The Death Of The Pope Options

[Jonman]

Here's a Guardian columnists view on the hoo-haa surrounding the Pope's funeral (today as I write this). I don't always agree with her, but she's right on the money here....

Linky linky

[believe]

Wow. Right up until the very end, I agreed with, well, everything. There's a tiny bit of bias at the end, but with things like Africa or the contraceptives issue, it has moved beyond fostering morality. Anyway, bedtime for me, before I post something silly. Thank you, Jonman.

[Mata]

I think that there's a simple answer as to why most modern religions (i.e. ones from the last few thousand years) have a grudge against women: fidelity.

A woman has the real power in a relationship, because she is the only person who is likely to know the real father of a child. The only way that a man can hope to be 100% certain that any offspring are his is by enforcing fidelity, and that becomes a lot easier when you say that God told you to do it.

Jon, when I read your post I thought you might be linking to something by Julie Burchill!

[Tigersong]

Hmm, an interesting link. I don't agree with a lot of it -- it's almost to the point where it's sensationalistic, and I get the feeling that the author is more than a bit hubristic and self-satisfied. However, it does point out a lot of the flaws which the Church absolutely has to be held accountable for. I don't blame the AIDS crisis in Africa on the Church -- quite frankly, I think that's a little ridiculous. HIV spread has as much to do with superstitious beliefs about witchcraft as anything else. On the other hand, I think the Church's position on condom use is outdated and is only aggravating a terrible situation.

Also, the Pope did speak out on the issue of child molestation by priests, regardless of what general perception is: I remember a very moving speech of his at World Youth Day in Toronto in which he spoke of the shame of the church on this issue. However, not enough action was taken to clear this up. Blaming the Church for the molestations, though, is also a little ridiculous. The number of priests molesting children over the last 50 years is only a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of child sexual abuse that goes on amongst all people.

As for the Church's obsession with sex, I think it has a bit more to it than simple fidelity issues, Mata. Sex has been mystified for thousands of years and there are huge sexual constructs that have developed within and without religious practices. It's not just about controlling women, it's also about controlling men and all sexual behaviours. There are sexual norms, there are sexual deviancies, there are fetishes, and all these things come from constructed sexual identities deriving in part from biology and in part from society. There are a multitude of layers in sexuality, and I don't think that the oppression of women or women's sexuality can be reduced so simply.

[sjbbandgeek]

I disagree with many things in that article. The Pope did not order millions of African Catholics to die, they brought it upon themselves. The big thing that I haven't seen anybody here realise is that the Pope's top priority is the spiritual health of his people, and sometimes that has to be put in front of their physical health.

[Tigersong]

I disagree with many things in that article. The Pope did not order millions of African Catholics to die, they brought it upon themselves. The big thing that I haven't seen anybody here realise is that the Pope's top priority is the spiritual health of his people, and sometimes that has to be put in front of their physical health.

First of all, that's ridiculous. Your post implies that people who die from the horrible plague of HIV/AIDS deserve it because they "brought it upon themselves." I'm sorry, that's really insensitive, especially considering that AIDS is spread amongst the prostitutes, the downtrodden, the raped, the abused just as much as the philanderers. No one deserves this disease, and no one deserves to die from AIDS. HIV spread in Africa is in large part due to uneducation... is it their fault that local beliefs teach them that to protect themselves from the disease they should sleep without a condom with a prostitute? In addition, if I am in what I believe to be a monogamous relationship, and my partner sleeps with someone outside of that relationship and therefore transmits the disease to me, does that make me at fault? Absolutely not! Secondly, I disagree with your second point on four levels: if a person is dying, or hungry, or diseased, or poor, it's both really hard and really condescending to go around "saving their souls." I'm sorry, but if I'm dying of a syndrome which rots my mouth, my skin, my internal organs, my lungs in a horrifically painful manner... I'm not all that concerned about my spiritual health, thank you very much. Also, the Catholic church has a responsibility -- as one of the largest (if not the largest) organisations in the world, as a supposedly moral and upright organisation -- to speak out against injustice in the world, and it is doing precisely the opposite of that. As well, the Vatican's dictates on condom use are terribly aggravating in a situation that has gone from bad to worse as 6,000 people die each day in Africa alone, more than all the wars, famines, and floods combined. Finally, Jesus taught people to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and heal the sick as the mission of the church. I'm sorry, but in light of those facts, the Vatican's position is extremely hypocritical.

