Non-denominational Christians

[contramundum7]

Here’s some more Chesterton:
Why I Am A Catholic

chesterton.org/gkc/theologian/whycatholic.htm

Nine out of ten of what we call new ideas are simply old mistakes. The Catholic Church has for one of her chief duties that of preventing people from making those old mistakes; from making them over and over again forever, as people always do if they are left to themselves. The truth about the Catholic attitude towards heresy, or as some would say, towards liberty, can best be expressed perhaps by the metaphor of a map. The Catholic Church carries a sort of map of the mind which looks like the map of a maze, but which is in fact a guide to the maze. It has been compiled from knowledge which, even considered as human knowledge, is quite without any human parallel.

There is no other case of one continuous intelligent institution that has been thinking about thinking for two thousand years. Its experience naturally covers nearly all experiences; and especially
nearly all errors. The result is a map in which all the blind alleys and bad roads are clearly marked, all the ways that have been shown to be worthless by the best of all evidence: the evidence of those who have gone down them.

On this map of the mind the errors are marked as exceptions. The greater part of it consists of playgrounds and happy hunting-fields, where the mind may have as much liberty as it likes; not to mention any number of intellectual battle-fields in which the battle is indefinitely open and undecided. But it does definitely take the responsibility of marking certain roads as leading nowhere or leading to destruction, to a blank wall, or a sheer precipice. By this means, it does prevent men from wasting their time or losing their lives upon paths that have been found futile or disastrous again and again in the past, but which might otherwise entrap travelers again and again in the future. The Church does make herself responsible for warning her people against these; and upon these the real issue of the case depends. She does dogmatically defend humanity from its worst foes, those hoary and horrible and devouring monsters of the old mistakes. Now all these false issues have a way of looking quite fresh, especially to a fresh generation.

Very interesting to read t his… thanks…

 

[guanophore]

Exactly. This thread is very much like the abortion folks who claim it should be safe, legal, and rare. I always think why? Why should it be rare if it is morally acceptable? It should happen all the time no one should have any concern at all. If it were really murder then it would never be ok to be safe, legal, or rare.

Similarly with condom use if it is morally good and medically safe why should it be a second best to abstaining? We should not even bother with talking about abstaining. It would be great to just say use a condom it is always acceptable.

The moral reasoning is flawed.

Indeed, as a saint of our own day has said “It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”

quotedb.com/quotes/307

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Carol: Posters have returned again and again to what the Church says, and their understanding of it. There has been virtually no discussion of the pandemic, and its global and humanitarian implications for us as Christians, except in terms of condoms and all that involves. *
Guanophore: It may be impossible, for people of faith, to have discussion about anything of value apart from that foundation. Carol: I am a person of faith: for me it is not the teachings of the church, its interpretation of scripture, its rites and practices for discusson, but the value of each human life and our responsibility for it.
C: Who is prepared to die for humanity, as Christ did? Or must we wait for instruction? Must we look to our own souls first, and then the lives and souls of others?*
G: Our task is to make humanity aware of the value of His death… Jesus is concerned about our eternal life, not our temporal life. He does not want people to die in sin… C: Let us emphasise the responsibilities that Christ gave to each of us as Christians, not just to preach salvation, but to support life here and now, so that each person – chosen by God, equally divine, already saved – can live a life of value.
G: I am speculating this belief comes from a culture very different than mine. C: We have not paid attention to differences within RCC, within the universal church of Christ, and among different faiths globally. All are loved by God and serve his purposes.

C:* As I understand it, the Catholic Church is growing faster in Africa than anywhere else. But … despite the Vatican’s wishes and best efforts, local belief is developed locally…*
G: Is the concept of chastity found anywhere? C: Of course! It is a strong traditional custom (see elsewhere), and continues to be in many areas not skewed by apartheid, poverty, rural degradation and urban deculturation. It is important too, to realise that chastity is not a stand-alone but is connected with other cultural values, economic impoverishment, and education.
C: We know from experience that kids get pretty drunk after two beers. Answer: remove all liquor outlets from all campuses. …Schools are rife with drugs, because of the greed of the dealers, and schools are dangerous places to be for many students. Where do we go from here? My mind boggles.

