Pope modifies condom rules - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

pawoSD · #46 11-22-2010, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sfloriII

WOW. That's certainly well said and mature.

It's just one reason why you guys don't see me here very much anymore. I used to post several times a day and most conversations were very enjoyable-- heck, sometimes we even talked about cars! When some of us did disagree, most comments were at least respectful. That was a few years ago. Not so anymore.

Last week I was stumbling upon posts by members talking about oral sex with menstruating women. This place has really has taken a dive.

Agreed. It seems the open discussion area attracts the more unpleasant individuals of the forum. I rarely enter this area anymore since its mostly obnoxious, antagonistic posts and people.

PaulC · #47 11-23-2010, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pawoSD

Agreed. It seems the open discussion area attracts the more unpleasant individuals of the forum. I rarely enter this area anymore since its mostly obnoxious, antagonistic posts and people.

Um, this post reads as a little antagonistic...

cmac2012 · #48 11-23-2010, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

Why, it's just another example of the "tolerance" of the left, just show's the overwhelming compassion and sensitivity they have for the many documented victims of homosexual rape perpetrated by people who have historically been themselves victims of intolerance and bias!

One can only imagine if someone on the right had made a joke of say Matthew Sheppard getting what he deserved . . .

Not even in the same state. The Catholic church has has some seriously faulty code in its operating system and has for some time. Shepherd was a young man, a bit naive, who was brutalized by some punks.

It's all left/right, Sunni/Shia to you.

cmac2012 · #49 11-23-2010, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sfloriII

WOW. That's certainly well said and mature.

It's just one reason why you guys don't see me here very much anymore. I used to post several times a day and most conversations were very enjoyable-- heck, sometimes we even talked about cars! When some of us did disagree, most comments were at least respectful. That was a few years ago. Not so anymore.

Last week I was stumbling upon posts by members talking about oral sex with menstruating women. This place has really has taken a dive.

I seem to recall that all I ever saw from you was drive by pontification or put downs with no follow up discussion - well, I guess that would be the definition of 'drive by post.'

mgburg · #50 11-23-2010, 02:04 AM

Just this week, the Biship of St. Louis, Bishop Burke, became one of the 23 newly ordained (or whatever happens to them) Cardinals in Rome.

Burke was the head of the La Crosse area diocese (sp?) and spearheaded a $24M project to build a shrine to a Guadalupe (Sister/Nun/Saint) in our area...just on the south side of La Crosse.

During this time, the same La Crosse area diocese was in turmoil about having to close some of the Catholic Schools because of funding shortfalls.

HUH?????

They have $24M for a shrine honoring some dead Mexican babe and when it comes to helping to school their own, they have nothing to spare?

I'm just happy they weren't participating in funding our local government...those folks are screwing up fine without any religious help being taken and included. Or religious experience.

Anyways, it looks to me that the way to becoming a Bishop, then Cardinal, is start and finish a "tourism project" that gets believers to open a coin purse or three, and you can then count on your "project" getting you closer to the Pope...never mind the starving minds that you just kicked to the curb...they don't make "hay" when you need them to.

And some of you are surprised by what appears to be a bit of "dis-logic" concerning a rubber?

It is ALMOST laughable...if it weren't so true...

Jim B. · #51 11-23-2010, 01:37 PM

(New York Times): AIDS activists are calling the pope’s comments a breakthrough ......

huhuhuhuuhuhuh !!

aklim · #52 11-23-2010, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

(New York Times): AIDS activists are calling the pope’s comments a breakthrough ......

huhuhuhuuhuhuh !!

His comments are a significant shift in what he said during a trip to Africa in March last year, when he caused international outcry by saying the disease was a tragedy ‘that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems’.

After the Pope first mentions that the use of condoms could be justified in limited cases, such as by prostitutes, Seewald asks: ‘Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?’

Benedict replies: ‘She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.’ The Pope goes as far as mentioning the ‘ABC principle’ (Abstinence-Be faithful-Condom) on stopping the spread of AIDS.

