Catholic Church Not At Fault (split from Garbage thead)

Skelron · Post by **Skelron** » 2002-07-12 12:00am

Darth Wong wrote:
Doomriser wrote:http://www.canoe.ca/TorontoNews/ts.ts-07-11-0006.html

"If they want to drag it out, it could easily be two weeks plus," Stockwell said.

If that's the case, Toronto's trash will still be strewn along city sidewalks and piled in parks during the papal visit later this month.
Oooh, can we hurl garbage bags at him?

Why would you want too? I can understand your problem with Fundalmentalists but the Pope is not part of that. Yes he is Conservative in some of his views, but he's also the first Pope to visit a Mosque, one of the few (and possibly the first again) Pope to take part in Jewish ceremonies.

Don't make the mistake of blaming all Christians for the views of the small if highly vocal minority. (Plus anyway the Pope Mobile would stop your bag from hitting). The Pope is an old man, who will very likely die soon, a man who has dedicated his life to his faith, and who, has done some remarkable things. He may not be perfect but he's not a bad person. He's also a person who despite health warnings from his docters refuses to stop in his duties, and who will continue to fulfil his role until the day he dies.
(Although if he is visting before the end of the month and you could arrange a heart attack, my Mother wants to see the Black smoke when she's in Rome...

)

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-07-12 12:50am

Skelron wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Oooh, can we hurl garbage bags at him?
Why would you want too? I can understand your problem with Fundalmentalists but the Pope is not part of that. Yes he is Conservative in some of his views, but he's also the first Pope to visit a Mosque, one of the few (and possibly the first again) Pope to take part in Jewish ceremonies.

That hardly excuses his deliberate exacerbation of the AIDS crisis in Africa, which is producing a death toll of millions.

If a tobacco company deliberately witholds information from the public about safety, they're hauled in front of a grand jury. When the Catholics do it in Africa, they're just "expressing their faith".

Don't make the mistake of blaming all Christians for the views of the small if highly vocal minority. (Plus anyway the Pope Mobile would stop your bag from hitting). The Pope is an old man, who will very likely die soon, a man who has dedicated his life to his faith, and who, has done some remarkable things. He may not be perfect but he's not a bad person.

Not if you disregard his direct role in exacerbating a public health crisis which stands to kill millions, or his continued advocacy of sexual discrimination.

He's also a person who despite health warnings from his docters refuses to stop in his duties, and who will continue to fulfil his role until the day he dies.

Dedication in the pursuit of perpetuating ignorance and working hard to ensure that millions more will die from AIDS (thanks to suppression of sex education) is hardly an admirable quality.

(Although if he is visting before the end of the month and you could arrange a heart attack, my Mother wants to see the Black smoke when she's in Rome... )

It would be more poetic to hit him with a garbage bag containing medical waste ... preferably HIV.

Publius · Post by **Publius** » 2002-07-12 05:47am

If a tobacco company deliberately witholds information from the public about safety, they're hauled in front of a grand jury. When the Catholics do it in Africa, they're just "expressing their faith".

Properly speaking, this is a poor analogy -- tobacco companies actively sell products which can be and are harmful to the consumer's health; deliberately withholding that information is unethical, because the products can cause addiction or death on the part of the consumer. The Roman Catholic Church disseminates its religious beliefs; withholding information about Catholic beliefs will not cause addiction or death on the part of practising Catholics due to Roman Catholicism.

It is the opinion of the Roman Catholic Church that the use of contraceptives is contrary to the purpose of sexual intercourse (CCC 2370), and for that reason, the Church opposes the use of contraceptives.

To be sure, engaging in sexual activity without the use of contraceptives (particularly condoms) increases the risk of contraction of venereal diseases, some of which can result in death, with acquired immune deficiency syndrom being the most prominent example.

If a person, out of desire to obey the Church's teaching on contraceptives, engages in sexual activity without using contraceptives, and contracts a venereal disease, it is a tragedy. No person should ever be so unfortunate to contract such a disease, whether by sexual contact or any other. However, it is not fair to the Church to immediately conclude that it is wholly responsible for the fact -- because the chances are high that the person who obeyed the one part of the Church's teaching did not obey another part -- sc., the Church's teaching on abstinence.