G: Faith in Christ is the best cure. It is not effective to contrive the environment to control behaviour. By that I don’t mean to say that steps like the one you have outlined should not be taken, just that they are only “half measures” that will not address the ultimate source of wrongdoing, which is in the human heart. C: I agree with you fully. One of the best HIV programmes I saw in Botswana was based on learning civil and personal values. Further, although I did not focus on it, there is a significant Christian student body in South Africa, a strongly Christian country: 6,000 African Christian religious sects, and 600 white or coloured Christian religious sects, apart from the large mainline denominations. Temptation lives with religious belief – the devil and Christ, no? Responses to HIV, to crime, to poverty, to inequality: all are complex mixtures of fast humanitarian relief and long-term behaviour change.

---

"πάντα δὲ δοκιμάζετε τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε " 1 Thess 5:21

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Faithful monogamous parents are not likely to have HIV.

Aren’t men supposed to be just as responsible for being chaste as women are?

Nobody in this thread has done that. Nobody has said that it is a sin to have HIV. But it is a sin to use a condom.

A person with HIV needs to take responsibility not only for his or her own physical, mental and moral health, but also for the health of those around him or her.

Part of this responsibility includes abstaining from sex. Sex is not a necessity of life. No one with HIV will ever die from lack of sex.

A list of ‘shoulds’ does not solve a problem. It is only by looking at and accepting the reality of human behaviour, poverty and child crisis and planning for the **real **situation in various contexts - whether in Africa, India or China, three very different cultures - that we can overcome human degradation.

If you think that people should do this, and should do that, then come and advise how you would lead them to the conclusion that they should. Many are working on it; it is a lifework.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Why are you all going on about the effectiveness of condoms…or any other artificial contraceptive?

Isn’t the moral implications of using any artificial contraceptive method outside of natural planning more to the point of the discussion?

Catholics object to the use of aritificial contraception on a moral grounds…others believe it is OK, so the effectiveness of any particular method is a side issue.

Where am I wrong?

Iowa Mike

You are wrong because it is a principal of RCC that you put life before procreation if a choice has to be made. That means that if condoms save lives, it is arguable - and it is being argued within the hierarchy - they should be used.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

What’s a codswallop? Anyway, people can’t be embarrassed until they realize they are off the wall, or whatever, so people here can talk out of the end all day long (and do, I notice) where the sun don’t shine and don’t feel a bit of embarassment!

I would like to point out that, while this is a very interesting thread, it probably belongs over in moral theology, and has LONG SINCE gone off topic!

I hope you are not calling your fellow members the load of codswallops, because namecalling is not aloud here.

Now a codswallop might just sound like the place where a cod would keep his $, but in fact it just means rubbish.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

like your comments concerning the limitations of Christ and the morality of contraception etc,

I was not embarrased. I did apologise contritely my error regarding the limitations of Christ - an error not confined to me I think - and I do believe that under certain circumstances, contraception is moral, particularly when it will save a life, as is the case with HIV among other medical or psychological conditions.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

However, the use of condoms is immoral–the Church teaching is clear on this. As Catholics, we cannot condone the widespread promotion of condom use to combat the spread the HIV. It doesn’t matter that the intentions are good.

Why not? Just because? You are a medical professional: can you in really watch people die?

I have offered anyone who would like to see it, the paper prepared on the Catholic stance on use of condoms, where it will save a life, by a senior Jesuit. As I understand it, the Vatican comission is currently considering the matter.

We continue to discuss condom use because you and Jack continue to bring up the subject as you try to “enlighten” us Catholics.

I think I have pleaded with us to get off condoms and onto the real issues of life and death, poverty and degradation. Condoms are really not my thing. But Catholics need to talk about these things, and so the issue is raised again and again. I cannot enlighten you about condoms and Catholicism, because I am not knowledgeable about that. All I know is what I see and feel to be right in Christ’s name. I know that is not acceptable to those who may find it difficult to have sufficient faith in this matter.

The arguments you use (in defense of condom use) are framed the same way as those used to promote any number of morally illicit acts–abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and IVF. You are trying to promote it as a necessary way to relieve human suffering. But as Catholics, we do not look at it that way. A morally wrong act can never be justified no matter what the intention. The ends do not justify the means.