[sjbbandgeek]

As blunt as it is, it still makes sense to me. These people spoiled the sanctity of sex according to the bible. Sometimes God feels he needs to bring justice to the people. In this case he brought in the form of aids. Yes, I agree that not everybody who has the diesease deserves it, but it was brought upon them by people who do.
If you don't concern about your spiritual health when you are in a bad condition that you have no reason to be in. That should be reason enough. Have you ever read the book of Job?

[Tigersong]

As blunt as it is, it still makes sense to me. These people spoiled the sanctity of sex according to the bible. Sometimes God feels he needs to bring justice to the people. In this case he brought in the form of aids. Yes, I agree that not everybody who has the diesease deserves it, but it was brought upon them by people who do.
If you don't concern about your spiritual health when you are in a bad condition that you have no reason to be in. That should be reason enough. Have you ever read the book of Job?

If that is your vision of God, then there is no way I would worship that God. That is a cruel, vindictive God that punishes the weak and helpless, that inflicts horror without justice, that has no mercy. This is not the God of Jesus.

Your second point doesn't really make any sense. Yes, I've read Job, several times. It's an interesting exploration on theodicy, that is, the problem of evil. It basically teaches us that what you propose above is preposterous: Job's friends argue that misfortune is always a divine punishment for something. The eventual conclusion of the book is that this is not true. Read: AIDS is not punishment for some humanly perceived "sin." AIDS is an acquired zoonotic simian disease that is destroying millions of lives; it is the bubonic plague of today (and, as an aside, all the prayers that the faithful gave in the middle ages did nothing to heal their diseases -- sanitation did.)

[CommieBastard]

As blunt as it is, it still makes sense to me. These people spoiled the sanctity of sex according to the bible. Sometimes God feels he needs to bring justice to the people. In this case he brought in the form of aids. Yes, I agree that not everybody who has the diesease deserves it, but it was brought upon them by people who do.

So, when a woman gets given AIDS by the man who rapes her, and gets pregnant and gives birth to a child who also has AIDS, it's divine punishment?

Gee, thanks a bunch, God.

[Polocrunch]

As blunt as it is, it still makes sense to me. These people spoiled the sanctity of sex according to the bible. Sometimes God feels he needs to bring justice to the people. In this case he brought in the form of aids. Yes, I agree that not everybody who has the diesease deserves it, but it was brought upon them by people who do.
If you don't concern about your spiritual health when you are in a bad condition that you have no reason to be in. That should be reason enough. Have you ever read the book of Job?

You've got to admit, Sjbbandgeek, that is massively unfair. After all, not everyone who has contracted AIDS did it because they violated the sanctity of sex. Some people were raped, some people were born with it, some people acquired it from blood transfusions, some people acquired it by injecting with dirty needles (drug addicts, sometimes people using needles for other purposes or by accident) and some people had sex with their unfaithful spouses. None of these people intended to break any of the Christian laws or sacraments, so is it fair to punish them for something they didn't do? Surely an all-loving, all-knowing god would not do such a horrible thing?

Oh no wait, malaria.

[sjbbandgeek]

But God isn't to blame for that, those cases are caused by the people who did violate the sanctity of sex.

[froggle-rock]

Neither is the person who's partner cheated on them with some one who is infected with HIV/AIDS, but they will suffer for it.

[mooooooooooopo]

But God isn't to blame for that, those cases are caused by the people who did violate the sanctity of sex.

So what you're saying is that AIDS is a punishment for the sinners, yet people who have done nothing wrong are also being punished because of said sinners.

Isn't that like bombing a city because one person in the city has done wrong? How can you call that fair?

*sighs and wanders off to do better things with his time*

[Usurper MrTeapot]

I wonder, was everyone between Sodom and Gomorrah a sinner? Or perhaps _only_ Noah and his family were the only pure people before the flood erased the world? Seems like pre-NT Earth was a bit of a naughty time to live.

Not that I agree that the AIDS/HIV issue was divine punishment but I can sort of understand what sjbbandgeek is trying to say. Just me playing devils adovcate.

[CommieBastard]

But God isn't to blame for that, those cases are caused by the people who did violate the sanctity of sex.

