Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

One of the failings of bigots is their inability to come to terms with the differences between peoples, groups, and religious communities. They usually try to impose their political views on everybody else (through the courts, pressure groups, etc.).

wimmins is evil all over again so sayeth the pope, um just wondering has a pope ever been wrong?

You know your history, right?

Equality is a issue of humanity more than it is political, and that overrides all other concerns. c.i.

Among other equally important issues... such as liberty (religious, political, economic), justice, etc.



There's the bigot... :wink:

Note: I haven't been near a computer for hours, and I likely will continue to spend most of my time this weekend fishing with an old freind who paid an unexpected visit. T'm sure this coversation has progressed well byond the point at which I was so delightfully intererupted while I was composing the following, and will continue to do so, giving me much on which to catch up, but its getting cose to dawn, and we're headed for the lake as soon as the coffee is done.







maliagar, first I wish to apologize if my manner of discourse provides you with inconvenience, whether occasioned by sarcasm or other methodology. "Cut and paste" is a time-and-bandwidth-wasting manner of web discussion, to my mind. Some folks rarely use it, and then commonly do so in sparing manner. I have in this discussion quoted brief passages (including the mention and use of book reviews), something I don't do much by way of general practice. I have also posted numerous links to samplings of the material, along with listing authors and/or specific works, which comprises the basis for the postions I maintain and the opinions I express. One need not do any followthrough on those links, nor familiarize one's self with the works of the author's I cite, or their credentials, not even the cursory, and easy, perusal of reviews and criticisms of those authors or particular works. Those with sufficient interest may do so if and as they wish. One may have and express an opinion in any event, informed or not. I gotta say your comment, "a list of websites ...etc.", brought a spray of coffee to my monitor and caused the waste of a freshly lit cigarette.

Now, If I may so presume, in all respect, I'd like to get personal here ... and I'll volunteer some personal information first, before I ask you for any.

The role of the Church during the medieval period has only medeival studies a resource pool, as far as I have been able to determine, though I suppose I may be biased by education, something which likely could be exacerbated by a lifelong fascination with the period from Classical Greek through The Renaissance. Among my earliest childhood heroes were Arthur of Camelot, and Rodrigo Diaz De Bivar - "El Cid". Well, Beowulf was in there too, along with Alexander The Great and Shakespear, but they're immaterial in the present instance. Anyway, I fell in love with the fuedal and medieval periods before there was television (I once did serious damage to myself, and to a sturdy, trusting pony, in a typically, for my age group at the time, ill-considered attempt to act out a fantasy of glorious chivalric combat). I've done a bit of research into the Medieval. Apart from that, I was funnelled from a Catholic Primary Education (much of it at a rather conservative, militaristic type of private academy - my parents intending benefit to me by way of the discipline possibly a geater factor than any immediate concern for my salvation ), through a Jesuit Secondary Academy directly into a Jesuit Post Secondary education. I've both attended and presented Newman Classes. I've had exposure to Church History and Theologic Philosophy. I've developed opinions. and come to conclusions regarding both. You've come to your position through your life experiences, too, different though they may be, and I respect that. I have no idea where you've been, or how you stand on other issues but would be unurprised to find many points of agreement, this particular discussion's philosophic point aside. I suspect some folks could even feel I may tend toward a relatively conservative view occaisionally. I don't recall ever having been in a position to be accused of participating in "group think" with the sort of folks interacting on this thread, or even been much in agreement with them, and I go way back with several of the members engaged here. There ... that's my personal information.

I would be most gratified were you to find it agreeable to choose to answer a personal question for me:

Question: Are you a lifelong practicing Catholic of at least middle age, possessed of significant parochial schooling as a youth and/or young adult?

Indulge me or not, as you wish, and whith however much or little detail or expansion as you may find appropriate and convenient. A simple "yes" or "no" would be perfectly sufficient all by itself.

OK ... that's all I've got time for right now. Its almost 5:30 ... gotta go drown some bait and lose some lures. I look forward to getting back to this as soon as that plays out. Looks like its gonna be a gorgeous day. The birds already sound enthusiastic,

Dlowan -- You raise the birth control issue, and within that is a story which best illustrated the "Roman Catholic support of science" and its outcome. The pill was developed by a Catholic -- a medical discovery underwritten, as I understand it, by the Church, for its own limited purposes. When it was shown that the pill could PREVENT pregnancy, the Church withdrew its support. I think Maliagar may not genuinely understand what science is. Science isn't a discipline aimed solely at solving specific problems for specific institutions (see, for example, the rejection of Copernicus while using his theories to develop a Church calendar) but an open-minded and open-ended search for knowledge -- wherever that knowledge may lead. We've seen that dilemma (Copernicus/Church) in our own lives, in the development of nuclear weapons.

I deleted a post last night for fear of being offensive, but in all seriousness, I am curious if maliagar is a conflicted gay Catholic. Something in his last few posts is setting that feeling off...please do not take it the wrong way, the question is an honest one.

Yikes, cav -- I for one am uncomfortable with tryinig to out anyone on these forums. If you saw the movie "Priest," that may be contributing some clues but I think it's barking up the wrong tree.

Hey all!

Some participants have expressed interest in finding out something about my background, age, schooling, secret fantasies, sexual tendencies, and ability to supress, repress, sublimize or act upon them.

I must sound really alien to you guys.... :wink:

That's not too encouraging, considering that Christianity is the religion with most followers in the world, and the Catholic Church the largest and most ancient of churches. It shouldn't be too complicated to chat every now and then with a committed Catholic. Are we isolating ourselves in an ivory tower??? (just a thought... )

I could perfectly be a closeted and repressed guilt-ridden cross-dresser, or an outlandish flaming drag queen about to endure sex-change surgery (even if my genes will forever remain male). This has no bearing on the strength or weakness of my arguments...

Craven presented what I think were the strongest arguments in this discussion (when he didn't loose it to indulge in ad hominem puns) and he did not attempt to back them up with bio information (nor I or anybody else asked for it).

On the other hand, Frank volunteered quite a bit from his curriculum vitae, but was not able (or willing) to volunteer just one piece of the evidence required for these discussions to have any purpose.

Still, perhaps (only perhaps) I'll volunteer some info when the time for a farewell comes (soon). Then you'll be able to have fun speculating about it.

Thanks for the love. :wink:

How is the weather on Mars these days, maliagar?

No. Pincus provided much of the reproductive research in the 30's establishing hormones could prevent ovulation in animals. He later tested progestin based pills on humans in the 50's then estrogen based pills. It was Margaret Sanger and Katharine McCormick who funded and advocated the pill in conjunction with Pincus' research.

The church had no part in developing the pill.

Funny the catholic church and the wax museum pope also ban the use of condoms. That's nice. If the vegetable pope had said--15 years ago--,"You are allowed to wear condoms", and there would be perhaps 1 million people in Africa with AIDS.

He has that power. But, he would rather see people die than admit that he is useless, and he was wrong about the condom thing.




Catholic Church Stance On Condoms Criticized
By Carol Eisenberg

A Catholic reform group is taking on the Vatican with an international advertising campaign beginning today that criticizes the Catholic Church's ban on the use of condoms.

"Catholic people care," say the ads in several different languages, paid for by Catholics for a Free Choice, a Washington D.C.-based advocacy group. "Do our bishops? Banning Condoms Kills."

Launched to coincide with World AIDS Day, the quarter-million-dollar campaign begins today in Washington, D.C., with 50 bus shelter and 225 subway posters, and an ad in The Washington Post.

Subsequent ads will appear in Britain, Belgium, South Africa, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Bolivia, Chile, Mexico and the Philippines. A later phase will target cities such as New York, said spokesman Paul Silva.

"The Vatican and the world's bishops bear significant responsibility for the death of thousands of people who have died from AIDS," said Frances Kissling, president of the 25-year-old advocacy group that opposes Vatican positions on birth control and abortion.

"For individuals who follow the Vatican policy and Catholic health care providers who are forced to deny condoms, the bishops' ban is a disaster," she said "We can no longer stand by and allow the ban to go unchallenged."

The Catholic Church teaches that sexual intercourse should be reserved for marriage and that married couples should not use artificial contraception.

Despite calls from those in and out of the church, most recently that of South African Bishop Kevin Dowling, to relax its ban on condoms in the face of the worldwide AIDS epidemic, the Vatican has not altered its position.

A spokesman from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops could not be reached.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

HEALTH-SOUTH AFRICA: Catholic Church to Reconsider Stance on AIDS

Inter Press Service - July 16, 2001
Anthony Stoppard


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHANNESBURG, Jul 16 (IPS) - South African Catholic Bishops will consider giving their blessing to the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS, at a meeting to be held next week.
The Catholic Church has traditionally been opposed to the use of condoms - or any type of artificial contraception - because they interfere with the creation of life.

"When people for whatever reason choose not to follow the values we promote as Church - within and outside of our community - then the bottom line is the real possibility that a person could transmit a death-dealing virus to another through a sexual encounter.

"Such people, who are living with the virus, must be invited and challenged to take responsibility for their actions and their effect on others. They should use a condom in order to prevent the transmission of potential death to another," says Bishop Kevin Dowling, of Rustenberg, in South Africa's North-West Province. He also is a co-ordinator of the South African Catholic Bishops Conference (SACBC) AIDS Office.

The Catholic Church sees the use of a condom not as a means to prevent the "transmission of life" but rather as a means to prevent the "transmission of death" or potential death to another, Dowling points out. He affirmed his belief in the Catholic Church's position that the only complete safeguard against infection by the HIV and AIDS is abstinence from sex before marriage, and faithfulness to one's partner in marriage.

He also made it clear that he was not speaking on behalf of the SACBC. "My personal stance on this issue comes out of much reflection, not to say anguish over the enormity of the suffering of people in the AIDS pandemic, which I have experienced in a very personal way in my own ministry and support of AIDS programmes in the diocese'', he explains.

His views - and that of others in the AIDS Office - are contained in a draft pastoral statement that will be considered by a plenary of the SACBC, scheduled for Jul 24. The SACBC has not issued any official statement on the discussion document - which is still being circulated to its bishops. Indications are that the SACBC will not comment on the draft statement until after its plenary meeting.

However, the Archbishop of the coastal city of Durban, Denis Hurley, has reportedly backed Dowling's stance. The SACBC AIDS Office supports 85 programmes and projects in Namibia, Botswana, Swaziland, Lesotho and South Africa. This makes it one of the largest anti-HIV and AIDS programmes in Southern Africa and active in four of the five countries with the highest HIV and AIDS infection rates in the world.

The programmes include education and prevention projects where teachers in primary and secondary schools in the Catholic network, and elsewhere, are trained to deal with sexuality and AIDS.

Orphan care and placement is another priority for the AIDS Office. At Winterveldt, a poverty-stricken area north of Johannesburg, it brings AIDS orphans to a Church centre where they receive proper treatment, food and support, plus care for the day.

Other programmes are trying to develop a network that will provide support to parents that take in orphans in a foster care programme. This programme will be an important focus for the office over the coming years as it is enormously complex. There is a need to change people's attitudes, to develop a spirit of caring and fostering in communities and to find a way to provide food and medical support for foster families. Once enough funding is secured, the office hopes to build a small eco-village to provide homes for families who are willing to foster and care for AIDS orphans.

The Office also has a great number of home-care and counselling programmes in all five countries where they operate. Members of the community are trained in counselling and home-care work and receive certificates at the end of their course. These people are paid a stipend for their work - to enable them live - and are provided with the medical kits they need for home-care work.

There are also several in-patient units in which terminally ill people with AIDS - and with no-one to care for them - are brought so that they can be supported and cared for in an environment where they can die with dignity.

The office also is setting-up a Mother to Child Transmission Prevention Programme (MTCT). Once an evaluation is complete and the support structures are in place, they hope to begin the programme in August by providing Nevirapine, which will be bought with funding, to pregnant mothers to reduce the incidence of transmission to the child.

Later, the office is planning to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to provide a cocktail of anti-retrovirals that will keep the mothers on the MTCT programme alive as long as possible.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Catholics reconsider condoms

By TIM BUTCHER
JOHANNESBURG
Tuesday 10 July 2001

The Roman Catholic Church in southern Africa is to consider backing the use of condoms to combat the AIDS epidemic.

The idea, contained in a policy paper to be discussed later this month by the Southern Africa Catholic Bishops Conference, runs counter to the church's fundamental principle of the sanctity of life, which bans condoms.

It is expected to pit the traditionalist wing of the Catholic Church in the region against pragmatists who argue that the devastating effect of HIV and AIDS means the issue of condoms must be reconsidered.

Bishop Kevin Dowling, from Rustenburg in South Africa's North West province, has prepared a policy paper after discussions with local health workers who are facing HIV infection rates of up to 50 per cent.

The document reiterates the church's view that sex should take place only within marriage, but says that it should accept that a large proportion of people do not follow this rule.

In the light of this, the paper suggests that the use of condoms should be supported as a way of reducing the spread of AIDS.

"I do not expect what we have said in the draft to get universal approval among the bishops - it will be contentious," said Bishop Dowling

Hey, Timber.

I can appreciate what you say about your Catholic background.

I know of people who hated their school nuns, and others who loved them. And people who didn't have them but would have loved to around nuns. I also know of Catholics who wanted to modernize the Church and ended up in some non-denominational storefront "church", and Protestants who were sick of their church's surrender to the spirit of the times, and converted to Catholicism precisely because it has hold most of its ground vis-a-vis the wave of Modernism.