I promote condom use; I do not defend it. I want to save lives: we only get one. I don’t have views on abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, or IVF and Catholicism, so I cannot comment.

Saving life takes precedence over procreation. What is immoral about condoms if the church takes that position, as it does?

Please, what is immoral? Can we define it? Leaving someone to die because we believe they should have had a child instead? Is this immoral? Or amoral? Or moral?

I am particularly concerned that no one seems to want to make an individual decision based on the circumstances. I do not mean that we should do something truly foul; or that the end justifies the means. We are talking here about death.

I think you and Jack must be attracted to Catholicism on some level or you wouldn’t be here. I do think it is strange, though, how you are both so unsettled when you come to this Catholic forum and find Catholics **who actually do believe what the Church **teaches. What did you expect to find here?

I believe Jack joined the church at Easter, and I am doing my preparation with three spiritual directors. We are of course unsettled as we come from protestant backgrounds where individual congregants have a greater degree of autonomy about faith and practice. I must admit the issue of authority and RCC is a major stumbling block for me, as I have said elsewhere.

What I expected to find in RCC was a global congregation of Christians who would teach me how to be a Christian. I so much want to learn, and there is so much to be learned. But how can I learn if I am left with the concept that I must accept what I am told, humbly and graciously (and I quote from another poster)?

Further, I am not sure that when you say ‘we Catholics’, you are speaking for all Catholics globally. You are perhaps saying what you perceive to be the truth. But Iowa Mike might just believe slightly differently - and we do see disagreements among Catholics on the threads. Further I am aware that the RCC in Africa is different, more conservative in some ways, than the Church in USA.

I am finding it exceedingly helpful to read the Vatican’s small book (imprimature) on how to read the Bible. I was astonished at the degree of liberal and individual understanding that is permissable. It gave me renewed hope!

 

[jmcrae]

Why not? Just because? You are a medical professional: can you in really watch people die?

Why can’t people be celibate when they get HIV? Why should not having condoms mean that their loved ones also have to die?

If they really love them, can’t they forego one pleasure out of many? Is sex really all there is to life?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

U say people on this post have been rude, bickering, etc, etc… I have found some to be that way… but it is wrong to lump all Posters into this category. Or do you just read the negative sounding stuff??

Nah, I read everything I can. I just got into a huff because I was feeling like a target about two feet away from the arrow. I am not a lumper, generally, and actually quite a happy person. I would give you a hug if I could - unless you thought that was offensive. Anyway, have a smile, from me to you

Love from Carol and Jabulani (which in Xhosa means Rejoice and be exceeding glad!)

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Why can’t people be celibate when they get HIV? Why should not having condoms mean that their loved ones also have to die?
If they really love them, can’t they forego one pleasure out of many? Is sex really all there is to life?

People, like students, those in the 15-29 year old age group, really need condoms before they get HIV, and that’s the idea. Many are choosing to abstain, many are being faithful to one partner. BUT, there are a number of circumstances which I have pointed out, including boozing, where morals may go out the window (you see it in your own colleges) and then condoms can save a life.

Many people do seem to be celibate when they become HIV infected. It’s not a great way for a couple to live, but it’s OK. There are a couple of problems however. Men are traditionally taught that they have the right to sex on demand; women are taught to be relatively passive/submissive. So as behavioural roles continue, danger of infection rises. It is not even possible, as doctors tell us, for a woman to ask her husband to use a condom: she must pretend that she does not know that he is likely to be infected because of his sexual predilections, and she must not offend him by asking him to use a condom - thereby suggesting that he is engaging in extra-marital liaisons.

There is another issue: children are precious to families, and unprotected sex will produce the child you dearly want, sometimes without HIV infection, if the mother receives a particular drug during labour. Most mother-to-child infection can be prevented in this way. Problem is that you then have a dead mother (HIV+) and a live baby, likely to become an orphan. Catch 22 either way. Problem is, you probably live too far away from the clinic or hospital to get the drug, or that you prefer to give birth at home because of conditions in the hospitals.

It’s interesting that you asked if there is not more to life than sex. It has been a real concern of mine since I arrived in Africa as a volunteer in the late 60s. I can promise you that in 99 per cent of villages in rural areas, there is nothing to do in the way of sport, TV, or other leisure activities. Sex is not just ‘one pleasure out of many’. People in urban areas are only now learning that you can have spare time, and that you can use it in enjoyable ways with the family or partner or friend.