Yeah, He totally is, because He made HIV contagious. He could have made HIV so it only ever infected sinners; He didn't, though, and now a whole bunch of innocent people are suffering horribly.

[depressed lonely...]

it is the bubonic plague of today

only the original carriers of the bubonic plague didn't carry it around potentially infecting new people for years to come. Also the bubonic plague had less than a 90% mortallity rate given treatment available at the time whereas even now AIDS has 100% percent mortallity rate.
The god that inflicts that on innocent people doesn't deserve worship of any kind and those who do should suffer something appropriately nasty too.

[tallaght2]

I think the Church can and will continue to become more open.  The Second Vatican counsul took place many years ago and it is a recent event within the Church's history so change will take time.

Don't get angry with me, but I was actually suprised someone posted something about Pope John Paul II's death. I wouldn't doubt that some of you are happy. Its just the feeling I get from being here. So, I'm leaving for good.

I think we have waited long enough for change in the church, Of cource I am very sad to see the end of life for this pope . But there is very little to suggest that things are going to change in the future, lets take a look at who is going to elect the new Pope most of them should be retired and make way for younger people to do this job. I would think that a new Pope with the same idea's will win the vote, I feel it is time to move with the year's and bring the church and the wonderfull priest's we have,going about there daily work in parishes all over Ireland are they not wishing for the changes to take place and not to be tied down to some very silly old laws that should have got the firing squad a long ago?

[Mata]

Should the church attempt to prevent people from getting HIV and thus preserve physical life (which is an imperative handed down from Jesus) or should they prevent the possibility that future lives are not being prevented from coming into the world through the use of condoms(which is one reading of the Bible and not shared by all Christians)?

It comes down to a simpler question: has HIV been sent to test the faith of those exposed to it and the knowledge of it?

As Tigersong says, this is a problem for theodicy, the problem of evil. Would God intentionally permit a disease such as this destroy the lives of his followers? Is this really a test of their faith, that by enduring with the love of Christ they will prove their worth to enter heaven?

This is a point where you really are only going to have two answers, yes or no, and I suspect that those with differing opinions are not going to be able to agree.

As I assume has been made clear by my previous posts, I think that the Catholic church not encouraging the use of condoms at the grave mortal danger to its followers is a misreading of the Biblical command to preserve the sanctity of life.

Condoms have been permitted to a limited degree:

Many people working for the prevention of the spread of HIV recommend both the use of condoms and needle-exchange programs. The Church's teachings have not supported these practices, arguing that they send the wrong message about sex and drugs and may ultimately lead to the increased spread of HIV. The statements recommend education and treatment aimed at changing behaviour. One exception to this teaching was a statement by the Social Commission of the French Bishops' Conference in 1996. In a very limited and nuanced way, the statement acknowledges that the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV may be necessary.

(from http://www.ncan.org/resources/church_say.html )

The instructions are stated slightly more clearly in this document about the Catholic aid to those with HIV/AIDs in Africa:

There are couples where one of the parties is living with HIV/AIDS. In these cases there is the real danger that the healthy partner may contract this killer disease. The Church accepts that everyone has the right to defend one's life against mortal danger. This would include using the appropriate means and course of action.

(from http://www.cafod.org.uk/var/storage/origin...n/phpOwS4s4.pdf warning, that's an Adobe Acrobat file so you will need the reader installed if you want to have a look through it, but it is quite interesting, if only for the amount of Dilbert-esque management talk - "facilitate the sharing of best practice models"!)

Perhaps things aren't entirely without hope: the Catholic church before the black plague viewed cremation as a violation of the sanctity of the human body and denied a Catholic funeral for anyone who was cremated, however, during the plague they recognised that the preservation of the non-infected living was more important than honouring the dead and so permitted and even encouraged cremations. (from http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/articles/Condoms.asp This is an excellent article on the relationship of Catholicism to condoms, I highly recommend it.)

So, we've seen that Catholicism has adapted in the past to preserve the future lives of people who have not been infected when faced with a plague, maybe it's possible that it will happen again?

Surely if the black plague could be viewed as not being a heaven-sent punishment for sins or test of faith then there is also hope that the Catholic church may also recognise that its imperative must be to preserve the sanctity of the already living.

