- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 10,320
- Reaction score
- 2,116
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
This former Portuguese colony is mainly Catholic and Benedict lamented what he called strains on the traditional African family.
"Particularly disturbing is the crushing yoke of discrimination that women and girls so often endure, not to mention the unspeakable practice of sexual violence and exploitation which causes such humiliation and trauma," Benedict told an audience of government leaders and foreign diplomats in the late afternoon.
The silence from the anti-Catholic bigots, who are flooding their own anti-Catholic threads but ignore a thread where even they can only but admit the Pope is right, is deafening.
Well it is good to know that the pope is against violence aimed at women, and he uses his status to speak about it. However, that hardly excuses his other failures. The pope does plenty of good in the world, but that doesn't mean I won't criticize him when he makes harmful statements about condom use in Africa that will get people killed.
How about his statements about keeping your pants zipped up outside of a committed marital relationship, which will save people's lives?
The silence from the anti-Catholic bigots, who are flooding their own anti-Catholic threads but ignore a thread where even they can only but admit the Pope is right, is deafening.
If the pope wants promote abstinence before marriage, I have no issue with it. It probably will have little effect, but won't cause any harm either. However, attacking the use of condoms is my point of contention. Telling people that condoms will make the AIDS problem worse is a flat out lie that will get people killed.
If the pope wants promote abstinence before marriage, I have no issue with it. It probably will have little effect, but won't cause any harm either. However, attacking the use of condoms is my point of contention. Telling people that condoms will make the AIDS problem worse is a flat out lie that will get people killed.
He says that condoms make the problem worse because they give a false sense of invulnerability and work against curbing the activity which spreads HIV.
Perhaps because this is about as newsworthy as "BREAKING: Bird Reappears for Spring"?
link
Of course, the Anti-Catholics will spin this silly, but it is entirely consistent with what I have said on other threads regarding the empowerment of women and the necessity to give women more ability to make their own decisions - including in the sexual realm.
hey, even GWB got SOME things right.....:2razz:
There is absolutely no evidence of that, and quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. The pope is putting his religious beliefs before the facts and public health. His actions are causing harm and he should take flak for them.
Yet somehow the Pope condemning the use of condoms IS breaking news considering that this has been the teaching for God knows how long?
The silence from the anti-Catholic bigots, who are flooding their own anti-Catholic threads but ignore a thread where even they can only but admit the Pope is right, is deafening.
You're supposed to condemn sexual violence against women, and anyone else as a matter of course.
They do.
.
.
.
.
.
.
No--I think he's just sick of all the bull**** strawman attacks as I am, and wanted to see the hypocrites choke on their own bile.Well ludahai seems to think they deserve some sort of medal for finally putting forth a statement that isn't a total PR catastrophe.
Like what? You gonna go on about female priests? :roll:In any event, my assertion stands. The Catholic Church really has no business taking on equality and womens rights generally until they've dealt with the discrimination in their own house.
The United States is only one country, and the Church worldwide is growing, not shrinking.How much relevance does the Pope and Vatican have any more? Frankly, I tend to change the channel if a Pope segment airs on TV. And most Catholics I've known don't seem to feel strongly one way or the other about what he says... not in the way they seem to care about what Democrats or Republicans are saying in this country anyway.
Yeah...and Abraham Lincoln or Mahatma Gandhi were really "attractive" leaders.:roll:BTW, I used to really like the old Pope. This new one seems awfully creepy.
Is a man "discriminated against" because he can't get pregnant? It's just not part of the nature of what pregnancy is, or what a man is. Likewise, women are not discriminated against because they can't be a priest. Jesus was a man--He is the highpriest--only men are able to be priests by their nature.
Don't worry...I know the Heimlich:2razz:
You're seriously going to compare biological truths with flippant prejudice? A man can't birth a baby but a woman most certainly can preside over a church. Outside the discriminatory Catholic Church they do so all the time.
If we went by what jobs were held historically by men as evidence of what jobs are "manly" in nature and thus off limits to women we women wouldn't be allowed to do much of anything.
People are body and soul--inseparable. Identity is the same. No man can be "mother" either BECAUSE of his gender. By definition, his gender influences the FACT that he can't hold that title.:roll:
People are body and soul--inseparable. Identity is the same. No man can be "mother" either BECAUSE of his gender. By definition, his gender influences the FACT that he can't hold that title.:roll:
Why would a soul have a gender?
Yeah--when two bodies and souls have sex, often the result is another body and soul. It's called making a baby.Do souls reproduce?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?