Make no mistake -- it is entirely possible that the Church's activities in Africa have exacerbated the AIDS crisis in that continent. If that is the case, it is indeed a tragedy, and we weep for those who have suffered. It is wholly possible that the Church leaders have erred -- they have done so in the past, some times spectacularly so. If you would really like examples, they are not difficult to find.

Nevertheless, it is only fair to point out that if a person were to obey all the Church's teachings on sexuality, the odds of contracting a venereal or sexually-transmitted disease are extremely small. Certainly, one may disagree with the Church's teachings -- and that does not make one a bad person. There is no legitimate obligation to practise any religion -- in fact, it is the opinion of the Church that no person or institution has the right to force one to act against one's convictions, or to prevent one from acting in accordance to one's convictions within due limits (CCC 2106--7).

No one forces people to obey Church doctrine; if any one actually coerces another to obey Church doctrine, he or she is actually violating Church doctrine. Individuals are free to make their own choices, including whether or not they will obey Catholic teachings, including but not limited to those on contraceptives and on abstinence.

Publius

Meghel · Post by **Meghel** » 2002-07-12 10:44am

Well, Darth Wong, you are making an often-made mistake here.

True, it is so that the Catholic Church might help the AIDS disease by refusing to give Sexual Education or the promotion of Condoms.

But you are missing some extremely crusial points here:
- Not every African is a Christian and therefore do not even listen to the pope.
- Many Africans do not even HAVE MONEY to buy condoms.

The often overlooked problem of using Condoms in Africa is that many of the poorer people can not afford to use condoms because they are too expensive.

Another overlooked problem is the sexual activity of many people in Africa, who seem to be doing "sex" regularly with different partners.

This is highly prohibited by the Catholic Church who insists on the One Man/One Woman combination and on Eternal Loyalty.

In fact, if the people of Africa all were Christians and followed the commandment to stay with their wife and be faithful, there would not even BE AN AIDS-EPIDEMIC.
In this case the Catholic Church would even be a controlling factor on AIDS

Any questions?

It would be more poetic to hit him with a garbage bag containing medical waste ... preferably HIV.

You might not like the Catholic Church as such, Mr. Wong, but is far below you!

Meghel

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2002-07-12 11:01am

Meghel wrote:Well, Darth Wong, you are making an often-made mistake here.

True, it is so that the Catholic Church might help the AIDS disease by refusing to give Sexual Education or the promotion of Condoms.

But you are missing some extremely crusial points here:
- Not every African is a Christian and therefore do not even listen to the pope.
- Many Africans do not even HAVE MONEY to buy condoms.

Both points are correct, but you forget one thing: The Catholic Church has blocked attempts by other organizations to sexually educate the Africans and provide them with Condoms and AIDS medicine.

Smiling Bandit · Post by **Smiling Bandit** » 2002-07-12 02:04pm

Cite?

And exactly would even the opposition of the Catholic Church prevent anyone else from obtaining, teaching, or using such... devices?

Particularly given the relatively small numbers of African Catholics.

I must Mr. Wong has not impressed me with his debating on his own board, even though I enjoyed his site immensely. Thus far all I have seen are a few unsupported claims on random topics.

David · Post by **David** » 2002-07-12 02:08pm

Thus far all I have seen are a few unsupported claims on random topics.

Sadly some people post their opinions and assume the rest of us will take it as fact.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2002-07-12 03:55pm

I think the issue here is that the Catholic church has ruled out the use of any contraceptives at all. So that would tend to affect a lot of people who are practising their faith... Oh wait a moment... If they were good Catholics then what are they doing having casual sex?

I think that there is more than one to blame for this, take the South African government's refusal to admit that HIV leads to AIDS and well I hardly think that the Catholic church should shoulder all the blame.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2002-07-12 09:42pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/ ... 465326.stm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/dev ... bishop.htm

From the bottom link:

Zambian health authorities this year withdrew a hard-hitting anti-Aids campaign that urged Zambians to practise safe sex through condom use after church groups protested that it encouraged promiscuity and moral decay.