[A few weeks ago the Southern Baptist Convention voted to regret its 1970s acceptance of abortion. After 30 years, they have returned to orthodox Christian tradition on this particular issue]

I'd like to know: What do you expect to learn or conclude from my background?

Take care.

Your arguments are weak -- whether or not you are gay -- or just deliriously happy.

One weakness is that you keep asking for writers who express the prevailing opinion on the question of whether or not the early church was an impediment to science. That is like asking for writers who have treated the subject of the non-existence of Santa Claus.

The move is a debating trick -- and nothing more.

The writers who aver that the church was something less than an impediment to science -- those people you have brought forth -- acknowledge that they are expressing a minority opinion. Even you acknowledge that what you are arguing is in opposition to the prevailing opinions. That is more than enough. And the list of names and references Timber furnished is actually overkill -- although I welcomed it, even though you have essentially disregarded it.

You quoted me saying:



And then responded:



Come on, Maliagar, get real. The "all" is undoubtedly much, much closer to the truth than "many" -- and you know it.

Sure --- some Catholic apologists are trying to revise history in order to make the horror of what the church did during its early years (and in many of its more recent years) to stifle and control science so that it would not posit things that MAY HAVE BEEN contrary to contemporary church dogma -- but their efforts are few and transparently rationalistic.

I see that you cannot see that -- and even if you could, you apparently would be unable to acknowledge it. But it apparently is so.

And it is not "apparently so" simply because I say it is so, as you have intimated several times -- but because the majority of the scholastic community says it is so.

History shows that science went nowhere during the days of the early church -- it shows that the church was reluctant to accept anything that did not comport with the theology (mythology) prevailing -- and did its best (which was no small thing when it was powerful) to squash any scientific theories they thought dangerous or in opposition to the church's position.

To suppose that the church encouraged the kind of freethinking science needs to operate efficiently and effectively is absurd.

But, you are stuck in your place -- and that is something you will eventually have to deal with.

I suggest you have the last word as you usually do, by suggesting that I am just sharing opinion -- while you are sharing scholarship -- and then get on to the next item of business.

If you want to start the new thread, please do. I will visit immediately. If not, when you post here, I will start the new thread on the issue so that others get the opportunity to join us and contribute.

Whether you're the right hand person or left hand person in your avatar?

xxxxx

Just what is the Pope doing to that poor lady anyway?

Hey, I never accused maliagar of being gay, just asked the question. I agree, it really is not important or relevant to the debate if he answers.

After reading through this entire debate, I still do side with Frank. No, I don't have the scholarly background in Christian history that you all do, but I am going with my opinion based on the knowledge presented here. I hope a new thread does come out of this, and that maliagar participates. I will read that one with interest too. Whether or not I agree with someone's opinions or beliefs, I will defend to the death their right to voice them. I am certain I am paraphrasing, but it is a sentiment I truly believe in.

Not at all, I'm afraid ... entirely too familiar, in a "broken record" sort of way, IMHO. Don't flatter yourself.


maliagar, thanks for your evasive response to my question. It was both entirely expected and entirely satisfactory. It is gratifying to have learned some of my conclusions were entirely valid. I do appreciate your having taken the effort to clear things up in that regard, at least.

Wenchi -- Indeed a Catholic individual was one of those who "invented" a form of the Pill (though not alone). It wasn't done under Church auspices, from what I understand, but rather with the knowledge of the Church since it was developed ostensibly as a short-term treatment to regulate the cycle and make ovulation easier to predict. But then, of course, it was found to be useful to prevent pregancy if you kept on taking it... etc. etc.

My gynecologist in Spain in the '60's first suggested I get on the pill. I was surprised, asked whether this was kosher in Catholic Spain. He said, no, not officially, but the prescription would read that it was prescribed as a way to regulate the cycle. Still, he said, it was most often used as contraception -- everyone knew that -- and it was readily available. In most "Catholic countries", I've found (at least in Europe) the Church and the facts of life were kept strictly separate! Our local priest had his children living with him. Cruder contraceptives of all kinds were available (guess the priest didn't use them!). In spite of the fact that I was "living in sin," the priest came up the hill to bless the house and, of course, the new donkey. And I'm not a Catholic and didn't attend Mass. So things ain't what they seem. Perhaps in the US, which seems to be less flexible and more literal in character, Catholics feel more pressure to conform. Don't know. Maybe the whole system is just as loose here.

Russell Marker's research work to synthesize progesterone was being done long before John Rock's studies.

Again, the church had nothing to do with the development of the pill.