Non-denominational Christians

  • Thread starter Thread starter jack_hawkins
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Carol Coombe;2092476:
I have explained it is not a question of chastity - read my lips.
We are reading yours and with all respect, maybe you should be listening to ours.

Iowa Mike:)

So far your lips have told me nothing but the depth of your lack of knowledge about this global pandemic, and that you are quite willing for people - women and children in particular - in order to sustain the belief of the Church with regard to procreation and conjugal rights, which are not at issue when it comes to HIV infection rates and mortality rates.

If you could give me some idea of what to do to save lives - beyond the ABC code that is very useful and promoted by the Church (especially the A) - that would be very helpful to all of us in the international community who are in despair about how to prevent the dying.
 
AMEN, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Communities that emphasize chastity are winning the battle against AIDS - and not only AIDS but every other sexually transmitted disease, and they are seeing reductions in the numbers of divorces, meaning more fathers at home to help raise and guide their kids, and fewer sons joining gangs, etc, and fewer daughters getting involved in prostitution.
I agree absolutely: condoms are only part of a long-range, comprehensive, local, national and international challenge to AIDS. Right on!
 
This is an unforced error, as we would say in sport. Life is not evil; giving life is not evil; saving life is not evil. None of these can be used to justify evil. Gospel imperative may be causing people to die or, to put it more strongly, killing them.

What do you suggest as an alternative? I would be glad to know.
You know the saying: a good end is never justified by an evil means. Desiring an end to a terrible disease is great, but it cannot be achieved by any means. We are rational and moral beings. We accept the moral law exists for our own good and we love God. We do not show love by disregarding His law.

Are you asking how to combat this probelm? Through authentic medical remedies that do not violate man’s dignity, through legitimate public health measures, through preaching the Gospel in season and out.
 
Read. I did not say that they could not be educated about chastity. I did not say anything about the church being ineffective as a teacher, except that it is silent - in our church - on HIV which is intimately bound up with chastity, as you have recognised.

And in fact I informed you as humbly as I could that chastity is a big issue for traditional communities, and has been for centuries; that there are customary harsh sanctions against out of marriage sex; that there are other recommended forms of sex apart from full intercourse; that the King of Swaziland has an annual test of virginity for all girls in their teens in his country; that there are many grannies still living who can talk about this with their granddaughters - mothers are no allowed to.

There is however, in my own RCC church, no teaching about HIV for the catechism classes, although I know that chastity is a big issue. OK?
Well, then, instead of pushing for condoms, why not build upon the traditional cultural teachings? Make the men proud to be chaste African men, instead of just assuming they can’t control themselves and handing out condoms.

If the churches and schools are lacking in education in these areas, then the next step is not to give up and start handing out condoms - it’s to find out what you can do to help get chastity education going.

Even in Canada, it’s a tricky issue, especially with younger children, because this is an area where parents like to be in control of what their children learn, and there is also the danger of creating the opposite effect from what one intends - where the “don’t do” list, if it’s too explicit, becomes a “how to” manual. But you don’t want to be so vague that the children think kissing is going to get them pregnant. So, it’s a delicate area, and nobody does it perfectly, I’m sure. But adding condoms to the equation just adds even more confusion.

If you are as powerful as you claim, you could bring in a team of educators and start up your own school, where things like this can be taught. As long as they weren’t teaching about condoms or handing out condoms -as long as they stick to the teachings of the Church and support the traditional culture of the people as far as possible, I’d even support it financially.
 
Carol Coombe;2092476:
I have explained it is not a question of chastity - read my lips.
We are reading yours and with all respect, maybe you should be listening to ours.

Iowa Mike:)

I am still waiting for you to tell me your answer to my humble question about why the sight of 2 million South Africans dying is antithetical to your interpretation of the Catholic faith. It was a very confusing response to death on a mass scale.
 
They can plead. Men are wearing condoms more often. There is a women’s condom.
You have got to be kidding! They can plead? If “NO! I WANT TO LEAVE DON"T DO THIS!!!” isn’t working, “Pretty please use a condom” isn’t going to work either. Have you ever been raped? Maybe you aren’t clear on what exactly rape entails.
 