I don't know what this campaign might have done, but I'm willing to bet it would have saved lives. Condom use reduces the rate of HIV infection by around 85%. (You can say abstinence is 100% effective, but I'll also tell you that abstinence-only education is seldom useful, as US schools are finding out now.)

The Catholic Church is the largest single religious organization in the entire world, and they control a vast wealth of money. The influence they have extends far beyond their supposed limits. They can give a government a nudge, and considering that they have the theoretical support of billions, they can intimidate almost anyone. I fully recognize that I'm probably being paranoid, and I apologize. This paragraph is only my opinion.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-07-12 10:56pm

If you asked this question to Robert Altman, he'd say "There is an AIDS epidemic in Africa because they saw unprotected on TV". And yes, Robert Altman is one of those hypocrite Hollywood nuts, and no, Christianity is not a reasonable scapegoat for it. In fact, many Africans are turning to Christianity for hope that it will end.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-07-13 12:00am

I'll put it to you very simply and hopefully in terms that you can comprehend.

The Catholic Church is "helping" the population in Africa by telling them to abstain from sex and that there is no alternative, when there is one: condom use. But, the Church doesn't believe in condoms and thinks they're evil, and they have actively stifled the efforts of others to bring knowledge of this alternative to the Africans, even though condoms could potentially save millions of lives and do a good deal to halt the spread of the virus in Africa. They are holding up their religious beliefs as more important than the health and well-being of millions of people, and that is an utterly, unspeakably evil act, and it is the exact set of priorities that drove the Inquisitions and the Crusades.

And, no one ever said that Christianity was to blame. Lots of Protestant denominations accept birth control, but the stumbling block to progress that is the Catholic Church doesn't. The Pope and Catholic beliefs are to blame.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-07-13 12:20am

They have to think "What Would Jesus Do?"

Jesus would prbably, with only 5 packets of s, give everyone in Sub-Saharan Africa 85% guaranteed protection form HIV.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-07-13 02:08am

Would Jesus sit back and let millions simply suffer and die when he possessed information that could save their lives and the lives of their children? Hm ... do unto others, indeed.

Publius · Post by **Publius** » 2002-07-13 04:48am

No-one is forcing Africans to have unprotected sex. If one chooses to do so, there is inherently the risk of contracting diseases. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that contraceptives are contrary to the purpose of sexual intercourse, and are therefor immoral. It is not in any way immoral for the Church to refuse to promote the use of contraceptives, or to oppose the promotion of the use of contraceptives.

You suggest that because the Church opposes contraceptives, and opposes the promotion of them, that it is responsible for the increasing occurence of contraction of the AIDS? That is not true. The fact remains that it is the choice of individuals to have sexual relations that is responsible for the transmission of the syndrome. The Church is not transmitting the disesase, nor is it actively assisting the transmission of the disease.

No-one is forcing Africans to observe one part of Church doctrine, but not another -- it is simultaneously Church doctrine that both the use of contraceptives and extra-marital sex are unacceptable. If both these doctrines were observed, it is extremely likely that the AIDS crisis would not be nearly so serious as it is.

Publius

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2002-07-13 10:41am

Publius wrote:No-one is forcing Africans to have unprotected sex. If one chooses to do so, there is inherently the risk of contracting diseases. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that contraceptives are contrary to the purpose of sexual intercourse, and are therefor immoral. It is not in any way immoral for the Church to refuse to promote the use of contraceptives, or to oppose the promotion of the use of contraceptives.

So it's not immoral to let millions die, just to make a point? Fuck, let's canonize Hitler. He was merely telling the Jews that he didn't like them.

You suggest that because the Church opposes contraceptives, and opposes the promotion of them, that it is responsible for the increasing occurence of contraction of the AIDS? That is not true. The fact remains that it is the choice of individuals to have sexual relations that is responsible for the transmission of the syndrome. The Church is not transmitting the disesase, nor is it actively assisting the transmission of the disease.

The sad fact of the matter is that nothing is going to stop the Africans from having casual sex, especially not the pontificating of a Church authority. It's proving virtually impossible to convince relatively well-educated American school children that abstinence is preferable to casual sex!

