming positive in 0.9%. For the same conditions with no condom use, the chance is 6.7%. Therefore, we say the chance is reduced by [imath]1 - \frac{6.7}{0.9} \dot= 0.8657[/imath], which the authors rounded down to 85%.

 

In the context of disease prevention, this is the usual meaning of effectiveness.

 

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

You may consider it not debatable, chilehed, but I consider it untrue.

 

If we define chastity as the state of a married heterosexual couple who have sex only with one another, it will assure that an uninfected partner will not contract HIV only if their partner is not infected with HIV.

 

Although I’m not an authority in Catholic doctrine, I believe it does not prohibit an opposite-gender couple from entering a state of married chastity because one is HIV infected. In these circumstances, which are not, I believe, rare in many predominantly catholic communities, chastity offers no reduction in the rate of HIV transmission – though it does limit its spread to the couple and their children.

 

I believe it is anathema to Catholic moral principles to deny marriage to sick people, and also to forbid married couples in which one is known to be HIV positive, the other negative, to reduce the risk of infecting the uninfected one and any children of the marriage by using condoms. In my experience, Catholic clergy are above nearly all else compassionate and reasonable, and agree with me on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s a bad analogy, for the following reason:

 

If we say that the brakes on your car work only 85% of the time, it means that 15% of the time you attempt to use them, they fail.

 

The 85% reduction in the rate of HIV transmission does not mean that there is a 15% chance of an uninfected person becoming infected with the virus from having condom-protected sex once with an infected person. In the metastudy cited by the linked wikipedia article, on average, for a heterosexual couple, in which one partner is HIV positive, the other negative, who are sexually active for 1 year, always using a condom, the chance of the HIV negative partner becoming positive in 0.9%.

I suppose you'd be very happy if the brakes on your car were that unreliable.

 

If we define chastity as the state of a married heterosexual couple who have sex only with one another, it will assure that an uninfected partner will not contract HIV only if their partner is not infected with HIV.
You've conceded my point, given that the vast majority of HIV infections (and specifically the ones earliest in the epidemic) are caused by drug abuse and sexual behavior against which the Church teaches.

 

Although I’m not an authority in Catholic doctrine, I believe it does not prohibit an opposite-gender couple from entering a state of married chastity because one is HIV infected. In these circumstances, which are not, I believe, rare in many predominantly catholic communities, chastity offers no reduction in the rate of HIV transmission – though it does limit its spread to the couple and their children.

 

I believe it is anathema to Catholic moral principles[/size] to deny marriage to sick people, and also to forbid married couples in which one is known to be HIV positive, the other negative, to reduce the risk of infecting the uninfected one and any children of the marriage by using condoms.

If you really want to be able to pass judgement on Catholic teaching, it would be helpful to understand it. If you're interested, a good place to start would be Humanae Vitae and Pope JP!!'s Theology of the Body.

 

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tbind.htm

 

It's not as if people aren't free moral agents. To love is to know, will and do the good of another. Someone with HIV is not acting in accordance with love in marrying someone without it because that forces their spouse into a position of having to choose between two evils: infection or contraception. A person who submits to the teaching of the Church and who does not want to risk HIV infection merely needs to not marry someone who's infected.

 

This problem has arisen and continues precisely because people don't adhere to the teaching of the Church. To turn around and blame the teachings of the Church for it is silly. I'm reminded of my adolescent child, who freely makes choices which he knows in advance will cause him adverse consequences, and who then accuses me of getting him into trouble when he gets them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So everyone who has HIV, even if it was given to them at birth by their mothers (which has been known to happen), should go sit in a cave to die somwehere? They should completely isolate themselves from all others? Do you see where this train of thought goes?

 

Descrimination: Noun - Treating somebody/some group differently than other people/groups because of something that they (the group OR the individual) cannot change at that point in time.

 

Sound familier?

 

That’s a bad analogy, for the following reason:

 

If we say that the brakes on your car work only 85% of the time, it means that 15% of the time you attempt to use them, they fail.

 

The 85% reduction in the rate of HIV transmission does not mean that there is a 15% chance of an uninfected person becoming infected with the virus from having condom-protected sex once with an infected person. In the metastudy cited by the linked wikipedia article, on average, for a heterosexual couple, in which one partner is HIV positive, the other negative, who are sexually active for 1 year, always using a condom, the chance of the HIV negative partner becoming positive in 0.9%.

 

I suppose you'd be very happy if the brakes on your car were that unreliable.

