Evolution & the catholic church

[Jasny]

steveandersen:

Once again, who cares whose friend’s second cousin’s uncle thought something?..

… who cares whose friend’s second cousin’s uncle thought something?..
Hitler used evolution and eugenics the same way he used Nietzsche or Christianity or mythical Teutonic rituals, as a handy political tool and nothing more.

A handy political tool is what evolutionist are taught. If one is to take evolution seriously then the means justifies the ends. Hitler thought the “Arian Race” was the supreme race so it was his duty to dominate all.

You compare a religion like Jim Jones to Evolution? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to compare it to Islam. Evolution has been steeped in the degradation of man. Forced on the population because Darwin had a Vision. He saw fish becoming whales or whatever.

My rant as you call it is necessary because Darwinists refuse to take responsibility for their movement. There lies the danger! Darwinist have plunged Man into a quagmire that has led to a culture of death. But stick their head in the sand and deny they were involved. Do you think the German people are more barbaric than French or Americans or was the public more strongly fed for years in Germany and Austria a theory that scientifically supported Nietzsche.

You seem to move in Darwinist circles so take responsibility to regulate and condemn those who use your movement to further Eugenics

Please give me a list of scientist who were proponent of evolution before Hitler and opposed Eugenics. I haven’t been able to find one.

Since you don’t like brothers or cousins how about sons?:

Leonard Darwin (1850–1943) Son of Charles Darwin; Chairman of Eugenic Society: “Dedicated to the memory of MY FATHER. For if I had not believed that he would have wished me to give such help as I could toward making his life’s work of service to mankind, I should never have been led to write this book.”
The Need for Eugenic Reform (1926) Dedication
“Of all the problems which will have to be faced in the future, in my opinion, the most difficult will be those concerning the treatment of the inferior races of mankind.” Planned Parenthood’s Birth Control Review April 1930 p.112

 

[PhilVaz]

Jasny << Please give me a list of scientists who were proponents of evolution before Hitler and opposed Eugenics. I haven’t been able to find one. >>

Evolutionists Against Eugenics by John Wilkins of Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia

According to Kevles, there were critics of the eugenics program from within the scientific community. One such was R.C. Punnett (Kevles 1995: 165), a geneticist who has given his name to the Punnett Square method of presenting fitness values of alleles.

In 1917, Punnett calculated how many generations it would take to reduce “feeblemindedness” if all were sterilised in each generation. He worked out that to reduce the frequency from 1/100 to 1/1,000 would require 22 generations, to 1/10,000 90 generations and 1/1,000,000 700 generations! To give an idea of the magnitude of this, 22 generations takes us back to before the Black Death reached Europe. A debate ensued in which R.A. Fisher was taken to task in his attack on Punnett’s work by Herbert Jennings. By 1932, these criticisms had reached the New York Times.

By the mid-30s, Lionel Penrose was attacking the term “feebleminded” as covering a range of conditions. Note that he was a eugenicist. George Bernard Shaw attacked eugenic sterilisation on the grounds that he would not have been born. Shaw was an evolutionist, though not a Darwinian.

Kevles, D. (1995). In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the uses of human heredity. Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press.

Theodosius Dobzhansky (geneticist and Orthodox Christian) wrote an attack on eugenics in 1937 in his classic book that helped found the evolutionary synthesis:

“The eugenical Jeremiahs keep constantly before our eyes the nightmare of human populations accumulating recessive genes that produce pathological effects when homozygous. These prophets of doom seem to be unaware of the fact that wild species in the state of nature fare in this respect no better than man does with all the artificiality of his surroundings, and yet life has not come to an end on this planet. The eschatological cries proclaiming the failure of natural selection to operate in human populations have more to do with political beliefs than with scientific findings.”

Other articles or sources by possible evolutionists in the period from the beginnings of the synthesis (1930) to the end of the second world war. I know Boaz was an evolutionist.

