Penn & Teller: The Vatican

[Bluegoat]

It does seem like someone who doesn’t care about having inappropriate sexual encounters should care about wearing condoms, but I think there are a few specific situations that make it more complicated than that in practice.

One is that the idea that men can have sex outside of marriage in some cultures is very ingrained - it is normal practice. The Church, even preaching on this and working hard to change it, can’t reach people that don’t want to be reached.

OTOH, in those same cultures, wearing condoms may be culturally not supported. But in this case, people use the Churches position to support their own prejudices, or maybe Church opinion simply reinforces secular opinion without really causing a change of heart.

I have no idea how one might address this problem, which I don’t think it is the church’s intention to create.

The people who most suffer, alas, are the wives, whose husbands contract HIV. It is fine to say the husband should want to protect her health, but the fact is that often isn’t the case (assuming he knows he has HIV, which he may well not.)

And to make it worse, if his wife wants to protect herself by refusing to have sex, the Church can be invoked again by the husband as saying that she is required to have sex with him. Which is reaching under the circumstances I think, but I have certainly heard of priests supporting that view, even when it was clear the husband was not living up to his end of the deal. It used to be common here, but attitudes have changed. But in many places, spousal rape is not legally a crime.

So fr such women, and also for those forced into prostitution, it rather seems that no one is protecting their interests. I am sure many feel that they are left to fend for themselves.

 

[st_lucy]

I’d like to see some documentation for this little fictional statement please. People have been spreading STDs for thousands of years.

Yes but the point is until our wonderful age of sophistication we have seen an explosion of STDS and STD deaths. That seems quite obvious

• I most of made a type on my previous post as it is well known that STDS has always been around. And it is equally well known (or at least in the past) that in order to prevent STDS from spreading one most be a less sexually permissive society.

 

[paul_c]

I’m probably at least as old as you are and have never bought into organized religion. My politics tend to lean more conservative than liberal except in areas of personal choice. However I will admit that my perspective on Christianity in general has been biased by having to listen to the garbage that the young earth creationist in this part of the country spew forth each and every day.

As far as Catholicism goes I have fundamental differences of opinion with the church’s position on abortion, birth control, AIDS prevention and the general historical accuracy of the Bible. As far as I am concerned anyone who can’t even consider wearing a condom while raping their unwilling wife even though they know they are HIV positive just because an 80 year old virgin tells them it is a sin is sheeple.

Another Athiest.
There are two problems with artificial birth control. The first and most fundamental is that it separates sex from its function, which is to give life. Instead of the awe and reverence that such power should instill, it instead has developed into recreation.

The second problem is that it doesn’t separate sex from procreation perfectly, yet people think and act like it does. The modern culter seems to think sex is free of responsibility if you use birth control. This is a fallacy. No birth control method other than abstinance is 100% effective at eliminated STDs and pregnancy.

Lets review the data from the CDC: 8% of the women on the pill will get pregnant in a given year. They have no pretection against STDs. 15% of the women whose partners use condomns will get pregnant each year and the same number will get STDs. 85% of the sexually active women will get pregnant each year if they use no birth control at all.

No lets look at the math. If you have a high school class of 30 kids and half are sexually active and all of them use condoms, statistically you will have 1 pregnancy per year from that class. But all of them think it won’t be them and they’ve all been conditioned to think they are having safe sex if they use a condom.

The result of the ABC induced sexually revolution is that 25% of all teenage girls in the US have an STD. Most of them thought they were having safe sex. 41% of white girls and 63% of non-white girls will have a pregnancy by the age of 20 in the US.

in 1960, prior to readily available birthcontrol or abortion, 5.3% of births were out of wedlock… By 1990, with both “preventative” measures readily availble, 28.0% of births were out of wedlock.

Birth control is the problem not the solution because it leads people into a false sense of security. Here is a website full of the statistics that describes the carnage associated with those things you advocate:teenshelter.org/data.htm

 

[Tram_Is_the_Way]

I am not or the Pope is not effectively killing anyone. IF one wishes to have sex with his partner even after being told that doing so will effectively KILL the one they love then he is the one who is choosing to kill his spouse. **But my guess is those couples in Africa are not being told the truth about condom use and its effectiveness, **so that case its is those who keep handing out these false hopes that are killing these people.

I know that if I had HIV that could control myself enough not give my DH HIV. IT is called love and sacrifice.

That myth has already been debunked:

*HIV, the virus that causes AIDS
Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
HIV infection is, by far, the most deadly STD, and considerably more scientific evidence exists regarding condom effectiveness for prevention of HIV infection than for other STDs. The body of research on the effectiveness of latex condoms in preventing sexual transmission of HIV is both comprehensive and conclusive. The ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission of HIV has been scientifically established in “real-life” studies of sexually active couples as well as in laboratory studies.

Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of HIV.

Theoretical basis for protection. Latex condoms cover the penis and provide an effective barrier to exposure to secretions such as urethral and vaginal secretions, blocking the pathway of sexual transmission of HIV infection.

Epidemiologic studies that are conducted in real-life settings, where one partner is infected with HIV and the other partner is not, demonstrate that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection. *

Source: cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

 

[edwest2]

A few thoughts on my leftist views for redhen

I graduated from the University of Alabama in Huntsville with a Bachelor in Electrical Engineering in 1982. After graduation I was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the United States army and spent the next 6 years practicing dropping nuclear weapons on West, not East, Germany in order to protect democracy from the godless communists.

When I got out of the military I took a job in the defense industry designing and building things that go fast and blow up with the intended purpose of killing human beings. I returned to school, received my MBA in 1997 and eventually transitioned to management. I work with scientists, engineers, business leaders and government bureaucrats every day. Many of these people are highly intelligent. Many of them believe that God created everything in 6 days 6000 years ago. They believe that good science, evolution in particular, is nothing but lies designed to destroy god and country.

Why would these intelligent people believe such unmitigated ****? The answer is religion. They were indoctrinated at an early age to believe that faith trumps all. That no matter what the physical evidence the only thing that matters is what it says in a book that is based on the mythology of a bunch of Bronze Age goat herders.

Well those are fundamentalists, Baptist and Pentecostal Protestants. What do their beliefs have with Catholics? As Saladin said in The Kingdom of Heaven, “Nothing. Everything.” The point is that religion is based on faith. Adherents are taught not to think for themselves but rather to believe what they are told. That goes for Catholics and Pentecostals. The biggest difference is that Catholics are allowed to pick and choose which words of god are really the words of god and which no longer apply. How do you choose? And how does Catholism differ in general form, “massive fan base who’ll believe everything they say as gospel and won’t bother to check if any of their facts were correct or distorted.” You see it right here with people posting that condom use is not effective in the prevention of the spread of HIV.

Is religion really the answer? I study the history of technology, which mostly involves military technology. The scientists are always coming up with new ways to build something cheaper, faster and more deadly. Do you know that today’s science was built by Christians?

What did Samuel Morse, inventor of the telegraph, say about his invention? “What hath God wrought?”

As far as Catholics thinking for themselves and checking facts, I had a lot of homework and a lot of books to take home from Catholic school. By 12th grade, while thinking about going to college, the nuns told all of us: “You think you’ve got it bad now? Wait till you get to college.”

As far as checking facts, I do research for the publishing company I work for. Acres of fact checking, tracking down details, and a co-editor who knows a lot about a lot, not to mention the managing editor.

Atheist Science is the current religion of some people in the 21st Century. And science is not always trustworthy.

hup.harvard.edu/catalog/MCGBEN.html

“Bronze age goat herders?” The Japanese sent a team to Egypt because they were convinced they could build a small scale pyramid using “modern” equipment. They failed. I’m glad they tried, but they failed. And people think bronze age people were stupid? Got anything to back that up?

Peace,
Ed

 

[paul_c]

That myth has already been debunked:

*HIV, the virus that causes AIDS
Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
HIV infection is, by far, the most deadly STD, and considerably more scientific evidence exists regarding condom effectiveness for prevention of HIV infection than for other STDs. The body of research on the effectiveness of latex condoms in preventing sexual transmission of HIV is both comprehensive and conclusive. The ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission of HIV has been scientifically established in “real-life” studies of sexually active couples as well as in laboratory studies.

Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of HIV.

Theoretical basis for protection. Latex condoms cover the penis and provide an effective barrier to exposure to secretions such as urethral and vaginal secretions, blocking the pathway of sexual transmission of HIV infection.

Epidemiologic studies that are conducted in real-life settings, where one partner is infected with HIV and the other partner is not, demonstrate that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection. *

Source: cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

Except when they have defects or aren’t used properly. Then their protective capability drops to zero. And this happens statistically 15% of the time. This is the problem. You are leading people to beleive that they are 100% effective and that they can have sex without concern, while 1/7 of them will in fact be unprotected.