 

And you completely ignored the (quite valid) point he made.

 

If something happends .9% of the time, then it will happen about every nine times out of a thousand (.9% = .09 / 10 = .009 = nine thousandths). That is pretty good reliability for a great deal of applications (probably most of them, in fact) (although not car brakes, because the way they work gives a fair amount of reliability if they are maintained).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So everyone who has HIV, even if it was given to them at birth by their mothers (which has been known to happen), should go sit in a cave to die somwehere? They should completely isolate themselves from all others? Do you see where this train of thought goes?

I know you can't be directing that comment at me, because I've said nothing sounds remotely like that.

 

Descrimination: Noun - Treating somebody/some group differently than other people/groups because of something that they (the group OR the individual) cannot change at that point in time.

 

Sound familier?

And your point is what? That it's immoral for someone without HIV to decide to not marry someone who's infected by it? Or that it's immoral for someone who does have it to decide to marry only someone who also has it?

 

 

 

And you completely ignored the (quite valid) point he made.

 

If something happends .9% of the time, then it will happen about every nine times out of a thousand (.9% = .09 / 10 = .009 = nine thousandths). That is pretty good reliability for a great deal of applications (probably most of them, in fact) (although not car brakes, because the way they work gives a fair amount of reliability if they are maintained).

It's abysmal considering the extreme consequences of failure, and compared to the reliability of adhering to the teaching of the Church (which is the point of this thread, remember?). The claim is that the Church bears moral culpability, through it's teaching, for the epidemic of HIV. That's patently false, because condoms are vastly less reliable than is adherence to Church teaching.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you can't be directing that comment at me, because I've said nothing sounds remotely like that.

 

Yes, you have. Here are your exact words:

Someone with HIV is not acting in accordance with love in marrying someone without it because that forces their spouse into a position of having to choose between two evils: infection or contraception.

 

And your point is what? That it's immoral for someone without HIV to decide to not marry someone who's infected by it? Or that it's immoral for someone who does have it to decide to marry only someone who also has it?

 

Nope. My point is that it is immoral for someone to say that another should not marry because of something that they cannot change. That is descrimination. Also, it is not immoral for someone with HIV/AIDS to marry, as long as their partner is okay with it.

 

It's abysmal considering the extreme consequences of failure, and compared to the reliability of adhering to the teaching of the Church (which is the point of this thread, remember?). The claim is that the Church bears moral culpability, through it's teaching, for the epidemic of HIV. That's patently false, because condoms are vastly less reliable than is adherence to Church teaching.

 

Yes, the title of the thread is very skewed and unrealistic. However, the use of condoms does, in fact, reduce the risk of HIV. Because of this, the church is encouraging the spread of HIV by discouraging the use of condoms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Yes they are, and they also take in a large amount of money from Africans in the collection plate every Sunday.

 

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

 

We have those problems in the industrialized world too, they are inherent in humankind but most especially where there's poverty.

 

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.

 

Africa has a great deal of poverty. Poverty is not reasonable.

 

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.

 

The problem was that the late Pope didn't care about the masses but was concerned with not offending God. It should have been the other way around and then he would have been considered a great leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. My point is that it is immoral for someone to say that another should not marry because of something that they cannot change.
I said no such thing, nor anything remotely resembling it. Nor did I say that they should go sit in a cave to die somwehere - you’ve made that up out of thin air.

 

Also, it is not immoral for someone with HIV/AIDS to marry, as long as their partner is okay with it.
People know in advance what the Church’s teaching is, as well as the risk of infection by marrying a person with HIV.

 

You guys seem to think that people who are poor are also stupid, or that they can’t be their own responsible moral agents. That’s pretty darn arrogant.

 

However, the use of condoms does, in fact, reduce the risk of HIV.
Not compared to adherence to Church teaching. A person who adheres to Church teaching and decides to not marry someone with HIV has virtually zero chance of being infected. By comparison, condoms are extremely ineffective.

 

Because of this, the church is encouraging the spread of HIV by discouraging the use of condoms.
Your premise is false, and so is your conclusion. I have no more time to waste going in circles with someone who insists on making stuff up out of whole cloth, and denying undeniable truths such as "those who refuse to expose themselves to a behaviorally contracted illness will not get it".

 

*chilehed walks off, shaking his head*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said no such thing, nor anything remotely resembling it.

 

Then I apologise for misinterpreting this quote:

Someone with HIV is not acting in accordance with love in marrying someone without it because that forces their spouse into a position of having to choose between two evils: infection or contraception.