Boas, Franz. “The Question of Racial Purity” 3 American Mercury 163 (1924)
Cox, Ignatius W. “The Folly of Human Sterilization” The Scientific American 188 (October 1934)
Frazier, Edward F. “The Pathology of Race Prejudice” 77 Forum 856 (1927)
Holmes, Samuel J. “The Oppostition to Eugenics” 89 Science 351 (1939)
Popenoe, Paul. “A Debate on Sterilization: Intelligent Eugenics” The Forum 26 (July 1935)
The Readers Digest. “Pro and Con: Sterilize the Feeble-Minded?” 97 (May 1938)
Science News Letter. “Biology-Physiology: Eugenics Program Declared Impracticable at Present” 22 (9 July 1938)
Stern, Curt. “Selection and Eugenics” 110 Science 201 (1949)
Thomalla, C. “The Sterilization Law in Germany” The Scientific American 126 (September 1934)
Ward, Harold. “The Dilemma of Eugenics” The New Republic (24 April 1935)

More from John Wilkins here

 

[hecd2]

buffalo:

hecd,

Do you agree with the definitions in this article?

Apes “R” Not Us: Catholics & the Debate Over Evolution

What definitions would they be? I see no definitions at all in the article. All I see is a mishmash of misunderstanding, misrepresentation, illogic and long-debumked claims. Why on earth do you introduce such a poorly argued, poorly evidenced piece of cheap propaganda into the discussion?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Jasny:

My rant as you call it is necessary because Darwinists refuse to take responsibility for their movement. There lies the danger! Darwinist have plunged Man into a quagmire that has led to a culture of death. But stick their head in the sand and deny they were involved.

You seem to have a very poor understanding of the nature of scientific enquiry. There is no such thing as a darwinist ‘movement’, any more than there is a nuclear physics ‘movement’ or a molecular biology ‘movement’. Whether or not the science has been misused by people to attempt to justify genocide, or to create (and use) weapons capable of causing the extinction of the human race, or to artifically manipulate human genetics has no bearing on whether or not the underlying scientific hypothesis is correct.

You are committing a logical fallacy called ‘poisoning the well’. You are arguing against the truth of a proposition and basing your argument on immoral or evil acts that you allege are somehow linked to the proposition. Your position is logically equivalent to saying that we shouldn’t believe in exothermic chemistry because dynamite has been used to blow people up.

I am not denying that darwinism has been misused to justify immoral acts, but whether or not it has been misused in that way does not bear at all on whether it correctly descibes the mechanism of evolution. Religious, cultural or political sensitivities are not good filters for determining the scientific value of scientific hypotheses.

Are you aware that a number of scientists were simultaneously eugenicists, darwinists and Christians? R A Fisher is one such. The hierarchy of races was an almost universal idea through late-Victorian and Edwardian periods, and one enthusiastically embraced by many Christians. Your interpretation of history is as nuanced as a surgeon wearing boxing gloves if you can see no difference between the Hitlerian ‘Final Solution’ and the misguided Eugenics movement of the first third of the 20th century. Be that as it may, the irony is that the foundational science of eugenics is not so much Darwin’s Natural Selection, but the particulate inheritance idea of a monk, Gregor Mendel, that we now call genetics. It is often forgotten that the zenith of eugenics coincided with the nadir of Natural Selection as a scientific concept.

As for the quagmire that you claim we wallow in, we live in an age where more people than ever in absolute numbers and in percentage terms (and that certainly includes you and me) live in peace, prosperity and luxurious plenty unimaginable to the vast majority of our forebears. Things ain’t so bad. The culture of death is a peculiar label to apply to an earth groaning under the teeming richness of six (or is it seven) billion humans.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[steveandersen]

Jasny:

A handy political tool is what evolutionist are taught.

What? Science is about observable facts not about what is handy
Are you suggesting that things like the Scopes trail and this nonsense with the Kansas BOE is somehow politically handy?

Jasny:

If one is to take evolution seriously then the means justifies the ends.

Nonsense, science is about observable data. Making value judgments about the rightness or appropriateness of the data is not its bailiwick

Jasny:

Hitler thought the “Arian Race” was the supreme race so it was his duty to dominate all.

Yeah, so? This is news? History is full of examples of imperialist/expansionist nations that tried the same stuff long before evolution came along. Ever read about the Mongol conquest of Eurasia?

Jasny:

You compare a religion like Jim Jones to Evolution?

No, read my post. I compared using Hitler as a condemnation of evolution to using Jim Jones as a condemnation of religion. There are always individuals who will pervert things to their own ends. Evolution is no more responsible for Hitler than Christianity is for Jim Jones.

