Comments on: Herr Ratzinger continues the massacre

By: Tony Coyle

Tony Coyle — Thu, 07 May 2009 13:08:05 +0000

Coming to this particular post late, but here’s my $0.02 anyway.

The pope firmly believes that condom use is synonymous with promiscuity - right or wrong, that’s the stance of many ultra conservatives too.

From that perspective I can understand the conflation (increased condom use means increased promiscuity means increased HIV/AIDS)

But this is a classic post hoc fallacy. Promiscuity is there regardless of condom use. We’ve seen that in the US, with increases in STDs & juvenile pregnancies correlating closely with abstinence programs (and lack of prophylactic availability). These kids are not promiscuous because they have access to condoms. They are promiscuous because that’s what kids are! Access to birth control (and education) would hugely impact those negative outcomes (STDs and pregnancies).

Condom use is not the cause of promiscuity, nor is a cause of HIV/AIDS transmission.

And the pope talks out of his hat.

By: Randy

Randy — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:27:40 +0000

I submit that Ratzinger believes he IS being held to–and upholding–a high standard: in this case an attitude toward suffering which has found expression by SOME Catholics (most notably “Mother” Theresa) and other Christians for centuries: the idea that suffering (”the consequence of original sin”) is meant not to be relieved, but endured–”offered up” as a means of participating in the “saving work of Jesus.” Personally, as a Christian raised in the Catholic Church but now peacefully Methodist, I find the valuing of suffering to be a perverse extension of the equally perverse and obscene doctrine of substitutionary atonement (aka, “God, the Cosmic Child Abuser”). But, this is the context in which Ratzinger’s words make sense (anything can make sense given the right context). The tragedy here is not that Ratzinger is clueless to the realities of the world, or that he and others are addicted to the pornographic idolatry of suffering (did you see Mel Gibson’s movie?), it is that people believe this equine excrementa because it is part and parcel of the bill of goods they have been sold by missionaries who first informed them they were damned, and then told them the only way out of their eternal hopelessness was to submit to the authority of their buddy, the Church. If those poor superstitious people in the third world weren’t sold–and didn’t buy–this hocus pocus, Ratzinger’s words wouldn’t amount to a fart in a hurricane.
BTW, Erich, I don’t think the Americans to whom you refer are willing to give the pope a free ride because he is the pope. I think the special dispensation accorded him is due to the fact that his words are killing darker-skinned people located somewhere other than here. The wide-spread use of contraception by Catholics in the U.S. pretty much shows how seriously they take His Pontifical Holiness when his pronouncements affect their lives.

By: Hank

Hank — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 21:54:56 +0000

Hell, if the old bugger’s meant to be infallible he should be held to the highest standard possible!

By: Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:01:34 +0000

Just in case I wasn’t completely clear . . . There are millions in America who will give the Pope a free pass because he’s the Pope. My suggestion was to imagine any other powerful person saying things that would cost many thousands (maybe millions) of lives and hold the Pope to the same standard (even though the fair thing to do would be to hold the highly educated well-to-do Pope to a much HIGHER standard than most people0.

How can the Pope dare babble on about holy stuff and chastity while thousands of people are dying? Shouldn’t we stop the dying before we start the preaching? How can we possibly concern ourselves with sexual propriety when there are almost 12 million AIDS orphans in Africa, and these number are skyrocketing? http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm

By: Hank

Hank — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:34:27 +0000

Obviously this message is despicable & murderous and would still be so whether it was being delivered by Ratzinger, bin Laden, Barack Obama or - heaven forbid - Kate Winslet.

I also believe the carrier of any message has to assume a level of responsibility for its content and for its potential consequences. The closer you are to the source of that message the more responsibility you have for what it says and how it affects people. In this case there’s noone closer to the source of this particular message than the Pope.

He also appears to understand the severity of the AIDS problem in Africa, at least on a superficial level, so he’s probably not a complete idiot. However, when he proclaims that condom use actually hastens the spread of AIDS and makes the problem worse, he’s either completely stupid or flat-out lying to people he knows will accept whatever he says just to support old dogmas. This has the potential to cost peoples’ lives in great numbers. In fact, the Vatican line on condoms has already killed untold numbers of people, does so right now and will continue to do so until the Vatican changes that line to one more in keeping with reality. Ratzinger pushes a line he knows is false and he pushes a policy he knows is useless and contrary to human nature. For this he deserves every bit of scorn & disgust anyone can muster.

By: Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 23:52:05 +0000

Hank: This is a vicious rant. It raises the question of whether the Pope deserves your harsh words. Here’s how I look at it.

Let’s look at the message rather than the person saying it (or the fancy robes worn by the person saying it). Let’s assume that some anonymous highly politically influential guy stood up and took the stands that the Pope takes on contraception, gay rights and AIDS in Africa. I would find the message equally despicable.

What if Osama Bin Laden made a video arguing that we shouldn’t give poor Africans condoms even though these condoms would save hundreds of thousands of lives? What would we think of Bin Laden if he argued that some variant of chastity was more important than saving thousands of lives? What if Bin Laden strolled through poor African villages, looking distantly at dozens of children orphaned by AIDS and had the power to condemn them to a similar short and painful existence by denying the village condoms for years to come?

Wouldn’t we say that Bin Laden is twisted, arrogant, evil? Wouldn’t we wonder what the hell he is thinking to allow so much pain and suffering to befall so many? Wouldn’t we conclude that he is not worthy of any respect?

By: Hank

Hank — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 05:12:06 +0000

Glen, I’d pay money to do it - if it wasn’t for the fact that he’s more insulated against and protected from the outside world than your average international space station.

Hexes eh? I wouldn’t be too concerned. He may be ancient, may wear a robe & silly hat, say a lot of silly shit in Latin, live in an ancient castle surrounded by magic artifacts and talk to ghosts all the time, but that doesn’t mean he’s Professor Dumbledore.

Thanks Mary. Seems Pope Ratzi is following the little-konwn sub-commandment “thou shalt not kill directly.”

By: Glen Blackstock

Glen Blackstock — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 03:45:29 +0000

Hank,
I would pay money to listen to you debate with the perpetually pompous pope but I’d be worried he might put a hex on you or something.

By: Mary

Mary — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:41:10 +0000

Maybe the Pope didn’t get the memo on that “Thou shalt not kill” commandment.

Nice rant, Hank. I agree with your sentiments.