Your solution to the problem is a condom? That is the panecea? Your own words refute your argument. I see nothing in your post that would change things for the better, in fact, the condom would only increase and further cheapen life. Thanks for reinforcing my understanding of the situation.
And further to my previous note to you, providing further information and sources of information, I did not suggest in any way that the condom is an entire solution - it is part of a solution.

I certainly did not suggest that the condom is a panacaea: this would be a ridiculous conclusion, no?
 
The peasants of Europe lived in a situation very similar to the situation in Africa until the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Then it got worse. It only began to be better relatively recently, say for the past 100 years. And that’s only in Western Europe.

The Church ministered to Europe through the Black Plague. A disease which, proportionally speaking, killed more of the population of Europe than AIDS has of Africa.

The Church knows how to minister to the poor and to people who live in poverty. She knows how to minister to populations being decimated from disease. She knows the reality because She has lived it before. Her teachings have stood the test of time. They shepherded Europe through all these years, and they can shepherd Africa.

I am amazed that you bought condoms for your children. Did you encourage them to be sexually active?
You might like to read Plagues and Peoples, written in 1979 (I can give you the reference) and/or Barbara Tuchman’s truly excellent *A Distance Mirror: Europe in the Fourteenth Century. *They shed precious light on the Black Death (bubonic plague), which broke not only once but many times over a number of centuries.

Tuchman’s book is a considered reflection on the 20th century, and its bouleversee society, including the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 which wiped out at least 20 million people (the same number as there were Russians killed in WWII).

Yes, we are sure that the Church has cared for Her flock over 2000 years - better than any other organisation during all those centuries. However, we also know that while Christ said Feed my sheep, he was first and foremost a healer. His mission was a healing one; he raised people from the dead; he passed his healing power to his apostles.

Now it seems to me possible to infer (sorry RCC) that Christ would have wanted someone to take the initiative within the Church, not just to care for those who have been traumatised, injured, orphaned, starved, frozen, crippled, but to prevent these things from happening in the first place.

That is what we can do wth HIV, and it is what we can do with poverty, lack of education, disease and alienation. We can prevent things happening before they happen. The Church can take the initiative, and has done so in many instances. Prevent bad things from happening to people, instead of just hoping to care for them after something bad has happened.

Of course I did not encourage my beautiful sons to be sexually active. But I was a reasonably good mother, supported by a fabulous husband and my two beautiful sons. I stayed in eye contact with the boys; I loved them unconditionally; I knew the reality of life out there, which is very different from the life I grew up in, in Toronto, where they now live. And I recognised that, whatever my preferences, my sons would make their own decisions. The Jesuits say: give me a child until he is seven. Meaning that what you teach when they are young, sticks. And so my sons were not sexually active until after university, which is reasonable in today’s world. (I was a virgin when I married at 23.)

I trusted my sons because we were always able to confide in one another, because both their mother and father and others in the family tried to set appropriate examples for them, and because they could trust us. And we talked all the time, all the time.

All I could do, all I wanted to do, was to make sure that their precious lives were safe as I could possibly make them. I reiterated over and over again that if they died, they would not know. They would be in heaven, and I would be wandering around on earth, desolate, inconsolable, because I had lost one or other of them. I would be the one to suffer. And so they heard, and stayed safe - sex, driving, boating, skiing, flying, whatever.
 
Prevent bad things from happening to people, instead of just hoping to care for them after something bad has happened.
Teaching the people to be chaste (which means no sex outside of lawful marriage, and faithful sex within marriage) would end the AIDS epidemic once and for all right now.

If everyone on earth were to practice chastity as it is taught by the Catholic Church, within 20 years, AIDS would be nothing but a memory. Within a generation, all sexually transmitted diseases would be gone.
 
Teaching the people to be chaste (which means no sex outside of lawful marriage, and faithful sex within marriage) would end the AIDS epidemic once and for all right now.

If everyone on earth were to practice chastity as it is taught by the Catholic Church, within 20 years, AIDS would be nothing but a memory. Within a generation, all sexually transmitted diseases would be gone.
Even nature herself cries out against being unfaithful to the law of her creator. More proof that nature’s law and God’s law cannot contradict one another;)
 
Yes, there is terrible suffering everywhere. India, just on HIV, has more people infected in absolute terms than any other country. China has 15 million people infected in Yenan Province alone - because of the use of dirty blood donor equipment (nothing to do with sex at all). There is suffering of all kinds out there. What are you doing about it?

Can you accept the idea that the RCC is not monolithic? That it often, not disregarding the Magisterium and the encyclicals etc, takes carefully considered decisions that are appropriate to context, environment, culture etc. It is sort of like a school in Zimbabwe, which I visited, which insisted that all children wear shoes to school - when the cost of a pair of shoes was more than the annual income of the family. So children were excluded from school - which was against government principles and legislation. The answer of course was not to insist on the wearing of shoes. What to do?

You can I think recognise that contextual decisions are not rare.

If we still have the church we had 2000 years ago, I would be very surprised. It has changed - however slowly - before, and it will change again. Change or die.

Euthanasia and abortion are not on my spiritual agenda - what is left of it - for the moment. I am inclined not to favour either, but have not come to a decision yet. OK for now?
Carol,

Be aware that the Church is indeed monolilthic if you consider that Church doctrines, teachings and traditions have remained essentially unchanged for the past 2000 years. I gave you the CCC language on contraception…it leaves no wiggle room. This is RCC teaching…worldwide. We should be discussing the value of life, not its prevention.

Church doctrine and teachings are not changing but there are many Catholic dissident groups that would like you to believe differently and are pushing the Church to reform and allow contraception, women priests, divorce, abortion, euthansia, ending celebancy and on and on. These dissident groups want the Church to reform in recognition of the secular society and pop culture . Since the Church has resisted these kind of pressures for over 2000 years, I wouldn’t bet on changes anytime soon…

By the way, one dauther-in-law was born in Zimbabwe and another in Iran.

I intend to walk the straight path laid out by Jesus in the RCC, freewill allows others to make a different choice.

Iowa Mike:)
 
You might like to read Plagues and Peoples, written in 1979 (I can give you the reference) and/or Barbara Tuchman’s truly excellent *A Distance Mirror: Europe in the Fourteenth Century. *They shed precious light on the Black Death (bubonic plague), which broke not only once but many times over a number of centuries.

Tuchman’s book is a considered reflection on the 20th century, and its bouleversee society, including the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 which wiped out at least 20 million people (the same number as there were Russians killed in WWII).

Yes, we are sure that the Church has cared for Her flock over 2000 years - better than any other organisation during all those centuries. However, we also know that while Christ said Feed my sheep, he was first and foremost a healer. His mission was a healing one; he raised people from the dead; he passed his healing power to his apostles.

Now it seems to me possible to infer (sorry RCC) that Christ would have wanted someone to take the initiative within the Church, not just to care for those who have been traumatised, injured, orphaned, starved, frozen, crippled, but to prevent these things from happening in the first place.

That is what we can do wth HIV, and it is what we can do with poverty, lack of education, disease and alienation. We can prevent things happening before they happen. The Church can take the initiative, and has done so in many instances. Prevent bad things from happening to people, instead of just hoping to care for them after something bad has happened.

Of course I did not encourage my beautiful sons to be sexually active. But I was a reasonably good mother, supported by a fabulous husband and my two beautiful sons. I stayed in eye contact with the boys; I loved them unconditionally; I knew the reality of life out there, which is very different from the life I grew up in, in Toronto, where they now live. And I recognised that, whatever my preferences, my sons would make their own decisions. The Jesuits say: give me a child until he is seven. Meaning that what you teach when they are young, sticks. And so my sons were not sexually active until after university, which is reasonable in today’s world. (I was a virgin when I married at 23.)

I trusted my sons because we were always able to confide in one another, because both their mother and father and others in the family tried to set appropriate examples for them, and because they could trust us. And we talked all the time, all the time.