If you could easily push a person away from under a falling object and save their life, but choose not to, then are you responsible for their death? Personally I think that you are, and I do not see HIV as being any different from that.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that HIV is in any way choosy about who it infects, there is no doctrinal choice of punishment for the sinful. If the pope had had a transfusion at the wrong time then he too would have caught it, there is no doubt about that. I do not believe that there is a justification for arguments stating HIV to be a punishment.

Is HIV a test of faith then? Possibly, but it comes with the certainty of death. If this test could be avoided then there is no evidence to suggest that the people who have avoided will stand a reduced chance of entering heaven.

Therefore: HIV is not a punishment to the sinful because it infects regardless of behaviour, and there are plenty of other, non-lethal, tests of faith that preserve the sanctity of life.

HIV is the piano falling towards the heads of untold millions, certainly a very significant proportion of Africa, China, and around the world. Condoms have been proven to be an effective method of getting people out of the way of danger. So do I think that the Catholic church is responsible for the lives of its followers that die of HIV when they would be alive if they had been told of the effectiveness of condoms? Yes I do.

If you don't push that person out of the way when you can then you have to take responsibility for your lack of action. Just as gravity is law of the universe that works impartially of good or bad, I don't believe that there is justification for HIV being an act of God. The history of African nations has put them in a uniquely weak position to respond to an outbreak such as this, history has put them in this situation and so now there has to be a response. Time made that rope too weak to hold back the weight, now Catholicism has the chance to act and try to prevent further deaths. Is it going to stand by and do nothing? There is precedent to say that it could, but will it act?

Returning briefly to this article http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/articles/Condoms.asp :

contraception is not condemned in the Bible; usury was explicitly forbidden there. [...]  We have reached a point with contraception and AIDS where the intent is no longer the prevention of pregnancy but the prevention of death.

The Catholic church is convinced that an action that is intrinsically evil, corrupt to its very roots, cannot be utilized as a moral means even in a lesser of two evils approach. Thus, one may not kill innocent civilians to win a war even over an evil system such as Nazism. One may not control population growth with infanticide or forced abortion. One may not order the rape of women in order to demoralize the enemy and hasten the end of a war. Contraception, therefore, can only be universally prohibited if it is deemed intrinsically evil.[...]

The encyclical letter of Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae (1968), prohibited all means of artificial contraception. The pope, however, made it clear that this teaching was not infallible. He could not have done this unless there was doubt about the intrinsic evil of contraception.

The Catholic church has had the chance to prevent millions of deaths, and Pope John Paul II has had ample opportunity to act on this, but he did not. Do I hold them partially responsible for the millions of deaths that they could have prevented and continue to allow to happen? Yes I do.

I think John Paul had many admirable qualities, but I cannot overlook the severity of this 'oversight' in his attitudes.

On the subject of child abuse and Catholicism, Tigersong wrote this:

Also, the Pope did speak out on the issue of child molestation by priests, regardless of what general perception is: I remember a very moving speech of his at World Youth Day in Toronto in which he spoke of the shame of the church on this issue. However, not enough action was taken to clear this up. Blaming the Church for the molestations, though, is also a little ridiculous. The number of priests molesting children over the last 50 years is only a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of child sexual abuse that goes on amongst all people.

Obviously Catholicism is not to blame for paedophilia, and no one is suggesting that, but equally it has repeatedly ignored it and continues to do so.

One of the nine (I believe it's nine, it's around there) cardinals presiding at John Paul's funeral was Cardinal Law, the man responsible for sheltering and concealing the misdeeds of American Catholic priests. That this man could do that and still preside at such a significant event says a lot about the lack of seriousness attributed by the Vatican to the protection of child-abusers.

Not that the Vatican itself is any better; they still are holding onto a priest who has charges of child-abuse against him, but they are protecting him in Vatican city.

Cardinal Law knowingly moved child-abusing priests from one parish to another to conceal their actions, taking their assurance that they would not be tempted to repeat their actions, only for them to later prove this to be lies, but still the Vatican respects this man.

I think that 'not doing enough' is an understatement, and it is entirely understandable for people to be very angry about the Catholic churches response to paedophile priests.

The thing that annoys me the most about both of these issues is that they would be so simple to resolve, but nothing, or far too little, has been done about them.

As I said above, John Paul II had many good qualities, and he certainly could work a crowd, but I cannot overlook his lack of action on these issues.

Then again, Prince Charles shook hands with Robert Mugabe at the funeral (he was 'taken by surprise), so I guess it was just a 'lower your expectations' moment all around...

