[apple007]

Originally Posted by Moogs ... In effect we'd have to colonialize half the continent along with Europe and Russia's help (and maybe China's too) and then slowly, after years of rebuilding and stabilizing of societies with a mix of western and African governing locally, let them take more and more control, and 30 years later you pull the last of the troops out and wish them well and hope the new army you've built and order you've allowed to flourish, will grow and be able to protect itself.

But what about all the extra global warming that would result?

All kidding aside, Africa has been a basket case since the beginning of time, and blaming the "rich" "Western" countries is just a massive cop-out.

Slavery still exists in Africa today.

It remains S.O.P. in many if not most countries to lop off little girls' clitoris today.

Sharia law is spreading like wildfire in Africa today.

Something like 80% of the people who know they have HIV/AIDS continue to have unprotected sex today.

One shouldn't need a pocketful of money or a Harvard education or the newest flat-screen TV to know all of the above are abominations, yet Africans seem hellbent on lowering their standard of living even further. At some point, people/nations are responsible for themselves, and blaming the West for Africa's ills is beyond absurd.

[Naderfan]

The West isn't to blame for everything that's wrong in Africa, but I think it's just as wrong to say that nothing is the West's fault.

The legacy of slavery and colonialism still has an effect on the population, though it is debatable to what level. But, for instance, in Rwanda, part of the problem was that while the British were in power, they placed the Tutsis in positions of "power" and let them benefit from colonialism at the expense of the majority Hutus. As a result, the Tutsis soon learned that their survival depended on the British, because the Hutus had suffered so much under their rule and they would take it out on the Tutsis once the British left. There were of course lots of other underlying issues, but that's a concrete example of Western influence leading to tragedy.

Finally, I think one of the biggest problems in a lot of these areas is the lack of a decent, liberal education (not liberal as in left-wing, but as in non-state or religious sponsored). Without that, you set the stage for the spread of AIDS, FGM, Sharia law, etc. Plus, WRT AIDS, it doesn't help when respected leaders keep claiming that HIV doesn't lead to AIDS and you have aids workers forbidden from handing out condoms (if they work with the Catholic church) or getting funding if they offer abortion. (Again, a Western problem).

[Luca]

Catholicism is big in Africa (a consequence of colonialism) and the Catholic church insists on maintaining its downright criminal stance of banning condoms and spreading misinformation. The Vatican is indirectly responsible for a fucking genocide of the African people.

Yes, there are a lot of hugely problematic cultural traditions in Africa, and I'm not going to defend them as "not wrong, only different." But the west has contributed to the fact that much of Africa is dirt poor and full of backwards-thinking people.

[apple007]

Wow ... This week at AN, I learned that George W. Bush is personally rigging Supreme Court decisions and that the Vatican is partly responsible for African genocide.

AppleNova: The Internet's Leading Source of FUD.

[Luca]

Okay, maybe labeling it a genocide was a bit overboard, but here's what I do know:

- The Vatican knows that condoms do help prevent the spread of AIDS. Some choose not to believe it for religious reasons, but it's a fact. The Catholic church isn't even an anti-science institution - they employ scientists and often try to find ways to allow the scripture to mesh well with known scientific facts.
- Despite this, they have taken a very strongly anti-condom stance. Like I said before, for religious reasons.
- And because of that, they have done a large part toward contributing to the AIDS problem in Africa. If the Vatican had promoted the use of condoms for those infected with HIV, I am sure the infection rates would have been much lower. They would still be high, of course, but not nearly as high as they are, and the disease wouldn't spread nearly as fast.

As I said before, they are indirectly responsible. And instead of saying they're indirectly responsible for a genocide, I'll just say they're indirectly responsible for the deaths of many, many Africans. They could have done a lot to prevent them, but they have chosen not to, and because of that, they are guilty of negligence in many deaths.

Is that better? I'm just saying that you can't place 100% of the blame on the people of Africa for their misfortune. There are many things responsible people could have done and they chose not to do them. In the case of the Catholic church, they are actively making the situation worse by spreading misinformation. If they were to simply not declare their stance or give an opinion one way or the other, things would have been better.

[Mugge]

Originally Posted by apple007 Wow ... This week at AN, I learned that George W. Bush is personally rigging Supreme Court decisions and that the Vatican is partly responsible for African genocide. AppleNova: The Internet's Leading Source of FUD.

Really, you never visited an Amiga messageboard around circa 2004? In Internet terms, you might still be a virgin.



I think Luca has a perfectly valid point about the catholic church and Americas über hypocritical approach to birth control and AIDS in Africa. With one hand you guys are handing out food and with the other flyers telling Africans that abstinence is the best method of stopping AIDS.

Abstinence?!

Sex is about the only joy in life these guys still have!

[Naderfan]

That's one of the most frustrating things about the Catholic Church in Africa - on the one hand, many of those priests and nuns risk their lives to fight corruption, to help the people, and to try to make a difference. And yet, they still insist on withholding a vital tool in protecting those people from a terrible disease.

[apple007]

Originally Posted by Luca Okay, maybe labeling it a genocide was a bit overboard, but here's what I do know: - The Vatican knows that condoms do help prevent the spread of AIDS. Some choose not to believe it for religious reasons, but it's a fact. The Catholic church isn't even an anti-science institution - they employ scientists and often try to find ways to allow the scripture to mesh well with known scientific facts.

I don't know of anyone within the Catholic Church who disputes condoms help prevent AIDS.

Originally Posted by Luca - Despite this, they have taken a very strongly anti-condom stance. Like I said before, for religious reasons.

The Catholic Church is taking a stance for "religious reasons"? ZOMG! Stop the presses!

Originally Posted by Luca - And because of that, they have done a large part toward contributing to the AIDS problem in Africa. If the Vatican had promoted the use of condoms for those infected with HIV, I am sure the infection rates would have been much lower. They would still be high, of course, but not nearly as high as they are, and the disease wouldn't spread nearly as fast.

Sorry, but this gets a FAIL. First, the Catholic Church isn't obligated to do anything anywhere. Second, the Catholic Church isn't a democracy; either you follow its beliefs or you find another religion. Third, the world is chock full of (poor, largely uneducated) Catholics who aren't using condoms -- see Mexico -- whose populations somehow haven't spread HIV/AIDS like wildfire. Fourth, no true Catholic would have unprotected sex -- or *any* sex -- with someone after learning they have HIV/AIDS, so it's a stretch to even apply the term "Catholic" to the problem at hand. Fifth, if Africans were true Catholics, they wouldn't be screwing anything with a pulse -- i.e., pre-marital sex, sex with partner(s) other than spouse, practicing polygamy, rape, statutory rape, widespread prostitution, etc. -- which is the overriding reason HIV/AIDS continues to spread in Africa.

Originally Posted by Luca As I said before, they are indirectly responsible. And instead of saying they're indirectly responsible for a genocide, I'll just say they're indirectly responsible for the deaths of many, many Africans. They could have done a lot to prevent them, but they have chosen not to, and because of that, they are guilty of negligence in many deaths.

Pure nonsense.

Originally Posted by Luca Is that better? I'm just saying that you can't place 100% of the blame on the people of Africa for their misfortune. There are many things responsible people could have done and they chose not to do them. In the case of the Catholic church, they are actively making the situation worse by spreading misinformation. If they were to simply not declare their stance or give an opinion one way or the other, things would have been better.

How is the Catholic Church "spreading misinformation"? The official policy of the Catholic Church, worldwide, is that the use of condoms is against church policy. The Church does *not*, however, claim condoms don't help spread HIV/AIDS.

Originally Posted by Naderfan That's one of the most frustrating things about the Catholic Church in Africa - on the one hand, many of those priests and nuns risk their lives to fight corruption, to help the people, and to try to make a difference. And yet, they still insist on withholding a vital tool in protecting those people from a terrible disease.

No, it's called religious freedom, and *principle.* Are you saying the Catholic Church should have two policies -- one for the rest of the world, and one for Africa, where so-called "Catholics" want to screw anything with a pulse, have sex after being diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, have sex outside one's marriage, go to prostitutes, have multiple wives, etc., etc.? Talk about the inmates running the asylum.

This board really makes me laugh sometimes. This place is generally anti-religion because evolution is the one and only explanation of mankind's existence, but then, when evolution starts sorting things out in a politically-incorrect fashion, everyone points the finger at religion. Pure comedy, this place.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by apple007 How is the Catholic Church "spreading misinformation"?

Perhaps by using scare tactics and explicitly stating that condoms may cause the spreading of AIDS?

Coming from the "President of Pontifical Council for the Family" Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, I'd say that's a pretty official stance.

The Catholic Church’s Criticism of the Condom in AIDS-Prevention Programmes 2. The Catholic Church has repeatedly criticized programs promoting condoms as a totally effective and sufficient means of AIDS prevention. The different Bishops’ Conferences all over the world have expressed their concern regarding this problem. The Catholic Bishops of South Africa, Botswana and Swaziland categorically “regard the widespread and indiscriminate promotion of condoms as an immoral and misguided weapon in our battle against HIV/AIDS for the following reasons. * The use of condoms goes against human dignity. * Condoms change the beautiful act of love into a selfish search for pleasure – while rejecting responsibility. * Condoms do not guarantee protection against HIV/AIDS. * Condoms may even be one of the main reasons for the spread of HIV/AIDS. Apart from the possibility of condoms being faulty or wrongly used they contribute to the breaking down of self-control and mutual respect.”[6]

This statement was in response to his BBC interview in which he said that the AIDS virus passes right through the condom:

The church's claims are revealed in a BBC1 Panorama programme, Sex and the Holy City, to be broadcast on Sunday. The president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, told the programme: "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom."

Would you qualify that as "spreading misinformation"?

Originally Posted by apple007 no true Catholic would ... if Africans were true Catholics ... so-called "Catholics"

You should be careful when qualifying one religious follower's values over another's. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a "true" Catholic (or "true" Christian, Muslim, etc.) anywhere in the world since each religion is so wildly interpreted and amended both by regional groups and individual people.

[apple007]

Originally Posted by Brad ... Coming from the "President of Pontifical Council for the Family" Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, I'd say that's a pretty official stance. ...

That's all swell, but it looks more like a one-off interview in the U.K. than proof of some massive, continent-wide effort to tell Africans condoms spread HIV/AIDS. If you can show me some proof of the latter, as opposed to quoting some publication 90% of Africans can't even read, I'll be more impressed.

Originally Posted by Brad You should be careful when qualifying one religious follower's values over another's. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a "true" Catholic (or "true" Christian, Muslim, etc.) anywhere in the world since each religion is so wildly interpreted and amended both by regional groups and individual people.

How do you figure? I've been a Catholic since birth and I'm in my mid-30s. The values of the Catholic Church aren't really up for discussion or interpretation. They are what they are, take it or leave it.

[Banana]

Originally Posted by apple007 How do you figure? I've been a Catholic since birth and I'm in my mid-30s. The values of the Catholic Church aren't really up for discussion or interpretation. They are what they are, take it or leave it.

I think you misunderstand him. He didn't say that that Catholic church has more than one set of values, but rather that people going to Catholic Church, and even those in official stances may have a set of values that is contrary to the catechism.

[Naderfan]

Look, I'm not saying that the Catholic Church has to drop everything it believes. This is their choice, but one that I, personally (along with many American & European Catholics) think is wrong. I'm just saying it's unfortunate that there is a way to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS but the Catholic Church actively discourages Africans from using that method.

And here's the other part: people are obviously having sex, regardless of the position of the Church. Shouldn't they at least then be protected.

Finally, here's a big part of the problem with the spread of HIV/AIDS. Due to the terrible economies in many of these places, men do migratory work, leaving their wives and children behind while they go and do seasonal work far from home. Like most men in the world, they end up sleeping with a prostitute or have a girlfriend in other places where they work. Then they go home and sleep with their wives. Because of a lot of the traditional relationships PLUS the Catholic Church's strong condemnation of condoms, those wives do not feel that they can ask their husbands to wear a condom and they often end up with AIDS themselves. I remember reading somewhere that the fastest growing population of infected people are married women. Are you really willing to condemn them?

Also, as a Christian myself, I don't believe that Jesus's message was, "You sin, you die a long protracted death, leaving your children orphans who will most likely get the same disease and die like you." In fact, I recall him condemning the Pharisees and the like for holding so tightly to religious doctrine that they refused to help those in need (i.e., condemning Jesus for healing a sick person on the Sabbath). So no, I'm not anti-religious. I'm against clinging to doctrine, especially one that isn't a core component of the religion, at the expense of millions of lives.

[Naderfan]

Originally Posted by apple007 How do you figure? I've been a Catholic since birth and I'm in my mid-30s. The values of the Catholic Church aren't really up for discussion or interpretation. They are what they are, take it or leave it.

Well, maybe the fact that Popes throughout the centuries have changed or amended Catholic values and doctrines. Hence why religious services aren't required to be solely in Latin, the priest faces the congregation, the Church no longer burns scientists for claiming the Earth isn't the center of the universe, the fact that Pius XII stated there was no opposition between evolution and Catholic doctrine (with some caveats), John Paul II's apologies for sins of the Church, such as its involvement in slavery, its silence during the Holocaust, and more.

So I think it's another fallacy to claim that the Church doesn't change. Even now there are debates once more on the ordination of women and other aspects of Catholic dogma. All religions change, to various degrees. That's just a part of life.

[Fahrenheit]

*Cough* Could an admin perhaps pull this (yet again, bullshit, unresolvable religo-political) stuff into its own thread, otherwise known as the trash?

This thread is purely for bitching about Robert Mugabe.

[Luca]

Alright, Farenheit, good suggestion. This is now the thread for "discussing" (if you could even describe this thread using that word) the HIV/AIDS problem in Africa and the Catholic Church's role in it. Talk about the Zimbabwe situation in the other thread.

Anyway, apple007, I don't get it. Are you saying that the Catholic Church isn't responsible even a teeny tiny bit for the AIDS problem? And if not, then what's the deal? Is it 100% the fault of Africans for perpetuating the problem and not solemnly obeying their priests' orders to stay abstinent? I am just totally perplexed at the CC's position on the issue and how anyone can defend their stance. We can argue until the cows come home over just how much responsibility should be placed on one group of people or another, but are you actually saying that the CC has zero responsibility in this case?

Furthermore, religion is interpreted differently from person to person, no matter how much you might think it's constant across all Catholics. Religion's interpretation changes over time as well.

[apple007]

Originally Posted by Naderfan Finally, here's a big part of the problem with the spread of HIV/AIDS. Due to the terrible economies in many of these places, men do migratory work, leaving their wives and children behind while they go and do seasonal work far from home. Like most men in the world, they end up sleeping with a prostitute or have a girlfriend in other places where they work. Then they go home and sleep with their wives. Because of a lot of the traditional relationships PLUS the Catholic Church's strong condemnation of condoms, those wives do not feel that they can ask their husbands to wear a condom and they often end up with AIDS themselves. I remember reading somewhere that the fastest growing population of infected people are married women. Are you really willing to condemn them?

This is silly. The same is true for Mexicans, Guatemalans, etc., etc., and none of those populations either widely use condoms or have an HIV/AIDS problem.

People on this board routinely gripe about all kinds of regulations that save or at least improve lives -- e.g., smoking bans -- yet now people want the Catholic Church to massively revamp its teachings because of HIV/AIDS in Africa for the same reason. Very strange.

Originally Posted by Naderfan Also, as a Christian myself, I don't believe that Jesus's message was, "You sin, you die a long protracted death, leaving your children orphans who will most likely get the same disease and die like you." In fact, I recall him condemning the Pharisees and the like for holding so tightly to religious doctrine that they refused to help those in need (i.e., condemning Jesus for healing a sick person on the Sabbath). So no, I'm not anti-religious. I'm against clinging to doctrine, especially one that isn't a core component of the religion, at the expense of millions of lives.

Clinging to doctrine/tradition was holding Masses in Latin after everyone stopped speaking/learning Latin. Abandoning the church's pro-life and anti-fornication teachings because of HIV/AIDS in Africa would be entirely different.

If people are so worried that Africans just can't help themselves and that future generations are doomed, then why no calls for a quarantine of the infected? It might not be P.C., but HIV/AIDS could basically be eradicated within a decade if quarantining the afflicted became the policy in Africa. I know full well how awful that sounds, but with the infection rates so high in so much of Africa, there's simply no hope for advancing society or standards of living if the current life/AIDS/death cycle doesn't get broken somehow (and condoms clearly aren't the answer).

Originally Posted by Farenheit *Cough* Could an admin perhaps pull this (yet again, bullshit, unresolvable religo-political) stuff into its own thread, otherwise known as the trash? This thread is purely for bitching about Robert Mugabe.

Sorry; that seemed to have run its course. If Mugabe is deposed, a Mugabe clone is sure to follow. That's just the reality of the continent right now. If dictators = bad and occupation/colonialism = bad, Africa's outlook is fairly hopeless.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by apple007 This is silly. The same is true for Mexicans, Guatemalans, etc., etc., and none of those populations either widely use condoms or have an HIV/AIDS problem.

This is a totally ridiculous assertion. Unprotected sex doesn't cause HIV/AIDS, it simply allows it to perpetuate itself. AIDS is much more widespread in Africa, but if people in Latin America keep having unprotected sex, it could get to be a major problem there too. It's not... yet.

Originally Posted by apple007 People on this board routinely gripe about all kinds of regulations that save or at least improve lives -- e.g., smoking bans -- yet now people want the Catholic Church to massively revamp its teachings because of HIV/AIDS in Africa for the same reason. Very strange.

A lot of people here are in favor of smoking bans if you didn't notice. Also, I don't know how smoking bans are at all similar to the CC's stance on condoms. What connection are you making?

[apple007]

Originally Posted by Luca Anyway, apple007, I don't get it. Are you saying that the Catholic Church isn't responsible even a teeny tiny bit for the AIDS problem? And if not, then what's the deal? Is it 100% the fault of Africans for perpetuating the problem and not solemnly obeying their priests' orders to stay abstinent?

Unless someone can prove to my satisfaction that the Catholic Church is engaged in a deliberate misinformation campaign meant to scare Catholics and non-Catholics alike into believing condoms not only don't stop the spread of HIV/AIDS but could also cause the spread of the disease, I'm going to rate the C.C.'s current liability at 0%.

I know people here at AN have a nasty habit laying blame everywhere but where it belongs, but Africans aren't catching HIV/AIDS through the air. They're catching it by engaging in a list of risky (non-Catholic) activities that's about as long as my arm. Otherwise, how come *NO* other "Catholic" populations worldwide have an HIV/AIDS problem?

Originally Posted by Luca I am just totally perplexed at the CC's position on the issue and how anyone can defend their stance. We can argue until the cows come home over just how much responsibility should be placed on one group of people or another, but are you actually saying that the CC has zero responsibility in this case?

You're "totally perplexed" the Catholic Church hasn't abandoned one of its core beliefs because Africa, and Africa alone, has an HIV/AIDS problem?

Originally Posted by Luca Furthermore, religion is interpreted differently from person to person, no matter how much you might think it's constant across all Catholics. Religion's interpretation changes over time as well.

