I see. Ok, then maybe they're in a Burger King in Nacogdoches.

 

No, Nacogdoches is probably part of hell. Based on the past eight years, anthing that close to Crawford and George W. must be hell, and god would not subject unbaptized babies to that kind of cruelity.

Does everyone remember "limbo"? It was the place where newborn babies who died before baptized went. Several years ago the Catholic decide limbo didn't exist for some reason. ..

 

God might not be that cruel, Khortose, but I am afraid that in light of the above titbit of information by Lvdkeyes, I am not sure I can say the same for the Church.

 

We certainly agree on that.

 

But I hate to leave it there as, by saying that alone, that implies that many/most of the other teachings of the Catholic church are not pure and simple crap. And that'd be untrue, at least in my personal reality.

I would have to agree with you about pure and simple crap and the teachings of the Catholic Church. The world population approaching seven billion and they teach against birth control? The view on condom use and the spread of HIV? How ridiculous.

 

I see a number of churchmen are now coming out against the Pope's recent comments on condom use not helping control HIV AIDS. They say he is a solitary old man who was a scholar for most of his life and is not used to impromptu answers! Amazing, isn't it, in this day and age, that one of the most quoted men on the planet does not have a string of savvy media advisers! Unbelievable, in fact. This Pope has now been 'misquoted' on several major issues. Methinks he should retire to his study and let his advisers speak for him.

The view on condom use and the spread of HIV? How ridiculous.

The BANGKOK POST is running a poll: "Do you agree with Pope Benedict’s comment that the use of condoms could endanger public health and increase the problem of HIV/Aids?"

 

You can see the results at: http://www.bangkokpost.com/poll/1293/oo

While going to the link, I was hoping that the phrasing of the question wouldn't help screw up the intelligent answer. For once, I was pleasantly pleased that 70% disagreed with the Pope. I'd guess that well over half of even Catholics (I'm one - or was raised as one) disagree with the old guy in Rome about the condom issue.

 

The Church's position on sex and condoms parallels it's thinking about Galileo almost 500 years ago - and almost as fucking stupid as the "just say no" abstinence campaign 20 years ago in the states. Will they ever get it?

 

It's perfectly fine to try to teach kids to abstain from sex; however, a lot of them are going to have sex anyway and not arming them with the proper information and protections is simply assinine, putting their lives at risk, and damn near criminal.

 

I see a number of churchmen are now coming out against the Pope's recent comments on condom use not helping control HIV AIDS. They say he is a solitary old man who was a scholar for most of his life and is not used to impromptu answers..

 

I really find it strange that a man who (presumably) doesn't use condoms should feel so qualified to speak so loudly and publicly about their usage. A bit like a jackal condemning antelopes for eating leaves, isn't it?

 

I say if you don't play the game, you don't get to make the rules.

I see that this week's issue of the British Medical Journal The Lancet has condemned the Pope for his comments on condom use. It accuses the Pope of "distorting science" and demands that he retract his remarks.

 

In its editorial, it continues:

 

""When any influential person, be it a religious or political figure, makes a false scientific statement that could be devastating to the health of millions of people, they should retract or correct the public record. Anything less from Pope Benedict would be an immense disservice to the public and health advocates, including many thousands of Catholics, who work tirelessly to try and prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS worldwide."

For an intelligent man, this pope has said some stupid things. First, bad-mouthing Islam and now his condom remarks. Maybe the old pontiff needs to stay in the vatican and keep his mouth shut? He would do well to wear his velvet robes and red slippers and enjoy his library. Just my two-cents worth.

Just my two-cents worth.

Let's make that four cents.

As the Pope is suposed to avoid material things, let's make that his 'incense' worth - creating incense around the world!

Priests don't take a vow of poverty. He can have all the material things he wants.

That shows how much I know about the Catholic Church!

Priests don't take a vow of poverty. He can have all the material things he wants.

 

Some orders of priests (for example, the Franciscans) certainly do take vows of poverty and technically aren't allowed to own anything except personal clothing and close personal effects. Dominican priests (I think the largest order of priests) can own whatever they want including real estate. One tends to think that all priests (or nuns) are the same as the ones you personally know but that's not true (there are many varieties). All priests (at least Catholic ones) take vows of celibacy (and probably most actually honor those vows!).

All priests (at least Catholic ones) take vows of celibacy (and probably most actually honor those vows!).

Not all priests take a vow of celibacy. The Eastern Rite priests can marry and if a married Lutheran priest decides to become a Catholic priest, he can keep his wife. I have only known four Catholic priests well enough to know their sex habits. The four I knew were not celibate; one was heterosexual and the others were homosexual. These are the only ones that I can comment on their probability of honoring their vow, but I suspect these are not the only Catholic priests who have broken that vow.