 

[asymmetricblog]

The pope has saved millions of lives in Africa. Condoms don’t save societies from AIDS. This isn’t opinion, it’s fact.

nelsonguirado.com/index.php/religion/2009/03/29/condoms-ddt-facebook-malaria-aids-and-the-pope

 

[PadraigPearce]

Just for a laugh, I read some of the comments about this show on PZ Myers blog. He’s the guy who was encouraging his fans to steal consecrated hosts and send them to him so he could desecrate them. A lot of his contributors are really conflicted because Penn and Teller also ripped on Al Gore in a previous show. They want to applaud Penn and Teller for mocking the Catholic Church, but they don’t know if they can really trust them because they’re “global warming deniers”. What’s a poor atheist to do?

 

[Javl]

All of this proves that Satan is alive and well ( ? ) and doing his very best to try to destroy the Church that Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, founded. But I am not worried
because Our Lord is keeping His promise that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”
and He will be with us always. Let us pray for these poor deluded souls and ask Jesus to have mercy on them for “they know not what they do”.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Axion]

Except when they have defects or aren’t used properly. Then their protective capability drops to zero. And this happens statistically 15% of the time. This is the problem. You are leading people to beleive that they are 100% effective and that they can have sex without concern, while 1/7 of them will in fact be unprotected.

In fact it’s worse than this, since cheap condoms in hot weather fail more frequently, and in prolonged use the failure rate goes even higher.

It has been the LIE of “safe sex” using condoms that has killed so many people. In countries like Thailand and Southern Africa, where condoms have been pushed, AIDS is far worse than areas like the Phillipines and Uganda where Catholic teaching on continence has been followed far more.

 

[Axion]

Contrary to the hysteria of the Liberal establishment, it has been the LIE of “safe sex” using condoms that has killed so many people.

Why? Because the long-term cumulative failure rate of condoms is high, and each failure can pass on AIDS. A false sense of security allows the continuation of high-risk behaviour, and so AIDS increases as condom-distribution goes on. In countries like Thailand and Southern Africa, where condoms have been pushed, AIDS is far worse than areas like the Phillipines and Uganda where Catholic teaching on continence has been followed far more.
tempi.it/007320-liberal-academic-edward-green-pope-right-about-aids-and-condom

nytimes.com/2003/04/20/world/low-rate-of-aids-virus-in-philippines-is-a-puzzle.html

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

And this kind of thing airs at prime time on CBS? Let’s see. They had the guy from “Catholics for a free choice”, they had some ex priest who’s now a lawyer specializing in suing the Vatican, they had the head of the British Secular Society, they had Robert Blair Kaiser the former Jesuit who’s now working to create a schism in the American Church through his American Catholic Council. Gee, were Ian Paisley and Jimmy Swaggart busy that day? The crazy thing about this is that Penn and Teller have a massive fan base who’ll believe everything they say as gospel and won’t bother to check if any of their facts were correct or distorted. It’s quite disgusting how they set themselves up as some kind of moral authority without offering the Church any chance to rebut their mostly misinformed or purposely misleading rant. What can a show like that accomplish? If they have problems with the Church they could lay them out in a constructive way, instead of taking the low road. It seems like all this show is intended to do is to stir up hatred for the Church, and it will definitely accomplish that.

Satan’s cheerleading squad doesn’t do things in a constructive way.

 

[ethereality]

Given Bill Donahue’s response, it seems watching the video would itself be not only a waste of my time, but a bad usage of it: It would be like drinking poison only for the sake of confirming the label on its bottle.

Assuming Donahue’s response was accurate, – and from what I have seen, he seems a reliable person – I consider this episode yet another demonstration that not owning a television is very reasonable: my education, literacy and library continue to grow while I have successfully removed one of the most morally reprehensible elements of my life. (As but one example, contraception and abortifacients are regularly advertised to sandwich and interrupt anti-Christ programming that damages your intellect as well as your relationship with God.)

So, to be honest, outside of EWTN I am surprised whenever I see Christian programming on television. Typically the only other things I can call “Christian” are half-insane Protestant shows that I typically can’t stand to watch (with content that trades logic and history for emotion and confuses emotion with faith).

(I don’t know whether clarification is necessary, but I do mean “Christian” to imply all relating to Christ: love, generosity, compassion, etc. All the good things in our lives, all of which we know has only God as their source.)

 

[tassitus]

And what you have here is 1 study. I have several that say that study was wrong. The scientific consensus is in fact that correct and consistent use of condoms is 85% effective in the prevention of the spread of HIV among married couples. Who is cherry picking now?

gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102261955.html

Sorry to jump into this thread so late and uninformed, but does this mean that correct and consistent use of condoms is 15% ineffective in the prevention of the spread of HIV among married couples?

So, if I’m HIV positive and have relations, using a condom, with my uninfected wife 100 times, her chances of contracting HIV, according to your numbers, are…?
What would you say?

