Pope in the UK: Atheists Like Nazis

[PLAYER57832]

There are so many things wrong with this discussion that I really don’t know where to begin and frankly, I don’t know why I should bother (something about pearls thrown in front of pigs). If you want to know what the early church thought of the matter of Apostolic Succession, Here is the web page from Catholic Answers

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’" (ibid.).

Well, I think Martin Luther covered my arguments pretty nicely. Not that ol' Luther was that wonderful a guy himself in all respects, but he did nail this issue pretty well.

Or, to put it another way. I really don't need a guy in a white robe we'll ignore the possibility of a Pope Joan for right now who has kept himself from real life to interpret the Bible for me. Thank you, I can do it just fine myself... and am perfectly capable of finding my own experts when I have any questions.

[PLAYER57832]

That is a long and impressive list of citations, but none of them actually refute the article that I could see. It makes me wonder if anybody actually read it. Green isn’t a merely a Washington Post journalist, he’s a senior research scientist at Harvard. The article doesn’t say that condoms won’t work in preventing the spread of AIDS, and cites how well it works in other countries. Green does state though that the spread of the disease in Africa is happening via a different dynamic than in other places. What monogamous European couples do doesn’t necessarily correspond to polygamous African ones; it’s a false generalization. Green seems to know that even if Johnny and the rest of you are a little shaky on that point of scientific method, but we’d expect that with his credentials.

He does say that that abstinence has shown to be effective in parts of Africa. He cites the “homegrown” Ugandan program that advocates it and has lead to a lower infection rate and other nations are following. All he was saying was “Hey maybe there is something to this abstinence thing” and he immediately gets stripped, in this forum, of his credibility as a research scientist at a highly respected school apparently because he’s saying something that isn’t popular.

No, it was a bit more than that.

One point tzor makes is correct. Condoms do have to be used correctly to work. I read an estimate that showed a true failure rate among young adults of roughly 75%. That was some time ago, before all the education campaings beefed up.

BUT, the reason abstinence won't work in Africa is because the problem of AIDS there is neither homosexuals having multiple partners or people promiscuous outside of accepted marriage bounds. The problem is that sexuality is seen in an entirely different light. Begin with multiple legal marriage partners, rape as a weapon, and a general situaion where women have almost no say in sexual matters or reproduction. A married woman CANNOT "jsut say no", even if that "married woman" is only 12! NOR does a woman, in most cases, have any right to determine which partners her husband chooses.

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

Uh...you're the one who has to show that Hitler was lying when he talked about his religious beliefs. This same line of "argument" could be used to claim Hitler didn't actually hate the jews but was just playing on his people's own racism.

I already did that but here we go again, silly; Hitler had a well known habit of lying when it suited him. He signed a treaty with the pope and then gassed nuns and priests. He placed himself as "lord" of the protestant reichskirchen and any church that did not accept this was set aside as a confessing church. He signed a non-aggression pact with the USSR and broke it by invading them. During appeasement, he promised numerous times that just this or that piece of land or concession would be enough. He was a viscious, lying, psychopathic thug; I do not have to take his word for anything, he is slightly less creditable than Charlie Manson, or Jeffrey Daumer.

Disregarding the flimsiness of the evidence, that wasn't what I was talking about. Wide-spread distribution of condoms simply does not increase sexual activity that much and it certainly doesn't make the problem worse.

Lol, You still haven’t read the article have you?

You still haven't read the thread have you?

Of course I have. Not many people think atheists are like nazi's, but the British people really liked the pope and lined the streets to say "Hello".
The anti-Catholics could only muster about 6,000 people to protest him and were apprently put out that he was greeted as a head of state (which he is). Then we got into this article that I really think not many people have read that suggests that there may be more to the AIDS problem in Africa than throwing condoms at the problem, but affirms that condoms are working elsewhere in other situations. Poor Dr. Green has been demoted from a senior research scientist at Harvard to a Washington Post journalist and all for saying that the pope might be right about something.

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

Holy Christ, you're thick as a post.

Well insults aside, not so thick that I haven't noticed you're trying to daunt me with articles that you apprently don't want me to read for myself. What's the harm in posting a link and letting me read your source material?

One point tzor makes is correct. Condoms do have to be used correctly to work. I read an estimate that showed a true failure rate among young adults of roughly 75%. That was some time ago, before all the education campaings beefed up.

BUT, the reason abstinence won't work in Africa is because the problem of AIDS there is neither homosexuals having multiple partners or people promiscuous outside of accepted marriage bounds. The problem is that sexuality is seen in an entirely different light. Begin with multiple legal marriage partners, rape as a weapon, and a general situaion where women have almost no say in sexual matters or reproduction. A married woman CANNOT "jsut say no", even if that "married woman" is only 12! NOR does a woman, in most cases, have any right to determine which partners her husband chooses.

That's exactly right and it's what the article was saying. Passing out condoms, while it's not a bad idea at all, isn't going to stop the spread of AIDS through systemized rape, nor will it likely be a factor when a woman has no idea how many sexual partners her husband has or any right to demand that he use one. There are factors in Africa that have not been present in other areas where tossing condoms at the problem would fix it. It's not that condoms are a bad idea; it's that there are behaviors that need to be sorted out so that people can see how this disease is spread in this region and fight it. I'm not in any way married to Dr. Green's report, but so far that's the only one that's been cited in such a way that I can read it and decide for myself.

[tzor]

Well, I think Martin Luther covered my arguments pretty nicely. Not that ol' Luther was that wonderful a guy himself in all respects, but he did nail this issue pretty well.

I'm lucky this time I hit the shift tab key by accident. Let's just say that I strongly disagree. Luther was a hick. He may have started off with a valid complaint but then went completely off the deep end and took half of Europe along for the ride. (A ride for which he was for the most part not in controll.) To say that he was not a wonderful guy is a understatement of the greatest magnitude; in the end he was just a precursor to the German Anti Semites that eventually gave us the NAZIS.

[john9blue]

This could get ugly...

[Johnny Rockets]

here's your requested link.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0074.html

The point I'm trying to make, is that the strong presence of the catholic church in most of Africa could be used as an education conduit of the proper use of condoms, and to dispel the myths propagated against them instead of preaching abstinence and other unrealistic attitudes.

But they won't. Cuz condoms are bad, see? They encase your soul in latex and ship it off to the devil.

It's fucking irresponsible.


JRock

[2dimes]

Is there a strong presence of the Catholic Church in Africa? I am not aware of it. I thought they mostly left.

tzor! Give us the skinny here, are you guys in Africa?

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

Is there a strong presence of the Catholic Church in Africa? I am not aware of it. I thought they mostly left.

tzor! Give us the skinny here, are you guys in Africa?

From what I could see they make up about 10-20% of the population of the continent. They are only listed as the most prevalent among other religion in five Central African Countries but aren't listed among the. They are listed as the most influential religion in Uganda by conincidence the same place that has been having such success with declining AIDS infections. Abstinence and monogamy education is seen as a pariah by some but has had more sucess than condom based programs in the region. The only thing the author said was "Hey, maybe the Catholics are on to something" and there is an outcry from the anti-Catholics here. People are insulted and belittled for merely looking at the data and saying what it shows. It's a curious little community you have here; it's almost anti-intellectual when anyone comes close challenging a liberal talking point like condom education. As I've said I have no problem with condom education; all I did was read the article and comment on the data.

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

here's your requested link.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0074.html

You appear to have cited an article that says exactly what tzor's article said and draws from the same Harvard study? You seem to have cherry picked your quote from a part in which the author acknowledges that many people are against abstinence & monogamy programs, but the entire article reports the success that this Ugandan program has had.

"Uganda is one of the countries that attach great importance on promoting abstinence among our youth," said Ahmed Ssenyomo, minister counselor at the Ugandan Embassy, in a speech to the African American Youth Conference on Abstinence.

When the program started in the late 1980s, the number of pregnant women infected with HIV was 21.2 percent. By 2001, the number was 6.2 percent. The Harvard study also reported Ugandan adults are not having as much risky sex: of women 15 and older, those reporting many sexual partners dropped from 18.4 percent in 1989 to 2.5 percent in 2000.

The emphasis on abstinence in Uganda’s program is unique. In other nations with high HIV infections, such as Zimbabwe and Botswana, condoms have been promoted as the answer to ending the AIDS crisis. In Botswana, 38 percent of pregnant women were HIV positive last year, contrasted with 6.2 percent of Ugandan women.

Much of the program’s success is due to the nation’s willingness to look beyond the sexual revolution to the past.

The point I'm trying to make, is that the strong presence of the catholic church in most of Africa could be used as an education conduit of the proper use of condoms, and to dispel the myths propagated against them instead of preaching abstinence and other unrealistic attitudes.