Well, if you mean there are people who practice polygamy, go to hookers, skip church, and like to have unprotected sex with 14-year-old girls, all while still calling themselves Catholics, then sure. But otherwise, being Catholic means believing, and practicing, the teachings of the Catholic Church. If people stray from those beliefs/practices, that's their own problem, and not indicative of a need for the Catholic Church to suddenly shift its policy(ies).

[apple007]

Originally Posted by Luca This is a totally ridiculous assertion. Unprotected sex doesn't cause HIV/AIDS, it simply allows it to perpetuate itself. AIDS is much more widespread in Africa, but if people in Latin America keep having unprotected sex, it could get to be a major problem there too. It's not... yet.

How is it ridiculous? I never said unprotected sex causes HIV/AIDS, and you know that. I said there are a lot of Catholic populations worldwide that eschew condom use without HIV/AIDS spreading like wildfire.

As for the suggestion HIV/AIDS is still a major threat to other heterosexual populations, you need to do some reading. Even the most ardent HIV/AIDS activists are conceding that HIV/AIDS is no longer a major threat to heterosexual populations, and probably never was a major threat.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by apple007 Unless someone can prove to my satisfaction...

I'll try, but something tells me you'll never be satisfied with any explanation. Anyway, here goes...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005...ds.catholicism

Disclaimer: This is a fairly old article from when Pope John Paul II was still alive. I cannot find a more recent source confirming the church's position that condoms have tiny holes that allow the AIDS virus to pass through even unbroken condoms. Furthermore, I agree with the Cardinal when he says that condoms are not the best way to prevent HIV from spreading. They're not perfectly effective while abstinence is, but the church's position all along has been that if it's not 100% effective, then it must have a negative effect.

A senior Vatican official has supported the use of condoms to fight Africa's Aids pandemic, contradicting the Catholic church's official position. Cardinal Georges Cottier, theologian of the pontifical household, told the Italian news agency Apcom that the use of condoms was "legitimate" to save lives in the poorest parts of Africa and Asia, where there was no time to teach abstinence or faithful conjugal love. He is the most senior figure so far to argue that condoms should be admissible in exceptional circumstances. Contraception is officially forbidden by the Catholic church, and the Vatican has argued that condoms are full of "tiny holes" and do not guarantee protection against the transfer of the Aids virus. Reiterating the church's official line, Cardinal Cottier said condoms should not be used as contraceptives, could encourage immoral sexual conduct and were not the best way to stop the spread of HIV. But the threat of Aids was so immediate that "the use of condoms in some situations can be considered morally legitimate". "The virus is transmitted during a sexual act; so at the same time as [bringing] life there is also a risk of transmitting death," he said. "And that is where the commandment 'thou shalt not kill' is valid." The cardinal's comments come days after the Spanish bishops' conference was forced to retract similar statements in favour of condoms. Juan Antonio Martinez Camino, a spokesman for the Spanish bishops' conference in Madrid, had said: "The time has come for a joint strategy in the prevention of such a tragic pandemic as Aids, and contraception has a place in the context of the integral and global prevention of Aids." He suggested every method to help prevent the spread of the disease should be used. "Sex with condoms is not safe, it's just less unsafe," he said. That statement caused tension in the Vatican, and a day later the conference issued a statement saying that the church had not changed its doctrine on condoms. Cardinal Cottier's comments signal a growing swell of realism within the church, with more and more prominent figures supporting the use of condoms to save lives, despite misgivings. Growing numbers, including Cardinal Godfried Daneels, tipped as a possible future pope, have taken this stance publicly in recent years, but experts say the Vatican is unlikely to change its line under the current pope.

Originally Posted by apple007 Well, if you mean there are people who practice polygamy, go to hookers, skip church, and like to have unprotected sex with 14-year-old girls, all while still calling themselves Catholics, then sure. But otherwise, being Catholic means believing, and practicing, the teachings of the Catholic Church. If people stray from those beliefs/practices, that's their own problem, and not indicative of a need for the Catholic Church to suddenly shift its policy(ies).