All I could do, all I wanted to do, was to make sure that their precious lives were safe as I could possibly make them. I reiterated over and over again that if they died, they would not know. They would be in heaven, and I would be wandering around on earth, desolate, inconsolable, because I had lost one or other of them. I would be the one to suffer. And so they heard, and stayed safe - sex, driving, boating, skiing, flying, whatever.
I think that the Church is doing its bit to prevent people from contracting disease by teaching abstinence and proclaiming love for God, ourselves and our fellows. The Golden Rule is the prevention for so many of the ills you have mentioned.

Why do you not think that it is reasonable to expect a person to remain a virgin until marriage in today’s world?
 
About JH and my PM to him, Jack PM’d me and I responded. He decided to post it, and that’s fine with me. I said something similar here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1993291&postcount=75
He said he was unemployed. I was just restating that fact. I didn’t intend to pass judgment on him. However, inappropriate you thought I was, your response to me was much more viscious than mine.

As far as condom use, teaching against artificial birth control (including condoms) is not based simply on “an arcane interpretation of Scripture” as you say. This is a long-standing teaching of all Christianity. Until the 1930’s, all Christians stood with the CC on this issue. Now the CC stands alone. Yet there are very sound reasons for this Church teaching. If anyone is interested in the reasons behind the Church’s teaching, he/she can read Janet Smith’s article “Contraception, Why Not?” or Pope JP II’s encyclicals Veritatis Splendor or Evangelion Vitae or his book Theology of the Body. Also Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae. Once again, it’s not my teaching, I’m not making this stuff up. This is the official teaching of the CC.

I realize you see immense suffering in Africa, but the Church is right about what it teaches, so I could never go along with anyone who decided something contrary no matter how honorable their intentions. Mother Teresa would not have handed out condoms–no doubt about that. She did, however, teach the people in Calcutta about NFP, so I don’t think you are entirely correct when you claim “sexual activities were far from their mind.” Mother Teresa just realized what most Catholics realize–to go against the CC is the same as going against Christ Himself.

I know that PopePope Benedict XVI has asked a commission of scientific and theological experts to prepare a document on condom use and AIDS prevention. I don’t believe this report has come out yet, but I doubt the long-standing teaching of the CC will change. This article is from April 2006:
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0602330.htm

Another point, there is only one CC. Jesus Christ is our head, and Pope Benedict XVI is the only Vicar of Christ (servant of the servant of God) that I know of. The CC certainly has studied and pondered the issue of artificial birth control in its 2000 year existence. I trust the CC infinitely more than popular opinion. And, BTW, I am a health care professional too.
You have spoken clearly and professionally and I am grateful for that. Thank you.

But you have also spoken about religious issues which complicate any consideration of health issues.

I do not accept that it would be Christ’s intention that milions of people should die unnecessarily - that is without using every tool at our disposal - whatever the Church and the Pope have said. I apologise for the offence I know this gives many Catholics, but not all.

Christ could not foresee many of the things that have happened to the world since his resurrection. He could not have known about global warming, or the pandemics which threaten to overwhelm us now. We can hope that his fundamental theses provide sufficient guidance whereby we can challenge these dangers to our existence. That means, of course, that his theses must be interpreted and understood by men - with however much divine inspiration. While I do not suggest that reinterpretation of an original interpretation is a good idea, you and I know that it is not impossible, regardless of the yoke of infallibility which does not apply in this case.

I have said elsewhere that all great religions must grow and adjust within changing contexts, or else they die. I believe this to be true. History shows it to be true. The Church will have to make a choice here, and her adherents as well.

We know that the commission was set up because of dissension within the church over John Paul II’s beliefs on HIV prevention, inter alia, and I suggest perhaps, given the information you have provided, that we await the outcome of the Vatican’s clearly quite problematic and convoluted considerations.
 
There’s plenty of Biblical precedents for rebuking people in public before the congregation, esp when their sins have been public
Yes, but that is different. We don’t all claim to be part of a “congregation” here. If we believed we were members “one of another” then I think we might treat each other better! Public rebuke is a privilege, as well as a responsibility, and the right to do it must be earned by trust. There is a lot of that lacking here.
I don’t remember saying that but I’ll take your word for it. Surely the answer to your conundrum is obvious, and doesn’t involve any duplicity on my part whatsoever?
Why people should speculate thus on a Christian forum baffles me.
As was stated, it is a personal matter, and speculation around it is non-productive. Ultimately, it does not matter if you, under your screen name here, espouse teachings that are contrary to the Church. I have done it myself, for the sake of discussion. It is up to you, God, and your RCIA team/pastor.
 
I do not accept that it would be Christ’s intention that milions of people should die unnecessarily - that is without using every tool at our disposal - whatever the Church and the Pope have said. I apologise for the offence I know this gives many Catholics, but not all.
No one thinks it is God’s will for people to die. Condoms won’t save lives. Once the condom is being used, someone already has AIDS. The horse we were trying to tame is already gone. Chastity saves everyone’s lives.
Christ could not foresee many of the things that have happened to the world since his resurrection.
Do you not believe that Christ is God, then? For Christ, all times are the same time, because He is from Eternity - He is the Alpha and the Omega; the beginning and the end.

Christ’s teachings are for all people, in all places and at all times.
 
The idea that the way to treat the horrendous ills in Africa is by ‘condoms’ is a very, very ‘secular’ view…And what you’re proposing is to help, not the victims, but the oppressors. I don’t agree, but I shall keep reading!

Condoms do not always work. And that is a fact. They work most of the time.

And so long as you are not treating the root causes for the disease itself, and thinking that you can provide ‘band-aids’ with something that might be effective for this person this day, all you are doing is reinforcing the conditions that led to this disease in the first place. I agree with you. We are not yet getting to the root causes of the problem. We tried to do that 1983-1997, in the international development community - sort of.

Agencies, including the UN, assumed that if all teachers told their students about sex and HIV, all would be well. But African adults do not talk to children - even their own - about sex. They are still not teaching about HIV; they do not have textbooks in many countries; they are embarrassed about it all; and they too are being infected through their own ignorance - over 20,000 teachers in one province SA province.

Other ways were tried to change the behaviour of men, school girls, school boys, children from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. No one long-term solution that could be applied; whatever might change people’s sexual behaviour would take at least 15 years to take hold, by which time more millions would be infected, to die within 8-10 years of infection.

Some of us felt that there could be immediate measures to stop infection now - while planning longer-term national and international behaviour change programmes - in cooperation with community and faith-based organisations.

And there are two short (2 pagers) papers on the long-term (behaviour change) and short-term (immediate, crisis control) measures that can and are being undertaken or considered. I can let you have them.

[Let me leave Roe and the appalling case of abortions in Eastern Europe and China for example, for now.]

Africa has some appalling problems now–what will it be when the already disordered sexual CRIMES there are stimulated by the ‘legitimization’ of that sexual behavior The roots of sexual dysfunction are being addressed - by pretty well everyone. But most countries in Africa are totally impoverished.

South Africa is an exception, but it has not only one of the highest rates of economic growth in the world, it also has the worst HIV problem. Why? In the case of SA, we have something like an archaeological dig. At the bottom we have traditional or customary society; on top of that we have customary beliefs and practices, not all of which we would regard as positive, but many of which might have potential to create the kind of behaviour change we need; on top of that we have the total screw-up of the racist apartheid years, when husbands were confined in single men’s hostels around the gold and diamond mines, and saw their wives and families, banished to rural areas, once a year; on top of that we have the struggle for democracy and freedom; on top of that we have the aftermath of 50 years of apartheid to deal with, following the Mandela election in 1994 - people had more hope, more ambition, more material demands that could not always be met; and on top of that continuing rural destitution and urban degradation for the impoverished (still 60 per cent of our population, in a country with the highest Gini coefficient in the world ie the largest disparity between highest and lowest incomes). The icing on the cake is HIV. Where did it come from, I mean why is it rampant here? Partly because men think they are right to be polygamous. But mostly because African society has been so totally and resoundingly degraded, desensitised, and socially amoral in some cases (I mean, what would you believe in?), it is virtually impossible to choose which behaviour to change.