They really don't have that strong a presence anywhere but Central Africa and the most Catholic nation is the one that's doing the best against the AIDS virus.

But they won't. Cuz condoms are bad, see? They encase your soul in latex and ship it off to the devil.
It's fucking irresponsible.
JRock

I think it's actually irresponsible to push for an institution to change a policy that's helping because you personally don't like it. The data shows that abstinence is working and has been for nearly three decades. It's working better than the condom based programs in neighboring countries. It sounds to me like you're advocating condom based programs in spite of their effectiveness, in that part of the world, rather than because of it. The data seems to support that anyway.

[tzor]

Is there a strong presence of the Catholic Church in Africa? I am not aware of it. I thought they mostly left.

I'm pretty positive, that's where all our good priests, bishops and cardinals are comming from these days. (When our pastor is away on vacation, all our visiting priests come from Africa, although some are living in Italy during the winter months.)

[Johnny Rockets]

here's your requested link.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0074.html

thanks, I'll look at it in a second.

The point I'm trying to make, is that the strong presence of the catholic church in most of Africa could be used as an education conduit of the proper use of condoms, and to dispel the myths propagated against them instead of preaching abstinence and other unrealistic attitudes.

They really don't have that strong a presence anywhere but Central Africa and the most Catholic nation is the one that's doing the best against the AIDS virus.

But they won't. Cuz condoms are bad, see? They encase your soul in latex and ship it off to the devil.
It's fucking irresponsible.
JRock

I think it's actually irresponsible to push for an institution to change a policy that's helping because you personally don't like it. The data shows that abstinence is working and has been for nearly three decades. It's working better than the condom based programs in neighboring countries. It sounds to me like you're advocating condom based programs in spite of their effectiveness, in that part of the world, rather than because of it. The data seems to support that anyway.

Changing the policy or making an exception to INCLUDE condoms in already established somewhat successful programs to . make them even more successful.

What the hell is wrong with that? The data does not show that abstinence is working in the context that they have Aids on the run. Aids needs a multiple goal program strategy to turn the tide, beginning with education on the dangers of unprotected sex, dispelling the negative myths and urban legends of condoms and how to use them properly.

John Russell

[PLAYER57832]

Well, I think Martin Luther covered my arguments pretty nicely. Not that ol' Luther was that wonderful a guy himself in all respects, but he did nail this issue pretty well.

I'm lucky this time I hit the shift tab key by accident. Let's just say that I strongly disagree. Luther was a hick. He may have started off with a valid complaint but then went completely off the deep end and took half of Europe along for the ride. (A ride for which he was for the most part not in controll.) To say that he was not a wonderful guy is a understatement of the greatest magnitude; in the end he was just a precursor to the German Anti Semites that eventually gave us the NAZIS.

Yep, Martin Luther got a couple of points correct and a bunch of other stuff wrong (not just the antisemitism, but his view of women, etc.). However, the idea that the Pope is not the sanctified spiritual descendent of Christ, the holder of all that is the church, etc, etc, etc, was correct. The Pope is just another man. A learned man, hopefully a good man, but not particularly closer to God necessarily than anyone else. I fully respected Pope John Paul. This current one.. I disdain. He is dividing, sowing hatred and bringing evil, not good.

[tkr4lf]

Pope in the Vatican: Priests like Pedophiles

[PLAYER57832]

I think it's actually irresponsible to push for an institution to change a policy that's helping because you personally don't like it. The data shows that abstinence is working and has been for nearly three decades. It's working better than the condom based programs in neighboring countries. It sounds to me like you're advocating condom based programs in spite of their effectiveness, in that part of the world, rather than because of it. The data seems to support that anyway.

No, the real evidence shows that abstinence is NOT working, not really.

In fact, a lot of the data attempting to show it worked (beginning with Reagan) was fabricated or twisted to show what people wanted it to show. I mean, its easy to say that there is abstinence outside of marriage when most girls of 12 are getting married! And when male promiscuity is not considered "permiscuity", just being perfectly "normal".

Abstinence education does not work in Africa because the problem there isn't "promiscuity" among young people, etc. The problems there are far more deep and have a lot to do with men having utter and complete control over their women.. daughters, wives, even sisters or aunts at times.

[PLAYER57832]

Changing the policy or making an exception to INCLUDE condoms in already established somewhat successful programs to . make them even more successful.

What the hell is wrong with that? The data does not show that abstinence is working in the context that they have Aids on the run. Aids needs a multiple goal program strategy to turn the tide, beginning with education on the dangers of unprotected sex, dispelling the negative myths and urban legends of condoms and how to use them properly.

John Russell

Actually, abstinence only is NOT working, not really. Not in the sense of creating change. Few African women would "venture out" because the reprisals are often pretty serious, even death. Most African girls are still circumcised, so they are not going to go out and have random sex. (for the uninitiated this means removing a woman's clittorus so she gets no pleasure from sex at all). Often the pertinent opening is even sewed up. (leaving just a small gap for "fluids"). And, many are married off by age 12. The men, however... are far more free. THAT is the problem. This one-sided idea of sexuality. Abstinence doesn't even begin to address that.

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

Changing the policy or making an exception to INCLUDE condoms in already established somewhat successful programs to . make them even more successful.

What the hell is wrong with that? The data does not show that abstinence is working in the context that they have Aids on the run. Aids needs a multiple goal program strategy to turn the tide, beginning with education on the dangers of unprotected sex, dispelling the negative myths and urban legends of condoms and how to use them properly.

John Russell

The condom based programs don't have AIDS on the run either. Catholic bashing certainly isn't going to help keep anyone from getting sick; Seriously a pregnant woman is 500% more likely to be infected with AIDS in Botswana than in Uganda. THat's not "somewhat successful" by comparison. If you think an abstinence based program first and a condom strategy for those who insist on engaging in risky behavior is a good idea, that's fine. It hardly needs the Roman Catholic Church to change their stance because those people are already disregarding the teachings of the Catholic Church by engaging in those risky behaviors anyway.

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

Changing the policy or making an exception to INCLUDE condoms in already established somewhat successful programs to . make them even more successful.

What the hell is wrong with that? The data does not show that abstinence is working in the context that they have Aids on the run. Aids needs a multiple goal program strategy to turn the tide, beginning with education on the dangers of unprotected sex, dispelling the negative myths and urban legends of condoms and how to use them properly.

John Russell

The condom based programs don't have AIDS on the run either. Catholic bashing certainly isn't going to help keep anyone from getting sick; Seriously a pregnant woman is 500% more likely to be infected with AIDS in Botswana than in Uganda. That's not "somewhat successful" by comparison. If you think an abstinence based program first and a condom strategy for those who insist on engaging in risky behavior is a good idea, that's fine. It hardly needs the Roman Catholic Church to change their stance because those people are already disregarding the teachings of the Catholic Church by engaging in those risky behaviors anyway.

PLAYER could you cite the real data to which you're referring? a Harvard study seems pretty credible to me. I'm not married to this particular study; it's just the only one to which anybody has provided a link.

It may just be my impression from the few people to whom I've spoken, but anti-Catholic bigotry seems to be a big problem in this little community. It's a good thing that it doesn't seem to be as big a problem for the people of England.

[PLAYER57832]

PLAYER could you cite the real data to which you're referring? a Harvard study seems pretty credible to me. I'm not married to this particular study; it's just the only one to which anybody has provided a link.

Here is one that mentions failures in Africa, though it does not give specific statistics.
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Abstinence,_be_ ... e_a_condom
It recommends sexual abstinence outside marriage as an ideal, having only a single long-term sexual partner. The use of condoms and other safe sex practices is advocated only if it is not possible to remain with a single sexual partner. Advocating this ideal, whilst pragmatically dealing with the fact that abstinence only sex education is ineffective by itself, has made the ABC approach more palatable to many African governments and relief agencies.[


Note: in the past, I have found MANY links showing that abstinence only education in the US does not work. IN fact, denying teens and children scientific knowledge is a good way to ensure more pregnancies and increased incidence of STDs.

MORE on abstinence plus education:
The above article talks about advantages of ABC + or advocating one partner sex as the ideal, but teaching about protection methods in addition.