It seemed to say that.

 

Nor did I say that they should go sit in a cave to die somwehere - you’ve made that up out of thin air.

 

It is true that that sentence was a hyperbole. However, I was using it to make a point by showing that the line of thinking that can be (and is likely to be) produced by not wanting people with HIV to marry can lead to extreme descrimination. The quote I mentioned above seemed to say that people with HIV shouldn't marry. I apologise if I misinterpreted it.

 

You guys seem to think that people who are poor are also stupid, or that they can’t be their own responsible moral agents.

 

Where did you get this impression?

 

Not compared to adherence to Church teaching. A person who adheres to Church teaching and decides to not marry someone with HIV has virtually zero chance of being infected. By comparison, condoms are extremely ineffective.

 

Even if they are not as effective, they still help. And, to quote a popular phrase, every bit helps.

 

undeniable truths such as "those who refuse to expose themselves to a behaviorally contracted illness will not get it".

 

I don't deny that this is true, but condoms still help. While it is true that condoms only 99.91% ensure non-infection (compared to 100% for simple abstinance/etc), it is still something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I apologise for misinterpreting this quote:
Fair enough. I meant nothing more than someone with HIV has some level of moral obligation to not marry someone without it. The question of whether or not they can marry someone who also has it is a different matter entirely.

It wasn’t very long ago in the U.S. that blood tests were required for a marriage license, for the very reason that the prospective spouses could make an informed decision. It was a wise practice.

 

You guys seem to think that people who are poor are also stupid, or that they can’t be their own responsible moral agents.
Where did you get this impression?
I apologize. It was not you, but rather dduckwessel, who dragged in poverty in response to my comments about people being free moral agents. It’s a common argument which is deeply flawed. People make foolish decisions because they’re foolish; having money doesn’t make a foolish person any wiser, and poverty doesn’t doom one to foolishness.

 

I’m reminded of something that G. K. Chesterton said in Orthodoxy:

I have listened often enough to Socialists, or even to democrats, saying that the physical condition of the poor must of necessity make them mentally and morally degraded. I have listened to scientific men (and there are still scientific men not opposed to democracy) saying that if we give the poor healthier conditions vice and wrong will disappear. I have listened to them with a horrible attention, with a hideous fascination. For it was like watching a man energetically sawing from the tree the branch he is sitting on. If these happy democrats could prove their case, they would strike democracy dead. If the poor are thus utterly demoralized, it may or may not be practical to raise them. But it is certainly quite practical to disenfranchise them. If the man with a bad bedroom cannot give a good vote, then the governing class may not unreasonably say: “It may take us some time to reform his bedroom. But if he is the brute you say, it will take him very little time to ruin our country. Therefore we will take your hint and not give him the chance.” It fills me with a horrible amusement to observe the way in which the earnest Socialist industriously lays the foundation of all aristocracy, expiating blandly upon the evident unfitness of the poor to rule. It is like listening to somebody at an evening party apologizing for entering without evening dress, and explaining that he had recently been intoxicated, had a personal habit of taking off his clothes in the street, and had, moreover, only just changed from his prison uniform. At any moment, one feels, the host might say that really, if it was as bad as that, he need not come in at all. So it is when the ordinary Socialist, with a beaming face, proves that the poor, after their smashing experience, cannot be really trustworthy. At any moment the rich may say, “Very well, then, we won’t trust them,” and bang the door in his face. On the basis of Mr. Blatchford’s view of heredity and environment, the case for the aristocracy is quite overwhelming. If clean homes and clean air make clean souls, why not give the power (for the present time at any rate) to those who undoubtedly have the clean air? If better conditions will make the poor more fit to govern themselves, why should not better conditions already make the rich more fit to govern them? On the ordinary environment argument the matter is fairly manifest. The comfortable class must be merely our vanguard in Utopia.

 

Even if they are not as effective, they still help.
Having conceded the question, the case for blaming the Pope is dead.

 

And, to quote a popular phrase, every bit helps.
Our efforts would be better spent on encouraging and helping people to live up to their inherent dignity as human beings. Throwing rubbers at them as if they’re rutting animals is not the way to do that, and if doing so reinforces behavior that is inherently destructive to the human person (which it does), then it most certainly does not help.

 

The WHO puts out documents that recommend things like “adopting a non-judgmental attitude” and “respecting sex workers’ human rights and according them basic dignity”, but that say absolutely nothing about helping them figure out a way out of the business. What a crock! There’s not a person on this forum or in the WHO who wants to see their own sister or daughter become a whore, and yet they’re willing to leave someone else’s wallowing in the mire as if the worst part of the business is something other than the spiritual and emotional state it causes.

 

And then people have the nerve to blame the Pope for the social fallout? THAT’S hypocrisy.

 

Again, if you really want to be able to fairly judge Catholic moral theology it would help to understand it, which isn't something that one can do well in five minutes or by listening to sound-bite argumentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, if you really want to be able to fairly judge Catholic moral theology it would help to understand it, which isn't something that one can do well in five minutes or by listening to sound-bite argumentation.

 

I went to a Catholic school for years. That means I went to church every day in the on-campus church. I think I have a pretty good idea of what it stands for.

 

The WHO puts out documents that recommend things like “adopting a non-judgmental attitude” and “respecting sex workers’ human rights and according them basic dignity”, but that say absolutely nothing about helping them figure out a way out of the business. What a crock! There’s not a person on this forum or in the WHO who wants to see their own sister or daughter become a whore, and yet they’re willing to leave someone else’s wallowing in the mire as if the worst part of the business is something other than the spiritual and emotional state it causes.

 

In the end, it's their choice to go into that buisiness. If they want to get out, they can.

 

Instead of trying to force them out, give them the option to get out.

 

Do you remember reading about prohibition in history class? Do you recall how it made thinks worse by pushing it underground? And how this lead to the rise of gangs and people such as Al Capone? Pretty much the same here.

 

Plus, some actually like it. They would prefer the job they have to flipping burgers or perhaps even a desk job. If you pull them out they'll go back in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to a Catholic school for years. That means I went to church every day in the on-campus church. I think I have a pretty good idea of what it stands for.
I've been a Catholic for only six years and I've lost count of the number of folks I've heard say that whose knowledge is no more advanced than what they learned in grade school, or who think all kinds of absurd things about Catholic doctrine. You might be surprised.

 

Plus, some actually like it. They would prefer the job they have to flipping burgers or perhaps even a desk job. If you pull them out they'll go back in.
Oy vey... you've GOT to be kidding. Abused women go back to being abused because they LIKE it?? Try telling that to a woman, any woman, who's got any time in recovering from the sex industry.

 

*shakes head*

 

A blessed evening to you and yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was not you, but rather dduckwessel, who dragged in poverty in response to my comments about people being free moral agents. It’s a common argument which is deeply flawed. People make foolish decisions because they’re foolish; having money doesn’t make a foolish person any wiser, and poverty doesn’t doom one to foolishness.

 

I never said it made them foolish but that people living in serious poverty (which there is a lot of in parts of Africa) are less educated and so easy pawns for religious manipulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said it made them foolish but that people living in serious poverty (which there is a lot of in parts of Africa) are less educated and so easy pawns for religious manipulation.

That might seem to be a reasonable assumption to some people, but it certainly can't explain the HIV epidemic in Africa unless you know of a religion that insists that its adherents must engage in fornication, homosexuality, prostitution and drug abuse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was not you, but rather dduckwessel, who dragged in poverty in response to my comments about people being free moral agents. It’s a common argument which is deeply flawed. People make foolish decisions because they’re foolish; having money doesn’t make a foolish person any wiser, and poverty doesn’t doom one to foolishness.

I never said it made them foolish but that people living in serious poverty (which there is a lot of in parts of Africa) are less educated and so easy pawns for religious manipulation.

That might seem to be a reasonable assumption to some people, but it certainly can't explain the HIV epidemic in Africa unless you know of a religion that insists that its adherents must engage in fornication, homosexuality, prostitution and drug abuse.

The subject of this thread – whether the Pope should be held criminally responsible for discouraging the use of condoms – is based on the explanation that the high incidence of HIV/AIDS in predominantly Catholic communities is explained by the argument that Catholics are less likely to use condoms than non-Catholics because of a perception that such use is in without exception wrong, and that this perception is promoted by the Church. The prevalence of membership in the Catholic Church correlates strongly with poverty, which correlates with poor education. So to say that the assertion that that poverty leads to poor education, poor education to acceptance of Catholic dogma, the acceptance of Catholic dogma to lower use of condoms, and lower use of condoms to increased transmission of diseases such as HIV/AIDS “certainly can’t explain the HIV epidemic in Africa” is, I think, either wittingly or unwittingly disingenuous.