No-one is forcing Africans to observe one part of Church doctrine, but not another -- it is simultaneously Church doctrine that both the use of contraceptives and extra-marital sex are unacceptable. If both these doctrines were observed, it is extremely likely that the AIDS crisis would not be nearly so serious as it is.

That may be true, but it's also frightening small-minded. That is exactly the Church's plan in Africa, they remove one option in order to force millions to choose abstinence. You may think that that sort of behavior is all fine and dandy, but is also proving to be a complete and utter failure. The average African doesn't give a shit about Catholic doctrine.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-07-13 01:54pm

No-one is forcing Africans to have unprotected sex.

That's not the point. No one is telling them how to have protected sex. Surely you can see the difference between forcing someone into something and removing all the alternatives.

If one chooses to do so, there is inherently the risk of contracting diseases.

In American, we're taught how to minimize that risk to help save lives and enjoy the pleasures of sex.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that contraceptives are contrary to the purpose of sexual intercourse, and are therefor immoral.

A completely ridiculous teaching, as animals in nature have been known to have sex for pleasure.

It is not in any way immoral for the Church to refuse to promote the use of contraceptives, or to oppose the promotion of the use of contraceptives.

You don't get it. The Africans aren't Catholic. They need an option which allows them to practice sex safely, and the Church is refusing to give them that option.

You suggest that because the Church opposes contraceptives, and opposes the promotion of them, that it is responsible for the increasing occurence of contraction of the AIDS? That is not true. The fact remains that it is the choice of individuals to have sexual relations that is responsible for the transmission of the syndrome. The Church is not transmitting the disesase, nor is it actively assisting the transmission of the disease.

Don't you see what's wrong with this? The people in Africa are going to have sex whether the Church wants them to or not. Instead of giving them what they need to do it as safely as possible, they stand on a moral high horse essentially saying that they would sooner see Africans die from unprotected sex than have protected sex. That's utterly sick.

No-one is forcing Africans to observe one part of Church doctrine, but not another -- it is simultaneously Church doctrine that both the use of contraceptives and extra-marital sex are unacceptable.

Yes they are! They're forcing them to observe the doctrine that condoms are bad, whether they want to or not, by keeping them in ignorance of them!

If both these doctrines were observed, it is extremely likely that the AIDS crisis would not be nearly so serious as it is.

I've got news for you: people like having sex. They're going to have sex no matter what. Throwing up your arms and letting people die because of it when it could have easily been prevented is evil.

Skelron · Post by **Skelron** » 2002-07-13 06:44pm

Durandal wrote:
No-one is forcing Africans to have unprotected sex.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that contraceptives are contrary to the purpose of sexual intercourse, and are therefor immoral.

A completely ridiculous teaching, as animals in nature have been known to have sex for pleasure.

It is not in any way immoral for the Church to refuse to promote the use of contraceptives, or to oppose the promotion of the use of contraceptives.

You don't get it. The Africans aren't Catholic. They need an option which allows them to practice sex safely, and the Church is refusing to give them that option.
evil.[/quote]

Did I miss a revolution, did the Pope take over the entire of Africa does the Church now dictate African domestic policy.... No I didn't think so. The Church says it disagrees on moral grounds with sex before marriage, and where the potential for reproduction is removed. You may disagree with it, and in fact I do as well, but I also don't see how it is the Church's role to promote something to which they are opposed on moral grounds. They do not make the Policy they are merely one voice, if the African governments decide to follow it's advice then that is not the fault of the Church, it does not hold a gun over the heads of the leadership.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2002-07-13 07:51pm

Skelron wrote:but I also don't see how it is the Church's role to promote something to which they are opposed on moral grounds.

No, that isn't the Church's role, it's a strawman. The Church doesn't merely promote it's own views, it actively opposes the efforts of others to educate Africans on protected sex. This causes untold numbers of people to contract AIDS, and almost invariably to die from it.

The Church can promote abstinence as 100% effective alternative to protected sex, but they know that very few would give up sex. So they oppose the efforts of others to increase the use of protection. In effect, they sign the death warrants of millions to ensure the supremacy their doctrine--one of the most odious acts being performed in the world today.

They do not make the Policy they are merely one voice, if the African governments decide to follow it's advice then that is not the fault of the Church, it does not hold a gun over the heads of the leadership.

It does hold a gun, as I posted above. The Catholic Church itself is incredibly wealthy, and when you factor in the wealth and power of the people who accept the Church's word as law, it is certainly one of the most powerful organizations in the world. Then there are the local Catholics. Even if only 25% of the people in an African nation are Catholic, they can still dictate terms to the government. The percentage of Fundamentalist Americans isn't even that high, and they dominate public life to a great extent.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-07-13 07:58pm

The Church however is oppsoed by lots of other rich religions that don't get along to well so lucky for us it balances in the end

Skelron · Post by **Skelron** » 2002-07-13 08:18pm

The argument seems to be that the Church in forbidding and/or opposing Condoms is directly aiding the spread the Aids epidemic yet and I quote here from a source provided by those claiming this the use of condoms is not universally seen as the answer...

'But the bishops' stance that condoms were no substitute for abstinence and sexual responsibility was shared by Doctors for Life, a grouping of some 700 doctors in South Africa.

"There has to be a change in lifestyle behaviour. Just distributing condoms has no effect... Society as a whole has to change its value system," said Albu van Eeden, a member of Doctors for Life.

Now this alone I feel present's an interesting question.. is it the fact that Condons are unavaible or the fact that the cultural situation at the moment is a cause as well? YEs distrubuting Condons would be useful but that's never been the issue, What has been is that in opposing moves towards accepting Condons the church has directly influanced the situation to the negative, yet here we have Doctor's on the ground, facing the situation saying that Condons on their own would not make sufficant improvements on the situation.

Pverty it seems is the problem (from http://www.un.org/News/dh/20010424.htm#31 a website from the UN) to "banish HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other infectious diseases -- the so-called diseases of poverty and a 'Conspiracy of Silence' (I'll look into what is ment by that, I think from outside knowledge that it is due to the simple fact that sufferers from the disease in Africa do not inform others that they may have had sex with, and so until sympton's start to show... the poroblem is a cultural one, the Church is not too blame for it's spread, they might be able to help more, but in sticking to their moral standpoint they are not a cause for it's spread.)

Skelron · Post by **Skelron** » 2002-07-13 08:21pm

It does hold a gun, as I posted above. The Catholic Church itself is incredibly wealthy, and when you factor in the wealth and power of the people who accept the Church's word as law, it is certainly one of the most powerful organizations in the world. Then there are the local Catholics. Even if only 25% of the people in an African nation are Catholic, they can still dictate terms to the government. The percentage of Fundamentalist Americans isn't even that high, and they dominate public life to a great extent.

Can you actually provide an example of the Church using it's wealth through to influance the government's position on AID's has the Vatican said to a African leader... if you do this we will not give some sort of promised aid... or are you simply saying 'The Church has money, The Church must therefore be using it's wealth to force a country's leadership to do it's bidding?' Neither of your previously given example's have contained any evidence of this sort of action.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2002-07-13 08:39pm

Skelron wrote:
"There has to be a change in lifestyle behaviour. Just distributing condoms has no effect... Society as a whole has to change its value system," said Albu van Eeden, a member of Doctors for Life.
Of the medical doctors I know (including my father), most are rationalists. All of them are intelligent enough to know that you can't force a complete value change on an entire society! The name "Doctors for Life" makes me suspicious, in fact. It sounds like a religious group.

A doctor with a rational attitude would not say "the only solution is for every African to stop having pre-marital sex!" They would say something like "Although condoms can significantly reduce the spread of AIDS in communities, the best solution is abstinence. We must promote both approaches to combat the disease."

Now this alone I feel present's an interesting question.. is it the fact that Condons are unavaible or the fact that the cultural situation at the moment is a cause as well? YEs distrubuting Condons would be useful but that's never been the issue, What has been is that in opposing moves towards accepting Condons the church has directly influanced the situation to the negative, yet here we have Doctor's on the ground, facing the situation saying that Condons on their own would not make sufficant improvements on the situation.
They're saying it, but do these statements spring from a scientific consideration of the situation, or from a religious perspective?

