What is Digg?124 Comments
- Jaq524, on 10/12/2007, -12/+52All I can say is, I'm surprised. This is a logical decision, something you don't see too often out of a place like the Vatican. It's the right thing to do.
+dugg - Hegemony, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23Well, it only took a few million deaths from AIDS for the Vatican to consider this. It's about damn time.
- Kourgin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21@yiffzer
What the hell are you talking about?
its amazingly easy for 15 year olds to have sex and their parents not know.
It happens all around you.
How do i know? I was 15 once. Thats when i started getting laid. - raabco, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25The Pope/Bible is infallible..
And the sun has always revolved around the earth (well, since it was created 4000 years ago).
WAKE UP, 1/6 OF THE EARTH'S POPULATION! - Donegrim, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Please dont tell me youve never raped your hand. There's a small civilization of dead babies right there
- infinitejones, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18Are you for real? Or is that just a wierd attempt at being objective? Are you seriously questioning whether condoms stop people catching sexually transmitted diseases?
- dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -21/+33Too little, too late. This shall not absolve them of the responsibility for millions dead because of their advice. First blame hits those who chose not to use condoms ofcourse, as those people were stupid enough to listen to the vatican in the first place, but the Vaitican claims authority over these people and as such as co-responsible.
I am in favor of a criminal investigation, when the time is right. - Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Um, it's neither unusual or very wrong to have sex at 15 IMHO.
- valona, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12It was Galileo you utter *****. You are the ultimate endorsement of condoms.
- itisme, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17I'm in no way a catholic but whatever way you look at it this is good news.
- joshman5k, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16charities would supply them.
- emotive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15
Top Ten Signs You’re a Fundamentalist Christian
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and “dehumanized” when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the “atrocities” attributed to Allah, but you don’t even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in “Exodus” and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in “Joshua” including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs — though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most “tolerant” and “loving.”
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in “tongues” may be all the evidence you need to “prove” Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a “high success rate” when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian. - inactive, on 10/17/2007, -27/+38So now they can have safe sex while molesting the young boys
+1 for the church - renzien, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12I can't even tell if this guy is serious.
- navarroj, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14If you read the article you would notice that the use of condoms would only be allowed "in marriages where one of the partners [is] HIV-positive".
This still doesn't address the problem of 15yrs wanting to have sex, but still I think it's a move forward. - filippod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9It was Galileo Galilei, not Leonardo Da Vinci.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Decades?
And why would someone who isn't Catholic give a good goddamn what the Vatican thinks? - hfwarner3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The Vatican has not been telling teenagers that "Condoms will not stop AIDS", they have been telling teenagers "You should not be having sex outside of marriage and besides, condoms are not a 100% guarantee against STDs like AIDS anyway." There is a difference.
- reddevil3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Wtf are you talking about? Fornication is still seen as forbidden in Christianity as it is in Islam. The only difference between them is that Islam has allowed the use of condoms for a long time. And if I'm not mistaken it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that condoms are not to be used (correct me if I'm wrong).
- andreas1999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@kourgin:
"Thats when i started getting laid.".. you just had to put that in there didn't you? ;) - battmutler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Nope; I'm a pretty hard-line Catholic and I take this as great news.
- millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Speaking as a non-Christian, I can't say I'm surprised. The Vatican has been more progressive than most other Christian sects than the news would have one believe. They have long accepted the Big Bang theory, trying to incorporate the theory of evolution, and immediately struck down the idea of Intelligent Design when it was brought up. Only the Episcopalians seem more progressive, already accepting gay unions and all.
It's the other groups such as the Evangelicals and Methodists that bring up the ridiculous anti-science rantings (groups that are more abundent in Red State USA, whereas Catholics are mainly confined to Blue State USA such as NY). - valona, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Dude, I'm not a Catholic, but I'm almost certain, they don't believe the earth evolves around the sun. They did at one stage, but scientific theory proved otherwise. They also believe in evolution and the big bang.