EDIT: Okay, now that I’ve caught up on this thread, I can see that this question was already posed. Are we still waiting for an answer?

Peace all.

 

[edwest2]

Given Bill Donahue’s response, it seems watching the video would itself be not only a waste of my time, but a bad usage of it: It would be like drinking poison only for the sake of confirming the label on its bottle.

Assuming Donahue’s response was accurate, – and from what I have seen, he seems a reliable person – I consider this episode yet another demonstration that not owning a television is very reasonable: my education, literacy and library continue to grow while I have successfully removed one of the most morally reprehensible elements of my life. (As but one example, contraception and abortifacients are regularly advertised to sandwich and interrupt anti-Christ programming that damages your intellect as well as your relationship with God.)

So, to be honest, outside of EWTN I am surprised whenever I see Christian programming on television. Typically the only other things I can call “Christian” are half-insane Protestant shows that I typically can’t stand to watch (with content that trades logic and history for emotion and confuses emotion with faith).

(I don’t know whether clarification is necessary, but I do mean “Christian” to imply all relating to Christ: love, generosity, compassion, etc. All the good things in our lives, all of which we know has only God as their source.)

Part of the reason Catholics have gone so far away from the Church is because too many of us, myself as well, for a time, believed the wrong people. We are not discerning enough. And getting rid of your TV is a very good idea.

We can read the Bible and Catechism daily, but if we spend the rest of our time in front of the box meditating on trash, our hearts and minds will often follow. No, nothing drastic but enough to affect our views in the wrong direction.

On the other hand, when things like this occur, it is of some value to see for yourself how anti-God and pagan the media has become.

Peace,
Ed

 

[adina]

Can you tell me, is there is a copy of theHarvard article “was the Pope wrong?”
Thanks for directions, Adina

 

[paul_c]

Can you tell me, is there is a copy of theHarvard article “was the Pope wrong?”
Thanks for directions, Adina

psy.lmu.de/sps-rs/Studium-und-Lehre/SoSe2009/Langer/mainColumnParagraphs/0110/document/Lancet2009.pdf

 

[JustaServant]

One thought I have is that in America there are fewer material examples of religious institutions or endeavors from the past that point to a great spiritual or especially intellectual tradition as most understand it.

Many early American settlers were people from religious groups looking to get away from oppressors in Europe. Many of them were very Bible-only, basic approaches to religion. Although Catholics numbered among them, they tended to be poor, less-educated Catholics. Many of the founding fathers were not conventionally religious, but something more like deists. In fact, much of the early religious history of the US seems to be in the Enlightenment mode - either very much for the Enlightenment and against traditional intellectual understanding of religion; or against it in a reactionary, faith-only kind of way.

So perhaps Americans, thinking about religion, think about overcoming it’s shackles, or a kind of classical fundamentalism as the two possibilities. And neither of those really makes for a great attitude for comedy.

Unfortunately, I have noticed most Americans are quite foggy on European history, including what came before the US was a factor.

The Europeans, however, are everyday confronted with examples of buildings and institutions that suggest that religion had a real intellectual and spiritual hold on people. And if they know their own history, it is clear that that is indeed the case. So even if personally they think it is all a crock, it is harder to be dismissive of it.

That is my hypothesis anyway, though it’s not really based on as much empirical data as I’d like!

When I was a Baptist I used to hear “American churches are a mile wide and an inch deep”.
The shallowness of much of American Protestantism, and liberal Catholicism has made them ineffective in societal change.

People like Penn and Teller, or Bill Maurer are simply trying to be political pundits, and using comedy to air thier opinions.

 

[244Rocket]

I saw these two in Vegas years ago. They brought a little kid up on stage and were using foul language while he was up there. I never watched them again. Classless people.

 

[paulgms]

That myth has already been debunked:

*HIV, the virus that causes AIDS
Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
HIV infection is, by far, the most deadly STD, and considerably more scientific evidence exists regarding condom effectiveness for prevention of HIV infection than for other STDs. The body of research on the effectiveness of latex condoms in preventing sexual transmission of HIV is both comprehensive and conclusive. The ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission of HIV has been scientifically established in “real-life” studies of sexually active couples as well as in laboratory studies.

Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of HIV.

Theoretical basis for protection. Latex condoms cover the penis and provide an effective barrier to exposure to secretions such as urethral and vaginal secretions, blocking the pathway of sexual transmission of HIV infection.

Epidemiologic studies that are conducted in real-life settings, where one partner is infected with HIV and the other partner is not, demonstrate that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection. *

Source: cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm