the universe according to the Vatican

[jillybean74]

Apparently it's ok to believe there was a big bang, and that life might have evolved on other planets (even intelligent life). But not ok to believe humans evolved by natural selection?
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL146364620080514?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews

Comments

[jillybean74]

but perhaps it will minimize them.
Hopefully. I'd like to see the Catholic Church redefine its attitude toward condoms. For the benefit of millions of poor, African (mostly married) women who already agree with and subscribe to the values of fidelity that the church prescribes, I'd like to see the Pope listen to his science advisors on this one. Some bishops are calling for it, but not others...

The Catholic bishops of South Africa, Botswana, and Swaziland categorically regard the widespread and indiscriminate promotion of condoms as an immoral and misguided weapon in our battle against HIV/AIDS for the following reasons. The use of condoms goes against human dignity. Condoms change the beautiful act of love into a selfish search for pleasure-while rejecting responsibility. Condoms do not guarantee protection against HIV/AIDS. Condoms may even be one of the main reasons for the spread of HIV/AIDS.
-from Family Values Versus Safe Sex 2003

Furthermore, there are catholic officials who claim that widespread condom use is more dangerous than discouraging condoms, because condoms don't work against AIDS. I think such a claim really does count as going against science.

[jillybean74]

PS. I'm not really trying to single out the Catholics on any of this. It's just an ironic example of the contradictions inherent in many faith systems.

[jillybean74]

It was a little tongue in cheek and not really meant to be accurate. I think any biases I have against catholicism are probably less militant than even my husband's are.

[jillybean74]

My question to you is the claim coming from the Vatican or from the individual archbishops?
That's great that people are speaking out. Unfortunately, I think the current pope shares the more regressive attitude.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4081276.stm

I have no problem with the abstinence message, but in Africa, the ones getting the AIDS are the faithful married women. It makes me want to shake any Catholic official heartily by the shoulders.

[jillybean74]

Perhaps it's not possible to find a quote where the pope actually says condoms don't work, but according to fairly numerous reports, there are a fair number of catholic officials saying, apparently, that condoms aren't really "safer" so people shouldn't use them, and that the AIDS virus is hundreds of times smaller than a sperm cell, etc. The argument goes that people should be abstinent or faithful to their partner instead of ever using a condom. That works fine, if both partners comply. When only one partner complies, the other one is left with AIDS.

What about the children of such marriages, who are not at fault in any way? They either end up with AIDS, end up orphans, or both. I hate the fact that catholic officials go around saying "condoms aren't good enough" and use that rationale to justify bad policy.

The idea that condom use promotes a promiscuous lifestyle is what I object to. Even if it did, it's about saving lives and reducing human misery. I have to see proof that the traditional catholic teachings reduce promiscuity in order to see any validity in that argument, whatsoever.

This, like all things, will change when the proponenets (who are old) die and are replaced by someone in the next generation. That's usually how big ideas are spread, including scientific theories like the big bang, etc. The old guard is replaced by new people who grew up with certain ideas. When the new guys take over, we will have some progress.

I recognize that good that the catholic church, and other religious institutions have done in the world. However, they are very very off the mark on this one.

Re: Omelettes and broken eggs

[tblumens]

Excellent discussion, why was 'Bou's last comment deleted?
I side with her, I dislike the current Pope, and I admire the grassroots work - there's loads of it in Brazil, where most Catholics use contraception - when a religion is mainstream, most mainstream behaviours end up being reflected in it. Not many Brazilians are deeply religious, though, so people in general take what the Pope says with a pinch of salt.

Re: Omelettes and broken eggs

[jillybean74]

I think it was Andrew that deleted his own comment

Yes, that was me

[andrew_the_oga]

Context doth make cowards of us all, or at least forces a tighter grip on English grammar than I apparently possess at 0600h.

Omelettes and broken eggs

[andrew_the_oga]

Even if it did, it's about saving lives and reducing human misery.

That's correct. But death and misery are seen by plenty of otherwise-reasonable people as perfectly acceptable outcomes for the "lifestyle choice" of promiscuity. In considering the example of the subSaharan trucker's wife and her life of spousal rape, these people usually just say helpful things about how she should just leave the bum anyway. Sigh.

the proponenets (who are old) die and are replaced by someone in the next generation

Remember that organizations promote people who fit the mould, and the Vatican has been successful by its very constancy. I talk to lots of people way younger than me whose views on, say, harm reduction programs, abortion, gay rights and human rights in general-- are far more conservative than my own. I'm not optimistic.

We need radical speech, if only because when you pull on the end of a continuum, you move the middle ever so slightly too. The very fact that "we should give condoms to people who need them" is perceived as a radical view in some circles means that more of us have to become advocates, rather than just being supporters.

Re: Omelettes and broken eggs

[jillybean74]

We need radical speech, if only because when you pull on the end of a continuum, you move the middle ever so slightly too.
Having just read Mistakes Were Made, but Not By Me, I am not sure about this. A radical point of view sometimes makes deep seated ideas become even more intrenched, because the human "dissonance reducing" mechanisms start to take over.. ie) I'm a compassionate and caring individual, how could I support an uncompassionate, misery-inducing idea? It must be a good idea! Yes, it's a fantastic idea! Look at all this evidence for it!

Then again, when you look at history, it's the radical movements that have gotten the population at large to start re-examining its biases and that has led to massive social change. It's pretty hard to argue otherwise.

I do think there are people within the catholic church right now who have different ideas about what should be what WRT Africa, but most of these people are at lower levels. You're right about the grooming process, for higher positions especially. But there is hope that once the changes in attitude reach critical mass, the top topples too. I could be deluding myself because I want to think that, but there really is evidence of change at a more grassroots level. Most actual catholics are more sensible than the elite, my in-laws included.

Why are your comments screened? I just went and friended you, maybe that will make the problem go away. I'm still a bit of a novice LJ user.