And to a certain extent, their opinions are correct, not doing the jiggy-jiggy with everyone you feel like, dramatically reduces your chances of getting HIV. Condoms may help ease the pandemic, but at the end of the day, there is people who have the virus, who are spreading it to their partners, and in turn their children, because of having multiple partners, and having unprotected sex with them. Of course, there are other methods and means of getting the virus, but at the end of the day, a consensus moral decision to abstain from having sex with multiple partners, will bring down the percentage of those catching the disease. Of course, it’s easy to bash a major world religion on their opinion (bashing religion is cool kids!), rather than accepting that individual human conscience and morality may have a factor to play as well. - hfwarner3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5First, the Catholic Church is older than the Bible, so while we believe that the Bible is infallible, only the Church has the authority to properly interpret the Bible.
As for the Pope being infallible, that is EXTREMELY limited in scope:
"As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under tbe scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined."
Read more here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
So the Vatican can say that the world is flat, be presented with new scientific evidence saying it is round, and change its mind. That has nothing to do with doctrines of faith and morals.
Artificial birth control, however, does have to do with doctrines of faith and morals. - pnyphnz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Idiot. The Pope isn't infallible. He is capable of making infallible comments, but it's been a very very long time since a Pope has exercised that authority.
- TLAKABM, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9yiffzer, are you serious?
- shadus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Oh and yah... mind I graduated in 1995... things aren't getting better on that front... they're getting worse. Yer way way outta touch.
- valona, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Reddevil.
Again I am open to correction, and am basing my opinions on a Discovery channel documentary, so I am far from an expert, and open to correction, but as far as I was aware, the Vatican accept the theory of evolution, e.g that we descended from the ape. They also believe in the big bang, but believe that it was the work of God. That they don't take anything in the old testement as being pure fact, but rather as parables (and that is one of the reasons they differ from some of the more fundamentalist, extreme christian churches, who take a lot of this as pure fact, and thus believe in Adam and Eve, creationism and all that other *****). - aprocter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@VolatileWhimsy
It may be young but it happens more often than not. - Matdredalia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It's a ridiculously short step in the right direction. The damage that the Vatican has done by standing against any form of birth control, especially condoms, for so many years is enormous, and unfortunately, it's not going to get any better because of this.
It's going to be a long time, and a lot of de-Catholization before we see any real progress in the Catholic sect concerning this. - sophiaperennis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Jaq524
It is not because of what you consider logical, that the Vatican is doing this. It is a reconsideration, and not so much a reinterpretation, of the Theology of Life, in the sense that condoms promote Life through prohibiting AIDS. - VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"2) As I understand it, some Catholics use abortion as a form of birth control because they see it as better to sin only once (or twice, or ......) than to "sin" many times by using condoms."
I don't know where you pulled this little falsehood out.. But it is incorrect, a Catholic is more than likely to use a condom many times and would not use abortion..... - VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+315 is extremely young to be active.. They don't have the maturity level to deal with the consequences of their actions..
On another note, at least the Church is taking a step in the right direction, about time. Once again change does not happen over night people. - lordsandwich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Are you sure they're condoning the use of condoms for sex, and not for, say, balloons?
- hfwarner3, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Who has raped more young boys, priests or sports coaches? Priests or teachers? Yes, it happened and people are suing the Church because they think they can get rich, but if you are seriously concerned about keeping your child safe, they are statistically more endangered by their coach or teacher than their priest.
- hfwarner3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It was pretty universal throughout all the branches of Christianity that the use of condoms was wrong up until the 1930s. The seventh lambeth conference of the anglican church said that it was alright to use birth control in serious situations. That opened the door for interpretation of the word "serious" and everything fell apart. So, 76 years ago, you did not use a condom and call yourself a Christian. Today, it is mostly the Catholics who still stick to the original universal teaching.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambeth_Conferences#Seventh_Conference_.281930.29 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@hfwarner: abortion was allowed as per the catholic church until 1869. Condoms were disallowed as a form of abortion, as each sperm was hypothesized to contain a homunculi (microscopic fully formed human).
The bible says nothing about either abortion or condoms or masturbation.
The bible does however contain a case where one person is killed by God for coitus interruptus (although from context it really seems he's killed for cutting his second wife, which he inherited from his brother, out of his inheritance by denying her a son). - Anguis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Regarding halting the spread of STDs, abstinence works 100% of the time. It's folks making bad choices that contributes to the spread, not telling them to abstain from sex. The Vatican is absolutely guiltless in recommending a 100% effective means of avoiding STDs (at least as long as intercourse is involved). Control yourselves, folks, you're not animals.
- hfwarner3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well, there was that whole "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" thing that Jesus said, but let's ignore that so that you can make your point.