Here are some criticisms:
Criticisms
The usefulness of the ABC concept is highly debated. The three elements are interpreted differently by different actors and critics argue that often abstinence and faithfulness is unduly promoted over condoms and other measures such as education, female empowerment and making available modern antiviral drugs.[12] For example, the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief has been criticised for prioritising "A" and "B" over "C" within its funding criteria. "C" activities may only be directed at "high-risk" groups, and not to the general population.[13]


Liberal critics
Critics argue that in many countries women are frequently infected by their unfaithful husbands while being faithfully married, and thus women who follow the recommendations of ABC promoters face an increased risk of HIV infection.[14] Condoms, needles, and negotiation is a proposed alternative approach as is SAVE (Safer practices, Available medication, Voluntary testing & counselling and Empowerment through education).[15]

Critics furthermore allege that the strategy overlooks the epidemic's social, political, and economic causes and "vulnerable populations", e.g. sex workers and "those who lack the ability to negotiate safe sex" as well as risk groups such as homosexuals and intravenous drug users.[16]

Critics also argue that using the word "abstinence" then teaching about safe sex and contraceptives can be contradictory.[17]


Conservative critics
Pope Benedict XVI has criticised some harm reduction policies with regards to HIV/AIDS, saying that "if the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge [of HIV] cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem". [18] Whilst this position has been widely denounced for misrepresenting and oversimplifying the role of condoms in preventing infections,[19][20] there has been expert scientific opinion and evidence supporting it[21].

Archbishop Gabriel Charles Palmer-Buckle of Accra has stated that "the Catholic Church [offers] three methods to help solve this problem of AIDS in Africa: "A", abstain; "B", be faithful; "C", chastity, which is in consonance with traditional African values. Those Planned Parenthood people are only talking about condoms. By the way, they know full well that the condoms devoted to Africa are sub-standard."[22]

(just had to highlight that last part of the Archbishop's quote.... it speaks volumes!) In TRUTH, Planned parenthood, etc talk about a good deal more than "just condoms"...but I have no idea about the "substandard" bit.

It may just be my impression from the few people to whom I've spoken, but anti-Catholic bigotry seems to be a big problem in this little community.

If you mean seriously disagree with what they believe and put forward to be Christianity equals bigotry, then yes. If you mean consider forcing others to follow their religious tenets by changing laws to be wrong is bigotry, then yes. If, however, you mean judging people who are Catholics to be inferior in any way or themselves to necessarily even agree with all the church does.. then no.

Basically, many of us disagree with Roman Catholicism and policies of the church. That is a reasoned disagreement, not bigotry. Bigotry would be if we were against Roman Catholicism without information or true reason.

[PLAYER57832]

This discusses the impact of the Global Gag rule, particularly in Uganda:

Also, from wikki http://www.ask.com/wiki/Sex_education
Sex education worldwide
Africa

AIDS posters in Côte d'IvoireSex education in Africa has focused on stemming the growing AIDS epidemic. Most governments in the region have established AIDS education programs in partnership with the World Health Organization and international NGOs. These programs were undercut significantly by the Global Gag Rule, an initiative put in place by President Reagan, suspended by President Clinton, and re-instated by President Bush. The Global Gag Rule "...required nongovernmental organizations to agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations...."[7] The Global Gag Rule was again suspended as one of the first official acts by United States President Barack Obama.[8] The incidences of new HIV transmissions in Uganda decreased dramatically when Clinton supported a comprehensive sex education approach (including information about contraception and abortion).[9] According to Ugandan AIDS activists, the Global Gag Rule undermined community efforts to reduce HIV prevalence and HIV transmission.[10]

This article lists specific data regarding Uganda:
http://www.who.int/inf-new/aids2.htm

.

[PLAYER57832]

They really don't have that strong a presence anywhere but Central Africa and the most Catholic nation is the one that's doing the best against the AIDS virus.

Which country? Do you mean Uganda?

Uganda's success was NOT because the Roman Catholic's policies of abstinence only were taught, its success was when various prevention methods were introduced.

In one way, the Roman Catholic Church has had an impact. It has encouraged monogamy. However, so do other religions/churches. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church and the current Pope is that they/he wish to ignore anything BUT pure abstinence education as "the answer", not that it promotes monogamy. They carry it way too far.

In one way, Africa and the US are identical. If people have real information, HONEST information, then they make better choices. Africa is different in that they still try to teach morals through school AND many in African plain have non-"western" or "Christian" values.

[PLAYER57832]

The condom based programs don't have AIDS on the run either.

In fact, they do.

The problem is that too many in the Roman Catholic church want to claim its EITHER condoms OR abstinence. In fact, the best program is a combination.

Catholic bashing certainly isn't going to help keep anyone from getting sick

No, but neither is pretending the Roman Catholic church somehow is to be above criticism. They do/have done great harm and are far too slow to admit it, PARTICULARLY now under the current Pope.