Jasny:

Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to compare it to Islam.

What? I’m not sure how the 5 pillars have anything to do with evolution or Jim Jones…please explain.

Jasny:

Evolution has been steeped in the degradation of man.

how so? To me, the sublime beauty and elegance of the theory glorifies Creation and our place in it.

Jasny:

Forced on the population because Darwin had a Vision. He saw fish becoming whales or whatever.

Again, you’re imposing a religions pattern on science. Darwin is not a prophet or a founder or some sort of inerrant source of all knowledge and wisdom
He was just a guy with an idea. And that idea was not uniquely his. Others were working on along the same lines. He was just (un)lucky enough to publish first.

Much of his work has been surpassed since a lot more has been discovered in the past 150 years and many of his more racist statements are clearly wrong but a person doesn’t have to be 100% right or 100% wrong. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
And if you have an alternative theory on the development of whales that fits all the data then please share it.

 

[steveandersen]

continued

Jasny:

My rant as you call it is necessary because Darwinists refuse to take responsibility for their movement….

Who are “Darwinists” and what is “their movement” once again this isn’t a church or a political organization. It is a body of knowledge that can be used for good or ill.
TNT can be used to carve roads and railways and dams and locks though mountains ro benefit us all. It can also be used to carpet bomb cities. That is not the fault of chemistry.

Jasny:

……Darwinist have plunged Man into a quagmire that has led to a culture of death. But stick their head in the sand and deny they were involved. Do you think the German people are more barbaric than French or Americans or was the public more strongly fed for years in Germany and Austria a theory that scientifically supported Nietzsche.

no, Germans aren’t necessarily barbaric…but humans can be. Just ask the Chinese what the Japanese did without Wagner or Nietzsche
And you’re putting the cart before the horse. Darwin & Wallace published when Nietzsche was 14 so I doubt they were thinking of how they were going to “support” work that he hadn’t yet done. If Nietzsche then took what he found in the world around him to feed his nihilist tripe I’m not sure how Darwin is guilty after the fact.
Fascism is clearly a twisted misuse of Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno. Is that somehow the Church’s fault?

Jasny:

You seem to move in Darwinist circles so take responsibility to regulate and condemn those who use your movement to further Eugenics

I’m not sure what exactly Darwinist circles are. But I will always oppose anyone who tried to misuse science. (My brother is disabled; I’m sure he would be at the top of some eugenics list) This is of course why I scream like heck against the people in ID circles" misusing science. Once people can dictate science based on their beliefs we’re all in trouble

Jasny:

Please give me a list of scientist who were proponent of evolution before Hitler and opposed Eugenics. I haven’t been able to find one.

I doubt such a list exists…there were thousands of scientists then and I doubt they were polled. I’m sure their views reflected the societies they came from. Once again what does that have to do with anything?
Just because someone says one stupid or silly thing that doesn’t mean that everything they say is wrong

Jasny:

Since you don’t like brothers or cousins how about sons?

Once again who cares? Darwin is not some sort of Pope who must be held infallible. I’m sure he (and his son and there friends and cousins etc) said lots of things. How does that change the robustness of the theory one iota?

 

[Ahimsa]

You might not believe in Evolution,

but Evolution believes in YOU.

 

[petra]

DreadVandal:

Here is my problem: I find it hard to believe that the Church fathers, or anyone prior to 1900, would have thought that there were generations of animals living and dying prior to the creation of man. Even if man is taken out of the picture, the natural world is subject to brutal strife and a struggle for existence. Why would God create animals in a state where they hunted down one another and inflicted pain? To my mind, theistic evolution destroys the traditional answer to the problem of evil; namely, that the Fall is the cause of all pain, suffering, and death in creation. I suppose one could argue that animal pain is no big deal, but its hard to imagine an all powerful, all loving being, creating a world where, even without a fall, animals will hunt one another and kill one another. I seriously doubt the biblical authors would buy into this.

I think you forget that evil is a moral issue, rather than a catch-all for all that is unpleasant and harsh. Evil specifically pertains to opposition to God. A carnivorous animal killing another for food does not constitute opposition the Person of God. Animals are amoral creatures. Adam was the first moral creature, made as such when God breathed spirit into him. So before the Fall of Man, there was no moral evil in the world.