 

No major religion “insists that its adherents must engage in fornication, homosexuality, prostitution and drug abuse”. However, religions embracing the doctrine of salvation by grace – that deviation from proscribed correct behavior can be forgiven by an act of confession and contrition – which include most Christian religions, tolerate it.

 

Combining a teaching that an behavior that people are strongly instinctively motivated toward – having sex with many attractive available partners – is permissible but wrong, with teaching that a behavior that they are not instinctively motivated toward, involves complications and expense, and may be distasteful - the use of condoms - is likewise permissible but wrong, tends to reduce the second behavior (condom use) - more than the first (illicit sex).

 

This explains why education programs that teach abstaining from illicit sex rather than using condoms – typically called “abstinence only” programs – to prevent the spread of disease are less effective than programs than programs that insist on the use of condoms.

 

Your response to this explanation in this thread, chilehed, has been that the fault lay not in abstinence only education programs, but in the failure of students of these programs to follow them. Public health and disease, however, knows no such distinction – a program is more or less effective than another, as measured by disease and undesired pregnancy rates.

 

On a high level, I think it’s important to understand that secular public health proponents and Christian religion proselytizers have fundamentally different main goals.

  • Health proponents want to improve secular quality of life, by reducing disease, preventing unwanted pregnancy, and increasing lifespans.
  • Christian proselytizers want to increase the number of souls that survive the death of their bodies to dwell forever in paradise.

To the Christian, physical health and long life is important only in that it increase the likelihood a soul being saved. In their view, a short, unhealthy life followed by an eternity in paradise is preferable to a long, healthy one followed by the death of body and soul, or worse, eternal torture in hell.

 

As an atheist who does not believe in an eternal afterlife in heaven or hell, I agree with health proponents and disagree with Christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

[*]Christian proselytizers want to increase the number of souls that survive the death of their bodies to dwell forever in paradise.

To the Christian, physical health and long life is important only in that it increase the likelihood a soul being saved. In their view, a short, unhealthy life followed by an eternity in paradise is preferable to a long, healthy one followed by the death of body and soul, or worse, eternal torture in hell.

 

I doubt that Africa is any more than numbers to the Vatican (which is completely removed from the people) or they would be more concerned about the welfare of the people rather than keeping silly rules.

 

As for the genocide issue, African's had a hand in their own demise (they listened), so in that regard the Pope cannot be held accountable. I doubt the RCC is even taking this seriously, it appears to me as if it's business as usual for them.

 

My concern was that this genocide issue would obscure the original reason why the Vatican is under scrutiny, which was the intentional cover-ups of rape and the relocation of known pedophiles, which are punishable crimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...The prevalence of membership in the Catholic Church correlates strongly with poverty, which correlates with poor education. So to say that the assertion that that poverty leads to poor education, poor education to acceptance of Catholic dogma, the acceptance of Catholic dogma to lower use of condoms, and lower use of condoms to increased transmission of diseases such as HIV/AIDS “certainly can’t explain the HIV epidemic in Africa” is, I think, either wittingly or unwittingly disingenuous.
Oh, I get it: correlation equals causation, people are Catholic because they're poor and ignorant, and poverty prevents people from being free moral agents.

 

I don't need to explain why that argument is less than convincing.

 

 

No major religion “insists that its adherents must engage in fornication, homosexuality, prostitution and drug abuse”. However, religions embracing the doctrine of salvation by grace – that deviation from proscribed correct behavior can be forgiven by an act of confession and contrition – which include most Christian religions, tolerate it.
I'm struggling to find a charitable way to describe the absurdity of that statement.

 

Combining a teaching that an behavior that people are strongly instinctively motivated toward – having sex with many attractive available partners...
You have a very strange understanding of human nature; if that was instinctive then our biochemistry would reflect it. The desire to have multiple partners doesn't come from our instinct, it comes from our will.

 

Your response to this explanation in this thread, chilehed, has been that the fault lay not in abstinence only education programs, but in the failure of students of these programs to follow them. Public health and disease, however, knows no such distinction – a program is more or less effective than another, as measured by disease and undesired pregnancy rates.
ROTFLMAO! The effectiveness of a course of action is not to be judged based on whether or not it's followed? What a load of nonsense!

 

 

To the Christian, physical health and long life is important only in that it increase the likelihood a soul being saved. In their view, a short, unhealthy life followed by an eternity in paradise is preferable to a long, healthy one followed by the death of body and soul, or worse, eternal torture in hell.
What makes you think that you have a sufficient background in philosophy or Christian theology to qualify yourself to make such statements?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...