That being said, if you live in a rural village, you have three things: the church (fair walk to get there), the tavern (one rich man or woman in the village) and sex (free, fun and fairly readily available). I am not sure that this equation applies only to Africa - USA, India and China are probably similar in certain areas all over the place. Sex is a game; lots of people do not have Victorian hangups about it; it is procreative and gives fathers not only labour for the farms, but the only old-age pension they will ever have - support from their children.

 

[jmcrae]

People, like students, those in the 15-29 year old age group, really need condoms before they get HIV, and that’s the idea. Many are choosing to abstain, many are being faithful to one partner. BUT, there are a number of circumstances which I have pointed out, including boozing, where morals may go out the window (you see it in your own colleges) and then condoms can save a life.

Well, it will save the other one’s life if one of them has HIV or an STD, and is having sex anyway.

… It is not even possible, as doctors tell us, for a woman to ask her husband to use a condom: she must pretend that she does not know that he is likely to be infected because of his sexual predilections, and she must not offend him by asking him to use a condom - thereby suggesting that he is engaging in extra-marital liaisons.

Um - okay. Not using a condom is good, especially if they want children. If the woman is willing to risk her life rather than offend her husband, I don’t know that I agree with that or would recommend it, but surely that is her call to make. Obviously (imho) the best case scenario would be for her to leave the guy if he is “making the common life unbearable,” as it states in the canon law of the Church (1153.1), but it is her decision to make, whether she is better off with him, or without him.

I know that one of my foster children in Zambia was taken away by his mother; she left with him and some of his brothers and sisters because she believed that the father had AIDS or something. He then took up with her sister; I don’t know what’s up with that, but at least the boy and his mother appear to be safe, now.

There is another issue: children are precious to families, and unprotected sex will produce the child you dearly want, sometimes without HIV infection, if the mother receives a particular drug during labour. Most mother-to-child infection can be prevented in this way. Problem is that you then have a dead mother (HIV+) and a live baby, likely to become an orphan. Catch 22 either way. Problem is, you probably live too far away from the clinic or hospital to get the drug, or that you prefer to give birth at home because of conditions in the hospitals.

This is a completely different problem, I think - and while I do understand the need for children, it seems irresponsible to have sex when one has HIV.

It’s interesting that you asked if there is not more to life than sex…] you have three things: the church (fair walk to get there), the tavern (one rich man or woman in the village) and sex (free, fun and fairly readily available).

Don’t they have any arts or music? My father lives in a small village high up in the mountains here in Canada; they, too, have no TV and not much in the way of radio; they do get the internet, but most of the villagers don’t have computers; some of them don’t even have electricity, but they have a thriving arts community; they are always putting on shows for each other in the community centre - they sing, they make paintings and pottery, they put on plays, they have dances, and they have Story Telling festivals, and all kinds of things. There is even a motorcycle club, and the motorcycle club also does all sorts of interesting things - I am told that they are planning to do Romeo and Juliet on bikes, if they can get someone to lend them or rent them a large enough field to do it in. (The open land is all privately owned, and the forests are under government protection.)

This summer when I go up there, I am told that they are going to do a CPR festival, with art, music, dancing, and stories all about the coming of the Canadian Pacific Railway to their village 100 years ago which will include stories about how their ancestors reacted - it is a mixed community, so some of the ancestors are actually CPR employees, and other ancestors were the people who were already living there at the time.

I am not sure that this equation applies only to Africa - USA, India and China are probably similar in certain areas all over the place. Sex is a game; lots of people do not have Victorian hangups about it; it is procreative and gives fathers not only labour for the farms, but the only old-age pension they will ever have - support from their children.

They won’t get kids if they use condoms, though.

And you’re right - they need to have kids, now more than ever. But they also need to not pass HIV or other STDs on to their loved ones.

But I don’t see the difference between abstaining from sex and using a condom, as far as having kids goes. Abstaining has a greater success rate (100%) in not passing on the virus.