Scott Hahn, in his book, A Father Who Keeps His Promises, suggests that the only reason God’s warning to Adam meant anything was because Adam had firsthand knowledge of what death was–he had seen animal death.

The fact that Adam was cursed with hard labor and Eve cursed with pain in childbirth also does not preclude the existence of struggle and difficulty prior to the Fall. Given that they were banished from the garden after the Fall and angels were posted to prevent re-entry, we can conclude that the Garden of Eden did not encompass the entire earth–it was a specific location on the earth. It may be that the Garden was particularly blessed agriculturally and had no pests or plant species with thorns. Upon being cast from the garden, Adam would have to contend with the difficulties of the outside world.

How can a good and loving God allow for the struggle of existence in a prefallen world? I would like to suggest that God’s allowance of the struggle and difficulty of evolving lifeforms over time was incredibly loving, as it developed resilience and adaptability in species. Scientists often refer to our blue planet as being an optimum environment for life. That is true, but without the resilience that developed through struggle, our relatively gentle earth would still be much too harsh for life to be sustained. The slightest change in environment would result in extinction.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

The well of human nature is poisoned; therefore, scientific facts will be used to support the culture of death. Evolution has been used as a tool to justify the extermination of vast peoples. As long as people treat science as a sacred cow in a vacuum it will continue to be used as a tool for the culture of death and for those who would lable some segment of society as less than human.

There is nothing intrinsically evil in theories about man’s physical origins, but when they are used in a vaccuum of spirituality they can be perverted to make man just an animal.

Abortion continues. If that’s not proof of man seeing each other as just evolutionized apes–as man not having a sacred character in the image of God, I do not know what is.

Scientists want to operate in a spiritual vaccuum since spirit cannot be measured in a beaker, but the human society cannot afford to allow science to run without spiritual values. Soon we may be harvesting our children to cure our cancers.

The debate on evolution in the classroom needs to be a debate about spiritual values in the classroom. If this were done, I’d have no problem at all with teaching the theory of evolution in the classroom. As it is with no religion, no God in the classroom, not so much as a prayer, I have a great problem with the theory of evolution being taught by secular people who sneer at faith to children with impressionable minds.

Do a search on colleges in these forums and find out how many have made a shipwreck of their faith by going to institutions of higher learning. Facts do not exist in a vaccuum and pretending that they do does a disservice to all our souls.

 

[hecd2]

MichaelTDoyle:

Scientists want to operate in a spiritual vaccuum since spirit cannot be measured in a beaker, but the human society cannot afford to allow science to run without spiritual values. Soon we may be harvesting our children to cure our cancers.

I don’t know of many serious scientists, whether religious, agnostic or atheist, who think that the use of science and technology should be determined solely by scientists and not be subject to the rules and oversight of society.

However, you should realise that your particular absolutist morality is shared neither by society in general nor by every person of good will and good conscience, nor even by every spiritual person. It is perfectly possible for society to have excellent mechanisms for managing ethical standards in technology, and still to allow things that you think are immoral, but other, equally sincere religious or secular people think are OK. That experience is not unique to you, but is shared by everyone. In the wider society, one person’s moral views, not even yours, are not and should not be automatically privileged above others’ views.

The debate on evolution in the classroom needs to be a debate about spiritual values in the classroom.

Which spirituality? Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, New Age, humanist? Catholic, Orthodox, Episcopalian, Baptist, Fundamentalist, Seventh Day Adventist, Mormon? Sure, kids should be taught ethics and morals. That, however, is not a matter for a science class.

If this were done, I’d have no problem at all with teaching the theory of evolution in the classroom. As it is with no religion, no God in the classroom, not so much as a prayer, I have a great problem with the theory of evolution being taught by secular people who sneer at faith to children with impressionable minds.

And I have a great problem with fairy tales being taught as absolutist facts to children with impressionable minds, by some religious people who sneer at anyone who doesn’t share their particular brand of religion.

By all means teach ethics and morals in school, but keep all religion out of science class and don’t try to push any one particular brand of religion down my kids’ throats.

Facts do not exist in a vaccuum and pretending that they do does a disservice to all our souls.

Science facts do exist in a religious vacuum, because science transcends all religions, nations, societies, races, politics and genders. It’s about the only human pursuit that does.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[PhilVaz]

No more evolution threads for 2006.