It’s not as if we haven’t seen what the condom (protection) mentality has done already. . .we have.
I have made the point elsewhere that the condom is only one tool in the toolbox. It is a highly useful tool, and should be used. There is no reason why it should not be used, and no it does not encourage people to have more sex than they would otherwise have had. It can save lives, but it is really efficient as part of a safety programme now, and a long-term prevention and behaviour change programme later.
 
I am not condemning anyone to death. If a person has HIV, he or she needs medicine to control the amount of virus in his/her bloodstream, which should be made available to anyone who is infected, even if he/she is poor; and persons who are infected need to be educated about chastity to prevent further spread. Chastity is the only 100% effective method to prevent this disease.
I agree that abstaining from sex is the best way to prevent infection, and the only guaranteed way (although others are infected by dirty needles, lack of proper sterlisation of hospital equipment, needle pricks, etc). But people are not made to be 100 per cent chaste. In Africa, men expect not to be chaste - at least the older generations. And if they are not naturally, or by education, chaste, then how does one change the behaviour of millions upon millions of people to make them chaste?

Drugs are being made available in very limited quantities, usually not by governments (I am speaking for Africa) but by international agencies, or under the aegis of international agencies

Uneducated, illiterate Africans (and others) must take the same drug at the same time each day, for a lifetime.

With impoverishment and lack of adequate nourishment, the ARV regime is not likely to extend the life of a person infected by HIV by more than two years at the most: people simply do not have enough food of the right kind, in countries (like Zimbabwe) where thousands are already dying of starvation brought on by drought.

The nearest clinic may be 40 miles away; it probably does not have electricity or refrigeration facilities, or testing facilities, or counselling personnel, and it may not even have the required drugs.

If the drug regimes change, provision must be made to secure and remove older drugs - which are likely otherwise to move onto the black market with dire implications for mutation of the prion (virus particle) that is HIV.

Women who are given the drug are likely to share it with a husband, father or child - that is customary - and this would kill the sharers
etc etc
 
When I was raped I wasn’t given an option to ask for a condom. I doubt offering one is a common practice.
I am truly sorry for your trouble, which clearly gives you special insights. I agree, getting a condom into use in case of rape is not possible for the most part. But that does not undo the fundamental proposition. We cannot be perfect in application, but if we can reduce the infection rates, we can save lives of more people rather than fewer.

More and more people are offering and using condoms. Many women carry them in their handbags as a matter of course. Prostitutes for the most part insist on using condoms - unless they want extra cash for not doing so.
 
Actually, the Forum is about learning the teachings of the Catholic faith. We ask questions about what we don’t know yet, and we share information about what we already do know. But it is not a place for saying that the Church is wrong about something, or for requiring the Church to follow one’s own personal dictates, rather than its own teachings and traditions - or for trying to make the Church over into one’s own image. It’s what Mother Mary did when she said, “How is this to be, since I know no man?” She was not challenging or attacking the Angel; she was seeking information. When she received the information, she didn’t argue, or get up on a soap box to declare pontificately that a virgin birth is physically impossible, or whine and cry about what her parents and fiance would most likely think of this idea - no, not at all. She said, “Be it done unto me according to thy word.” We, too, are to take the humble attitude of Mary. A commandment of Jesus Christ to His followers.

Are you drawing a parallel between yourself and Mary?

What would be so wrong with a “quester” being humble, gracious, and accepting? I have explained once: briefly because questers question; acute questers accept nothing on the face of it - they explore, seek definitions, query assumptions, in an attempt to get at the real truth. There is no reason to assume that any answer is the only right answer. If that were true, we would still assume that the world is flat, and that global warming is not happening to us.

Gracious - yes I could be more gracious, as long as it were reciprocated.

How does one who seeks understanding hope to actually gain understanding, without being humble, gracious, and accepting?
By being smart and querulous.

I have done my best. Now please leave me alone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top