- hfwarner3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They have not conceded anything. This is mostly wishful thinking on the part of the journalist. The teaching is not going to change.
- VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You really floored me, especially with this statement..
"Roe vs. Wade so killing the abortion doctors is the lesser of the two evils."
I can honestly say that there is not a Roman Catholic that I know with this view. There is not a Roman Catholic priest with this view that I know. There is not a Roman Catholic nun with this view. There is not a Roman Catholic Deacon with this view that I know.
I have never ever heard the Pope even come remotely to justifying this at all... I am just flabbergasted at you.... - raabco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"They did at one stage, but scientific theory proved otherwise. They also believe in evolution and the big bang."
That was my point. Popes claim that they and the bible are infallible, yet they (the popes) continue to admit being wrong and change their minds about certain subjects. Their original beliefs are taken from their interpretation of the bible, science proves them wrong, then they find another way to interpret the bible, yet more than a billion people follow their word to the letter. So not only are they not infallible, they're sadly mistaken about very important facts regarding human life. How, then, can they be trusted on anything else they claim, including the infallible nature of the bible? Does it not concern you that one man can reference an ancient, cryptic, heavily translated and transcribed book and be able to find several different positions regarding the same subject? Of course they can do so only after social or scientific pressures. Yet they do manage to gain followers while re-interpreting the infallible meaning of the bible.
To get back on topic, humans are only one of the handful of creatures that generally practices monogamy, and the only one that practices abstinence by choice. I wouldn't be the first to suggest that it's highly unnatural for humans to be monogamous nor abstinent by choice. Think about it. A man can produce a half a billion sperm cells in less than a week, are they all meant to chase a solitary egg? Perhaps our nature is, as most other animals, to try and pass our genetic material to as many willing females as possible. Yet we're supposed to abstain until marriage, and then only have sex in order to procreate? Why are humans the only beings that are required to follow god's rules?
Look, I'm not bashing religion because it's trendy, or because it makes me popular. If i were to follow the trend, and do what i see the majority of my fellow humans doing I'd be going to church and praying to one of a number of gods. I'm simply pointing out facts that are much more obvious to me than to others who have been brainwashed from a young age. - hfwarner3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Azur2: abortion has never been allowed by the Catholic Church. It was clearly re-iterated in 1869 that abortion was a sin, but this was not a NEW declaration. As you said, a hypothesis about biological facts was made and has since been revised as more knowledge has become available, but the underlaying moral teaching of "Abortion is murder" has not changed.
You can go back to the writings of the Church Fathers in the first two hundred years of the Church and clearly see that abortion was held to be a serious sin. Didache Apostolorum - "You shall not kill by abortion the fruit of the womb and you shall not murder the infant already born." It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and an early abortion was thus "less wrong" (venial versus mortal sin). Again, as scientific theological understanding evolved, so did the guidelines of the teaching evolve.
You have to look at the infallible teaching or teachings that underlay the Church's position on any topic. On the topic of artificial birth control, I do not see any possible way that it could be allowed in any circumstance without undermining other teachings that are held us infallible. I am not a theologian, but I have read the writings of theologians on both sides of the arguments. Yes, there are some Catholic theologians who think you can allow artificial birth control in certain circumstances, but they have yet to find a solution when their arguments are shown to contradict established dogma in related areas. The end result would be a repeat of the 1930s. - thomsonr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Truth of the matter is very few Catholics pay attention to that doctrine anyway. Even 30 years ago when I was 17.
- xtarburst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1LOL what a bunch of hipocrital BS, first UFO's and now condoms hahaha xD
- VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That is really odd, because the priest in my parish said that people should not turn away from the church for such a thing...
- jsares, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Going to THE source:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kd4G6RNWHmY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8 - hfwarner3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You entirely missed my point -- abortion DOES NOT justify shooting abortion doctors. You can not call a sin a "lesser of two evils" and go ahead and do it when there are holy options available to you. As I said, this is a ridiculous argument that some of the extremists tried to use to justify shooting the abortion doctors in the early 90s. They were wrong.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The main problem is wrt catholic opposition to UN programmes on child control & disease control in Africa. The people in richer catholic areas simply ignore the church doctrines; e.g. there's a condom vending machine in every pub toilet in Dublin.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 125 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is