The Catholic Church teaches evolution is satanic and all scientists are satanists.
AND
The Catholic Church teaches evolution is wonderful are all scientists are brilliant.

BOTH are true. That covers all the bases in our 4.5 billion threads and 13.7 billion posts on the topic. :whacky:

Phil P

 

[Ahimsa]

PhilVaz:

No more evolution threads for 2006.

The Catholic Church teaches evolution is satanic and all scientists are satanists.
AND
The Catholic Church teaches evolution is wonderful are all scientists are brilliant.

BOTH are true. That covers all the bases in our 4.5 billion threads and 13.7 billion posts on the topic. :whacky:

Phil P

Phil,

In 4000 years, future archaeologists will read your posts and find hidden, secret messages about the age of the earth (4.5 by; cf. 4.5 billion threads) and the age of the universe (14 by; cf. 13.7 billion posts).

 

[PhilVaz]

<< In 4000 years, future archaeologists will read your posts and find hidden, secret messages about the age of the earth >>

Ah ha you noticed. However by that time the age of the earth will be p(name removed by moderator)ointed to approx 4.55728953217321932791 Ga and universe at 13.7321757329673219 Ga. We only have bare approximations going so far.

Phil P

 

[hecd2]

PhilVaz:

No more evolution threads for 2006.

The Catholic Church teaches evolution is satanic and all scientists are satanists.
AND
The Catholic Church teaches evolution is wonderful are all scientists are brilliant.

BOTH are true. That covers all the bases in our 4.5 billion threads and 13.7 billion posts on the topic. :whacky:

Phil P

Phil, I think you’re exaggerating wildly. That’s probably because you are trying to work it out for yourself instead of listening to the forum moderator.

I don’t think more than 6,000 threads have been created on challenges to conventional science of which the flood of threads on evolution doesn’t amount to more than about 4,500.

Maybe that’s because only 666 professional scientists are members of the forum.

Alec

 

[wildleafblower]

Why isn’t there a forum for science? Isn’t apologetics the branch of theology? Science isn’t theology. I’m confused.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

hecd2:

I don’t know of many serious scientists, whether religious, agnostic or atheist, who think that the use of science and technology should be determined solely by scientists and not be subject to the rules and oversight of society.

However, you should realise that your particular absolutist morality is shared neither by society in general nor by every person of good will and good conscience, nor even by every spiritual person. It is perfectly possible for society to have excellent mechanisms for managing ethical standards in technology, and still to allow things that you think are immoral, but other, equally sincere religious or secular people think are OK. That experience is not unique to you, but is shared by everyone. In the wider society, one person’s moral views, not even yours, are not and should not be automatically privileged above others’ views.

Which spirituality? Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, New Age, humanist? Catholic, Orthodox, Episcopalian, Baptist, Fundamentalist, Seventh Day Adventist, Mormon? Sure, kids should be taught ethics and morals. That, however, is not a matter for a science class.

And I have a great problem with fairy tales being taught as absolutist facts to children with impressionable minds, by some religious people who sneer at anyone who doesn’t share their particular brand of religion.

By all means teach ethics and morals in school, but keep all religion out of science class and don’t try to push any one particular brand of religion down my kids’ throats.

Science facts do exist in a religious vacuum, because science transcends all religions, nations, societies, races, politics and genders. It’s about the only human pursuit that does.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Science does not transcend (rise above) religion. To think that puts a considerable gap in our communication.

BTW, You attack me personally and assume that I am trying to impose my values. It’s not my moral absolutism, it is the moral absolutism shared by about a billion other people if we are talking about the Way the Truth and the Life, evangelized by the Catholic church.

My point is that there is an inherent danger in man’s fallen nature when interpreting scientific laws. More prudence should be directed to HOW we teach these interpretations to children concerning the sacred dignity of human life and the history of how evolution has been used.

Currently we are teaching children that they are intelligent animals that need condoms to contain their sex drive. Those mechanisms are not working.

/finis

edited to try and rip out my bitterness :b

 

[Melchior]

Theisitic evolution is the new syncretism.

Christians need to stop being embarrased by the faith of their fathers. What happens when “Science” “proves” the unborn is a simple organism not different than a tadpole in until 36 week gestation?

Something that creates more questions than it answers is not hard science. Such is macro-evolution.

Mel

 

[Orogeny]

Melchior:

Christians need to stop being embarrased by the faith of their fathers.

I am not even slightly embarassed by the faith of our fathers. I am proud of their faith as well as my faith. That has nothing to do with science.

What happens when “Science” “proves” the unborn is a simple organism not different than a tadpole in until 36 week gestation?

Won’t happen.

Something that creates more questions than it answers is not hard science. Such is macro-evolution.

You are making a very large assumption that the theory of evolution creates more questions than it answers for everyone because that is true for you. I would suggest that that is not true for scientists.

Peace

Tim

 

[hecd2]

Orogeny:

Melchior:

Something that creates more questions than it answers is not hard science. Such is macro-evolution.

You are making a very large assumption that the theory of evolution creates more questions than it answers for everyone because that is true for you. I would suggest that that is not true for scientists.

Peace

Tim

Actually, Tim, most good science creates more questions than it answers. Scientists are not afraid of uncertainty and questions - these are the life blood of science. I am reminded of the words of perhaps the greatest scientist ever, whose science was about as ‘hard’ as it ever comes:

‘I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me’

That is the true spirit of science, and the foundation of its efficacy in uncovering truths in the natural world.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

MichaelTDoyle:

Science does not transcend (rise above) religion. To think that puts a considerable gap in our communication.

One person’s religion is another person’s fairy tale. One person’s religion is another person’s heresy. Good scientists can be of any or no religious persuasion and agree on the science. In that sense, science does transcend religion.

BTW, You attack me personally and assume that I am trying to impose my values.

Oh no - it’s not a personal attack, Michael. It’s not an attack at all. I am simply responding to what *you *said. Do you always interpret any disagreement with your opinions as a personal attack? And the fact is that you *are *wanting to impose your values, not just on your kids, but on mine and everyone else’s.

It’s not my moral absolutism, it is the moral absolutism shared by about a billion other people if we are talking about the Way the Truth and the Life, evangelized by the Catholic church.

I don’t think so - it’s unbelievably naive to think that the billion notional Catholics in the world think as you do. But even if we assume for the sake of argument the incredible idea that there are a billion catholics who accept every teaching of the church, that still leaves at least five billion people who don’t. In our societies (I am a Brit and I’m assuming you’re an American) the nominal Catholic adherents are in a minority (25% in your case, 10% in my case). There are fewer Catholics than Muslims in the world. There are almost as many Hindus. Moral absolutism is fine in a closed community but has no place in wider society.

My point is that there is an inherent danger in man’s fallen nature when interpreting scientific laws. More prudence should be directed to HOW we teach these interpretations to children concerning the sacred dignity of human life and the history of how evolution has been used.

We agree! Children *should *be taught that common misconceptions of evolutionary thinking have been misused to justify eugenics and genocide (but not as much as genetics has been. Interestingly, I don’t see genetics being subjected to the same scrutiny and opposition as evolution - and I think I know why that is). Children should be taught that the fact that humans are a species of ape does not undermine their human dignity, and that they owe respect, love and care to their fellow-humans. They should be taught about the importance of co-operation in society and how the evolution of co-operation is the origin of virtue.

Currently we are teaching children that they are intelligent animals that need condoms to contain their sex drive. Those mechanisms are not working.

People *are *intelligent animals. That’s what we are. We might be much more than that but to minimise the fact that we are great apes, primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, chordates, and metazoans is to miss a very important point about us.

What mechanisms are not working? Condoms work well to prevent unwanted pregnancies and very well as a prophylactic against STDs. The church’s teaching on condoms is, in my view, misguided, immoral, uncharitable and plain wrong. The church’s opposition to condoms is historically recent in spite of being presented, disingenuously to the faithful, as though it were some long standing absolute moral truth, and is, in my opinion, based on a deeply disordered view of human sexuality.

edited to try and rip out my bitterness :b

Don’t be bitter. There will always be those who disagree with you, who are good people and who might well be right.Try to embrace a modicum of doubt. History is full of those who are as certain as you are that your views are anathema. And try to accept that there might be decent people who do not share your catholic outlook…

Alec
evolutionpages.com