No, I was more referring to how many people within Catholicism may not follow every last teaching to the letter. They might not all think exactly alike regarding their religion. I'm not talking about whackos who claim to be part of a religion but who constantly defy it. More along the lines of small differences in interpretation of things. I think the use of contraception is one of those things. It seems like a pretty minor issue to use contraceptives and I don't know what it has to do with being a religious person. I suppose the church's position is that you should only have sex with your spouse for the purposes of procreation, but I'm guessing 90%+ of Catholics have had sex for fun at least a few times.

Originally Posted by apple007 As for the suggestion HIV/AIDS is still a major threat to other heterosexual populations, you need to do some reading. Even the most ardent HIV/AIDS activists are conceding that HIV/AIDS is no longer a major threat to heterosexual populations, and probably never was a major threat.

So the people in Africa with AIDS are all gay? Or is it that they're not really people so they don't count?

[apple007]

Originally Posted by Luca I'll try, but something tells me you'll never be satisfied with any explanation. Anyway, here goes... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005...ds.catholicism Disclaimer: This is a fairly old article from when Pope John Paul II was still alive. I cannot find a more recent source ...

I'm not sure what you believe the quoted article proves. A couple of old, one-off quotes from Vatican officials is a far cry from an actual on-the-ground conspiracy to thwart Africans' efforts to use condoms. If there was any evidence of the latter, I'm sure your Google search would have yielded it, and you would have posted it here.

Originally Posted by Luca No, I was more referring to how many people within Catholicism may not follow every last teaching to the letter. They might not all think exactly alike regarding their religion. I'm not talking about whackos who claim to be part of a religion but who constantly defy it. More along the lines of small differences in interpretation of things.

Okay. Understood.

Originally Posted by Luca I think the use of contraception is one of those things. It seems like a pretty minor issue to use contraceptives and I don't know what it has to do with being a religious person. I suppose the church's position is that you should only have sex with your spouse for the purposes of procreation, but I'm guessing 90%+ of Catholics have had sex for fun at least a few times.

Well, two things can be true at once. I'm sure the real-world percentage of Catholics who use some form of birth control is quite high, and I'm also sure they understand the official position of the Church will likely always remain pro-life and anti-fornication. But that reality is a far cry from blaming the Catholic Church for not actively promoting condom use among Africans.

Originally Posted by Luca So the people in Africa with AIDS are all gay? Or is it that they're not really people so they don't count?

Wow, now you're really going off the deep end. For someone with such strident opinions, you ought to do a little more homework -- e.g., re: the genesis of HIV/AIDS in Africa and the current understanding of HIV/AIDS vis-a-vis heterosexual populations -- before laying blame.

[joveblue]

If the Catholic Church goes into Africa saying "Thou shalt not fornicate freely" and "Thou shalt not use condoms" knowing full well that the people they're preaching to will find it difficult to do the former but easy to do the later, then they're partly responsible for the HIV/AIDS problem. Sticking strictly to principle is all well and good, but we need to be pragmatic, and recognise that it isn't happening.

[Elysium]

This thread is made of Fail.

[psmith2.0]

...and so is that phrase/word.

I only come across it 75 times a day.

[Luca]

Yeah, I'm not participating anymore, and I'm no longer reading anything apple007 posts either.

[chucker]

If it's any consolation, the average PO thread on AI is much worse.

[apple007]

(Just to clear something up, I didn't start a thread about HIV/AIDS in Africa. This was split off another thread.)

Originally Posted by Luca Yeah, I'm not participating anymore, and I'm no longer reading anything apple007 posts either.

Good grief ... now a Moderator is even stooping to this childish level.

"Waaaa, waaaaa ... I'm putting you on my Ignore List!"

I guess 'Luca's life would be a lot easier if he could wage his massive FUD campaigns -- whether it's anti-Apple or anti-Catholic Church or whatever today's issue is -- without any rebuttal comments.

[Brad]

And with that last brilliant ad hominem...