 

[Aramis]

Carol:

The most effective way to work against HIV is mandatory whole-population frequent testing, and positives being isolated from society until they die, especially if that death comes by needle or bullet shortly after confirmation of being a carrier.

Cuba isn’t quite that far, but does incarcerate HIV patients (comfortably, from the documentaries, but still, it’s a pretty prison).

HIV is spread primarily through sex; usually illicit and/or immoral sex. (Considering that it’s derived from a monkey STD… who did the moneky?)

AS Christians, we are called to love the sinner, but hate the sin. In the case of HIV, most of the persons suffering from it ARE SINNING when they contract it; any act which would spread it is also a sin, as it is a harmful and often fatal disease. We are not called to tolerate the sin, merely to show love (and mercy) to the sinner. Allowing, or even encouraging, them to risk transmission is morally reprehensible.

Given that condoms have failure rates of note, the only way to insure not getting HIV is to avoid blood contact and be abstinent.

In at least some jurisdictions, spreading HIV knowingly is considered attempted murder… (Texas, for one, has prosecuted on this theory.) Condom or no, it can be spread by sex.

Abstinence is thus the only morally right action to take once one has contracted HIV, unless it is with a partner who also already has HIV, and then, only within the bounds of marriage.

Also, you come to a Catholic board, spout heresy, and then expect to be patted on the back? True Christians MUST chastise you, politely but firmly, when you spout sinful matter.

 

[jmcrae]

HIV is spread primarily through sex; usually illicit and/or immoral sex. (Considering that it’s derived from a monkey STD… who did the monkey?)

Actually the theory is that someone ate the monkey. It’s not clear how the disease got from that person to the next person, though - or even how long it was around before people started to notice it in the early 1980s.

The first large group of people to die of it were a group of young homosexual men in New York, in 1981. Obviously, only one member of that group had to have acquired it before infecting the rest of the group, but how he got it (or even who it was) is unknown.

 

[PauloFreire2]

Non-denoms are simple Christians, or at least try to be. They read the Bible, and react to it as simply as they can. BUT, they usually fall under the spell of some local pastor’s personal dogma. That’s been my observation. They’re not as ***literally ***Biblical as they think. Somebody else’s doctrine usually works its way into their thinking.

 

[The_Truthinator]

I don’t know if I’d call myself “non-denominational,” but I definitely don’t believe in divisions within the Church. After all, as Paul said, “Let there be *no *divisions in the church. Rather, be of one mind, united in thought and purpose.” And, “Has Christ been divided into factions?” Of course not!

And though the Catholic Church claims apolistic lineage for itself, this is certainly nullified by the apparent corruption which has, over the centuries, been plaguing it so constantly, despite many great reforms. We ALL have an unbroken, apolistic heritage if we uphold Scripture, which was orated and recorded by the Apostles themselves.

In my understanding of things, Yeshua didn’t come to start an institution or religion, but a Communion, and a Church built on real fellowship. Regulations and unnecessary stipulations only serve to restrict the freedom one has in God through his Messiah, and all these contradicting creeds and doctrines only serve to make foolish men bloated in their “understanding,” that, somehow, they might box their God, and thus have control themselves.

Can we ever truly understand God, put him in a box, along with the numerous, endlessly complex and yet simplistic truths which he has revealed to us? No. The Catechism is great in its midrashic exegesis on Scripture, but when we are able to “explain” everything, we have managed to contain both the deepest, most unfathomable truths and revelations AND our God. I have a problem with that …

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t know if I’d call myself “non-denominational,” but I definitely don’t believe in divisions within the Church. After all, as Paul said, “Let there be *no *divisions in the church. Rather, be of one mind, united in thought and purpose.” And, “Has Christ been divided into factions?” Of course not!

Nor can He be reduced to a “common denominator.” After all, if we were to distill out every quarrel and every distinction that has arisen between those who call themselves Christians, we’d be left with nothing but His name - and not even that, it seems.

And though the Catholic Church claims apolistic lineage for itself, this is certainly nullified by the apparent corruption which has, over the centuries, been plaguing it so constantly, despite many great reforms. We ALL have an unbroken, apolistic heritage if we uphold Scripture, which was orated and recorded by the Apostles themselves.

Even when we have not been faithful to Christ, Christ has been faithful to us. Even when we sinned, Christ never left His Church.