I think the answer is obvious, when you consider their homepage.
http://www.dfl.org.za/

the poroblem is a cultural one, the Church is not too blame for it's spread, they might be able to help more, but in sticking to their moral standpoint they are not a cause for it's spread.)

I sincerely doubt that. I believe that if African men were told that condom use would reduce their chances of contracting AIDS through casual sex, and they were given these condoms, they would use them. There were efforts to do this very thing, but they have been pulled after outcry from religious groups.

But telling African men that they must stop having sex is useless at best; when it is expected to take the place of actual education, it becomes very very dangerous.

The christians have asserted for centuries that masturbation is a sin, but do you think that their efforts have really curbed that practice?

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2002-07-13 08:49pm

Skelron wrote:Can you actually provide an example of the Church using it's wealth through to influance the government's position on AID's has the Vatican said to a African leader... if you do this we will not give some sort of promised aid... or are you simply saying 'The Church has money, The Church must therefore be using it's wealth to force a country's leadership to do it's bidding?' Neither of your previously given example's have contained any evidence of this sort of action.

I admitted that I am probably being paranoid about this subject but I'll give you some circumstantial evidence:

There are billions of Catholics in the world. (they therefore have a lot of political clout)
The Catholic Church is incredibly rich. (more clout)

This establishes that they possess the gun.

They have used the gun in the past, as well:

During the Middle Ages and Renaissance, the popes raised armies time and again, precipitating slaughters of heretics and even campaigns of military conquest.

The Church was the architect of the long and bloody crusades.

One of the primary motivations between the Spanish-British hostilities was the British status as a "Lost Catholic Land." The Spaniards even received a statement from the Pope supporting their aggression.

Our current pope used his position to support Polish resistance to the Soviets (not necessarily a bad thing, but it's evidence nonetheless)

So, Skelron, they have the capacity to exert influence on governments, and they have shown their will to do so in the past. Why would they not do it now? I admit that this is not direct proof, and my conclusion are at least partially the product of my own bias, but it's still there.

Skelron · Post by **Skelron** » 2002-07-13 09:07pm

Pablo, I'd say that most of the arguments for the Church's influance in the past are a little unfair to use. That several hundred years ago they did indeed use their political power to inflaunce event's is not evidence that the Church today would. Which since the Vatican II Council is in many ways no longer the same Church. (Small matters such as the fact that the mass is no longer said in Latin, the Priest stands now facing the Congragation, the increased role of the Lay member of the Church, the phasing out of the seven Deadly unforgivable Sins... they can now be forgiven.) That still leaves the Polish question through, which however is not the same situation, the Pope used his power and influance against a government, this is against a Health issue. However I admit I need to prove that the Church is not doing this, but I also I think have to provide the other side, what the Church is doing to help combat HIV and AIDs, the quickest and easiest source for me to do this, as the organisation's name spring's quickly to mind, (Having been an important part of my Childhood) Is CAFOD the official Aid organisation of the Bishop's Council of England/Britain initially i intended to post a page link which I will still do, but this page is merely the first of a lot of pages.

What strikes me as particuler importance is that the claim that the Catholic Church does not teach about Condomns is false. CAFOD does provide full scientific facts about the benefit's of Condons, they do not however distrubute them. It also through works with suffer's of the disease, and those who merely fear they do. Such as a group of women, many of whm where raped by potential sufferers. http://www.cafod.org.uk/. I feel that it is too easy to forget that just because oe group of bishops say one thing, does not neccersary equal that the whole Church follows that view point. (In fact to think this would be very wrong, the Cardinal of France Activly supports the use of condoms saying pretty much what you have said, people will have sex outside of marriage and pre-conception forms of contraception are better than nothing.) On another note, as a person who attended Catholoic Senior School (Admittadly in the UK) As was given the full information about Condoms without any Religious spin.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2002-07-13 09:18pm

Skelron wrote:Which since the Vatican II Council is in many ways no longer the same Church.

They have changed for the better, but exactly how much they've liberalized is a matter of opinion.

[snip]

On another note, as a person who attended Catholoic Senior School (Admittadly in the UK) As was given the full information about Condoms without any Religious spin.

Thank you for that post.

You've convinced me to some extent that the Church is not as bad as I thought. But I still think they're doing harm in Africa.