[believe]

To offer another religious perspective.. I don't think it has to be an either or. I believe there are consquences to sin. I believe the laws are there to prevent said consquences. A natural (ie biological) consquence of sex outside marriage or a safe relationship is the risk of disease. As well as emotional and others, depending on the situation. Therefore laws to forbid them were laid down. But as it happens in every country, some people chose to do evil. Therefore the result of their choices was wrongfully spread by them, to where it could harm other people. Sometimes the most innocent. Thats a very different thing from God sitting up in Heaven and pointing at an AIDS baby going 'die!'. Its not a random punishment tossed at people, but a once preventable evil. More akin to gang violence spreading through a neighorhood or something, with innocent people getting caught up in the aftermath. At least, thats my theory. >.> *slinks off*

[depressed lonely...]

Is sex outside of marriage an evil thing to do so much as an immoral action?

[believe]

By human standards? Not necessarily/generally. By God's standards? Its sin and all sin springs from an evil place/sin nature according to the Bible. Its worth noting that rageful thoughts are considered murder in one's heart and that lying and selfishness are sins, not just the more extreme categories being discussed here. Ie rape, aiding in murder/needless death and so on. So it really depends who's standards you're judging by. God (I'm just going to assume you guys know I mean the Bible and no offense to anyone in question, 'cause you're all brilliant) seems a bit stricter than popular opinion. >.>

Mata: What makes this more of a test more than Somalia, Bosnia or hundreds of other evils? I'm not quite sure HIV has to be more of a test of faith than any epidemic or extreme trauma, unless you're considering all such things to be tests?

[Righteous]

When it comes to the hows and whys of God letting things happening, here's my view: God is to grand and complex for any human to even begin to speculate His actions. Any person who says that he/she knows the will, motives or methods that God has is commiting blasphemy, pure and simply. He/she assumes that he/she is at level with God enough to know how He works and that's beyond hubris, if ever I've heard it.

That said, I've no clue why God created HIV/AIDS or why it's around or why some peole get it while others don't. I can sit here and speculate all day, but that won't do a damn bit of good. All that I know is that, for whatever reason, bad things happen and trying to figure out why won't help the situation at all.

I've never been a fan of such a structured Faith as Catholicism. When it comes to things like contraception, I see it as a thing between you and God; the church really has no say in things as it's your Faith with the God that you worship. The heavy organization also lends itself to the aforementioned shady practices. The organization and appointment of humans to positions of spiritual power can be detrimental to the world, to the individuals who partake in it and to Christianity at large. Do you have any idea how much it sucks for people to hold the mistakes of people who commited atrocities in the name of the God I worship against me even though they may have happened years if not centuries ago? I had nothing to do with it and these people were commiting acts of hatred out of their own volition. Mass organization shelters these people with the idea that they're doing the Lords work and, frankly, it pisses me the Hell off and makes the rest of us look bad.

[Mata]

Mata:  What makes this more of a test more than Somalia, Bosnia or hundreds of other evils? I'm not quite sure HIV has to be more of a test of faith than any epidemic or extreme trauma, unless you're considering all such things to be tests? 

I'm pretty sure that such things are viewed by the church as being a test of a person's faith, in the mode of 'these things are sent to try us'. My particular gripe with the Catholic response to HIV is that it is far more easy to limit its effects than social events such as civil war, but still they don't take the most basic step to help.

[believe]

I'm pretty sure that such things are viewed by the church as being a test of a person's faith, in the mode of 'these things are sent to try us'. My particular gripe with the Catholic response to HIV is that it is far more easy to limit its effects than social events such as civil war, but still they don't take the most basic step to help.

Well, to a degree. But whether religious or not, I think its fairly obvious we're living in a 'fallen world', allowing for the definitions. God might test us, but sometimes things just happen as well, I think. Cause and effect and all.

And I can't answer for the Catholic Church, I'm afraid, as I disagree with its policy as well. For the people that don't agree with your faith and have no reason to follow its laws.. they're in an awful lot of danger with something like AIDS. I think condoms are the lesser evil than babies getting AIDS, though if I what I read wherever (here?) it may not help in all cases.

[trunks_girl26]

Well, their best bet is always condoms and education on the disease. For instance, letting mothers know that breast feeding an infant who is not HIV positive from a mother who is HIV positive will infect the child.