In my understanding of things, Yeshua didn’t come to start an institution or religion,

contradicts Matthew 16:18

but a Communion, and a Church built on real fellowship.

These are not mutually exclusive. A real organization can have both actual leadership and fellowship.

Regulations and unnecessary stipulations only serve to restrict the freedom one has in God through his Messiah, and all these contradicting creeds and doctrines only serve to make foolish men bloated in their “understanding,” that, somehow, they might box their God, and thus have control themselves.

My experience is quite the opposite - the rules and regulations set me free - the unimportant decisions have all been made, and I am free to make the important ones, now.

Can we ever truly understand God, put him in a box, along with the numerous, endlessly complex and yet simplistic truths which he has revealed to us? No. The Catechism is great in its midrashic exegesis on Scripture, but when we are able to “explain” everything, we have managed to contain both the deepest, most unfathomable truths and revelations AND our God. I have a problem with that …

Have you ever actually read the Catechism? There is much that it does not attempt to explain, which it simply labels as “mystery.”

But the things that are known ought to be made known. The rules came from Jesus; not from mere men. If we disobey the rules, then we are disobeying Christ. We cannot say that we are “following Christ” if we flagrantly disobey His rules, can we?

 

[The_Truthinator]

Nor can He be reduced to a “common denominator.” After all, if we were to distill out every quarrel and every distinction that has arisen between those who call themselves Christians, we’d be left with nothing but His name - and not even that, it seems.

Ha, ha! Very true. Hmm … The premise for non-denominalization is that so long as the basic message of salvation is retained (Christ, the Word Incarnate, came down for us; lived a perfect, sinless life, overcoming all temptations; died voluntarily so that we might live; was raised bodily once more, thus conquering sin and death, allowing us to live free from our inheritly evil natures; and making us into new creations; he then gave us the Great Comission and ascended to Heaven where he sits ready to come again at a moment’s notice; his gift was the Holy Spirit, the Advocate, who enables us to accomplish all that is required by God and who convicts us of our wrongdoings and leads us into truth), believers are able to interpret Scripture with the help and discernment of the Spirit as they felt led to … So yes, there is a great deal of diversity in the faith of this particular brand of Christianity.

Even when we have not been faithful to Christ, Christ has been faithful to us. Even when we sinned, Christ never left His Church.

Very true! I didn’t mean that because of certain corrupt doctrines, etc., the Catholic Church has no validity to its teachings, but rather, it has no *more *validity than those churches who also profess less-than-perfect doctrines but whose intentions are most certainly to serve and please the Messiah and truly do so.

Contradicts Matthew 16:18

Depends on your view of it, I suppose.

These are not mutually exclusive. A real organization can have both actual leadership and fellowship.

An interesting view of the Church. But I still think of it less like an organization … and more like a Family.

My experience is quite the opposite - the rules and regulations set me free - the unimportant decisions have all been made, and I am free to make the important ones, now.

Is it not all rooted in love, though? Love covers a great multitude of tresspasses … If I can’t please God or serve others by doing it, is it really so complicated a matter, that we should write an infinitely expanding rulebook on it instead of leaving the job of discernment up to the Spirit in us?

Have you ever actually read the Catechism? There is much that it does not attempt to explain, which it simply labels as “mystery.”

But the things that are known ought to be made known. The rules came from Jesus; not from mere men. If we disobey the rules, then we are disobeying Christ. We cannot say that we are “following Christ” if we flagrantly disobey His rules, can we?

I like very much that essence of mystery! I can’t help but think, though, that sometimes the Catechism expounds upon certain things that we do not really, fully understand …

No; we cannot call ourselves “Christ Followers” if we’re following ourselves. But remember, “Fear God and obey his commands, for this is everyone’s duty”–the “whole duty of man.” (Ecc. 12:13) If we remember this, and if we “have humble and contrite hearts” and tremble at God’s Word (Isa. 66:2), and if we love each other with a real, unconditional love (John 15:34), we are truly living in obedience and in the Spirit.

You seem like someone very into Truth. I admire that …

 

[guanophore]

: Posters have returned again and again to what the Church says, and their understanding of it. There has been virtually no discussion of the pandemic, and its global and humanitarian implications for us as Christians, except in terms of condoms and all that involves.