Considering their previous position, which IIRC, is "NO", it is a breakthrough.

kerry · #53 11-24-2010, 04:27 PM

I agree, the recent changes to this original comments are a major breakthrough. His initial comments were about male prostitutes which by the RC moral theology, could not be moral under any circumstances since it is not potentially reproductive. But the change includes heterosexual sex as well as homosexual sex, implying that another good can supercede the good of reproduction in sex. This is not just a small crack, it undermines the whole logic the RC position that only potentially reproductive sex between married partners is morally legitimate.
In other words, once a married couple can use a condom to protect one partner from HIV it implies that other moral values come into play in sex besides reproduction. It also implies that stopping an HIV infected fetus/child from coming into the world is a good thing since if stopping one of the spouses from getting HIV is good, stopping a potential child from getting HIV is also good, which in turn replies that not all acts or reproduction are good.
I'd like to see someone on the board, maybe Stefan, defend the new position as consistent with the old position, and as consistent with the whole RC theory of sexuality adopted from St. Augustine.

tonkovich · #54 11-24-2010, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

I agree, the recent changes to this original comments are a major breakthrough. His initial comments were about male prostitutes which by the RC moral theology, could not be moral under any circumstances since it is not potentially reproductive. But the change includes heterosexual sex as well as homosexual sex, implying that another good can supercede the good of reproduction in sex. This is not just a small crack, it undermines the whole logic the RC position that only potentially reproductive sex between married partners is morally legitimate.
In other words, once a married couple can use a condom to protect one partner from HIV it implies that other moral values come into play in sex besides reproduction. It also implies that stopping an HIV infected fetus/child from coming into the world is a good thing since if stopping one of the spouses from getting HIV is good, stopping a potential child from getting HIV is also good, which in turn replies that not all acts or reproduction are good.
I'd like to see someone on the board, maybe Stefan, defend the new position as consistent with the old position, and as consistent with the whole RC theory of sexuality adopted from St. Augustine.

don't hold your breath.

it's just damage control / p.r.

one is reminded of this:
From 1849 to 1978, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) had a policy against ordaining black men of African descent to the priesthood. Unlike other religions where being a priest means being a full-time employee of a church and being the chief minister to several families, virtually all other male head-of-household church members were part of the priesthood. Under the same policy, black men and women of African descent were prohibited from participating in the temple Endowment and sealings, ordinances that the church teaches are necessary for the highest degree of salvation. However, the LDS Church has always had an open membership policy for all races, and black people who were aware of the racial policy did join the church. In 1978, church leaders ceased the racial restriction policy, declaring that they had received a revelation instructing them to do so. Today, the church opposes racial discrimination and racism.[1]

(but you already knew that.

)

PaulC · #55 11-24-2010, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonkovich

don't hold your breath.

it's just damage control / p.r.

one is reminded of this:
From 1849 to 1978, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) had a policy against ordaining black men of African descent to the priesthood. Unlike other religions where being a priest means being a full-time employee of a church and being the chief minister to several families, virtually all other male head-of-household church members were part of the priesthood. Under the same policy, black men and women of African descent were prohibited from participating in the temple Endowment and sealings, ordinances that the church teaches are necessary for the highest degree of salvation. However, the LDS Church has always had an open membership policy for all races, and black people who were aware of the racial policy did join the church. In 1978, church leaders ceased the racial restriction policy, declaring that they had received a revelation instructing them to do so. Today, the church opposes racial discrimination and racism.[1]

(but you already knew that.

)

I'm surmising that the revelation was received concurrent with a bluebacked document from a NAACP attorney...

tonkovich · #56 11-24-2010, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulC

I'm surmising that the revealtion was received concurrent with a bluebacked document from a NAACP attorney...

you're so cynical.

(it was the i.r.s., which had already revoked the wonderfully christian and segregationist bob jones university's tax exempt status)

PaulC · #57 11-24-2010, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonkovich

you're so cynical.

(it was the i.r.s., which had already revoked the wonderfully christian and segregationist bob jones university's tax exempt status)

Ooof, I'd rather hear from Al Sharpton...

#58 11-24-2010, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonkovich

you're so cynical.

(it was the i.r.s., which had already revoked the wonderfully christian and segregationist bob jones university's tax exempt status)

Sore subject; if the american government made one completely idiotic move it's short history, it was granting tax exempt status to religious institutions. Talk about a recipe for abuse.

tonkovich · #59 11-24-2010, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

Sore subject; if the american government made one completely idiotic move it's short history, it was granting tax exempt status to religious institutions. Talk about a recipe for abuse.

Praise the Lord. (and pass that collection plate

)

cmac2012 · #60 11-25-2010, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

I'd like to see someone on the board, maybe Stefan, defend the new position as consistent with the old position, and as consistent with the whole RC theory of sexuality adopted from St. Augustine.

Don't hold your breath on that one. Dude can't be bothered to back his remarks. Haven't seen it yet.

I'll agree, this is new territory for the Pope. Saying that male prostitutes could do anything moral is a surprise.