Seriously a pregnant woman is 500% more likely to be infected with AIDS in Botswana than in Uganda. That's not "somewhat successful" by comparison. If you think an abstinence based program first and a condom strategy for those who insist on engaging in risky behavior is a good idea, that's fine. It hardly needs the Roman Catholic Church to change their stance because those people are already disregarding the teachings of the Catholic Church by engaging in those risky behaviors anyway.

Uh.. you DO realize that the program you are reviling is WHY Uganda is a success, right?
[/quote]

[tzor]

Yep, Martin Luther got a couple of points correct and a bunch of other stuff wrong (not just the antisemitism, but his view of women, etc.). However, the idea that the Pope is not the sanctified spiritual descendent of Christ, the holder of all that is the church, etc, etc, etc, was correct. The Pope is just another man. A learned man, hopefully a good man, but not particularly closer to God necessarily than anyone else. I fully respected Pope John Paul. This current one.. I disdain. He is dividing, sowing hatred and bringing evil, not good.

First and foremost you need to get off your high horse (or you may get the same spiritual message Paul of Tarsis got). You are building up a straw man for the purpose of brning him down. You are thinking in terms of man and not of God. The "right" and "left" hand men of Jesus were the two thieves he was crucified with. The Apostles (and especially Peter) was told point blank, that if they want to be in charge they have to start washing smelly feet. Peter was crucified for his faith. John Paul II, the sucessor to Peter, was nearly assassinated.

So let's put the blame on Luter where it lies, and it lies with him "ALONE." He really was a lonely guy, you have this alone, that alone, etc. (I believe there is a classic joke about Protestants and Catholics is that the Protestant wants anything "alone" and the Catholic wants to have everything be "both.") Scripture Alone is ... not only is it wrong but since it's not in scripture it's impossible! (This is the type of logic error that would make Dr. Who's and Captain Kirk's day!) Scripture is clearly important ('cause that's in scripture) but it is not alone. So what does Scripture say?

Well, for one thing Peter makes it clear that you can really screw up scripture, to your danmation even. Scripture is not in and of itself sufficient.

Paul clearly states that the pillar and bulwark of the truth is the Church itself! That doesn't mean the building, it means the assembly, the people. This means the body of Christ that was established by Christ through that structure Christ established and the successors to that structure that Christ estblished; the bishops. Once again it doesn't mean that every Apostle or Bishop is going to always do the right thing (again Peter was the first one after suggesting that all foods are allowable to make a public statememt by avoiding the parish pig roasts) but it is the Church who has passed down the understanding of what they were handed down even though they may have not fully understood the importance at the time.

This is why most people misunderstand "infallibility." It has nothing to do with learning. It even has nothing to do with getting everything right 100% of the time. It has to do with keeping the fundamental core principle that Jesus left to the church on focus and free from serious error. Through the Spirit, Christ's promise that He will be with us always, continues. Thus it applies to faith and morals; that's it.

[tzor]

The problem is that too many in the Roman Catholic church want to claim its EITHER condoms OR abstinence. In fact, the best program is a combination.

The "best" program is a combination of "don't" and "do?" It may seem like the best combination, but it's a self defeating program at best because in promoting one you are undermining the other.

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

MORE on abstinence plus education:
The above article talks about advantages of ABC + or advocating one partner sex as the ideal, but teaching about protection methods in addition.

I think that we agree here, but why put pressure on the Roman Catholic Church to change one policy? It's the people who reject their teachings on monogamy and abstinence in general that would benefit most from condom education. Abstinence and condom programs are equally useless in the face of systemized rape. The people least likely to benefit from abstinence are the ones most likely to benefit from condom based programs. Having two programs operating side-by-side seems the best way to go and nobody has to change their beliefs to help anyone. It might be a radical idea, but it sounds like it would beat both sides pointing the finger at the number of deaths the other's policies "caused"; when the disease caused the deaths the policy merely failed to reach those people in time. It seems like we agree that anything anyone does that helps keep people safe is good. I'm not crediting the Roman Catholic Church a victory against AIDS in Uganda; it's the Ugandans that are doing the work and educating themselves. Their program, according to the Harvard, does rely heavily on abstinence and monogamy. I haven't had time to go into the studies that you posted earlier but will pretty soon. I'm for anything that works against this disease.