This topic would probably find a much better audience on the moral theology section.

Guanophore: It may be impossible, for people of faith, to have discussion about anything of value apart from that foundation.

Carol: I am a person of faith: for me it is not the teachings of the church, its interpretation of scripture, its rites and practices for discusson, but the value of each human and our responsibility for it.

Ok, I see your point. What I mean is that you are bringing a public health issue to a Catholic forum and expecting that people here will respond with something other than church teaching. It is fine if you are not interested in applying the teachings of the Catholic Church to your issue, and if you wish to discout the scripture. You are saying that you are valuing primarily individual humans and christian responsibility for the HIV holocaust. Yet you are bringing this issue to a place where everyone is going to give primacy to the church teaching and the scripture. You seemed very put out with everyone because they put these theological values above the public health problem. I am saying that you brought your issue to the wrong audience.

C:* Who is prepared to die for humanity, as Christ did? Or must we wait for instruction? Must we look to our own souls first, and then the lives and souls of others?*

[guanophore]G: Our task is to make humanity aware of the value of His death… Jesus is concerned about our eternal life, not our temporal life. He does not want people to die in sin…

C: Let us emphasise the responsibilities that Christ gave to each of us as Christians, not just to preach salvation, but to support life here and now, so that each person – chosen by God, equally divine, already saved – can live a life of value.

Each person must emphasize what they have been called to do. This work has been your apostolate. You seemed to come here expecting that everyone here would share your passion for the things that you are called to do. It didn’t happen.

and among different faiths globally. All are loved by God and serve his purposes.

Yes, but different responsibility belongs to the Catholic Church. The protection of the deposit of faith is primary. All corporate works of mercy flow from there.

[guanophore] Is the concept of chastity found anywhere?

Of course! It is a strong traditional custom (see elsewhere), and continues to be in many areas not skewed by apartheid, poverty, rural degradation and urban deculturation. It is important too, to realise that chastity is not a stand-alone but is connected with other cultural values, economic impoverishment, and education.

This sounds like a lot, and definitely off topic here. Perhaps more appropriate in the moral theology thread?

Carol_Coombe:

Where do we go from here? My mind boggles.

Guanophore: Faith in Christ is the best cure. It is not effective to contrive the environment to control behaviour. By that I mean to say that steps like the one you have outlined should not be taken, just that they are only “half measures” that will not address the ultimate source of wrongdoing, which is in the human heart.

I agree with you fully. Temptation lives with religious belief – the devil and Christ, no? Responses to HIV, to crime, to poverty, to inequality: all are complex mixtures of fast humanitarian relief and long-term behaviour change.

You seemed to be looking for a response on this forum that you did not find?

 

[guanophore]

(celibate) It’s not a great way for a couple to live, but it’s OK. There are a couple of problems however. Men are traditionally taught that they have the right to sex on demand; women are taught to be relatively passive/submissive. So as behavioural roles continue, danger of infection rises. It is not even possible, as doctors tell us, for a woman to ask her husband to use a condom: she must pretend that she does not know that he is likely to be infected because of his sexual predilections, and she must not offend him by asking him to use a condom - thereby suggesting that he is engaging in extra-marital liaisons.

This strikes me as so contrary to the teaching of the Church. It is no wonder John Paul II called ours the “culture of death”.

It’s interesting that you asked if there is not more to life than sex. It has been a real concern of mine since I arrived in Africa as a volunteer in the late 60s. I can promise you that in 99 per cent of villages in rural areas, there is nothing to do in the way of sport, TV, or other leisure activities. Sex is not just ‘one pleasure out of many’. People in urban areas are only now learning that you can have spare time, and that you can use it in enjoyable ways with the family or partner or friend. That being said, if you live in a rural village, you have three things: the church (fair walk to get there), the tavern (one rich man or woman in the village) and sex (free, fun and fairly readily available). I am not sure that this equation applies only to Africa - USA, India and China are probably similar in certain areas all over the place. Sex is a game; lots of people do not have Victorian hangups about it; it is procreative and gives fathers not only labour for the farms, but the only old-age pension they will ever have - support from their children.

Certainly the preaching of the gospel is only the beginning…