»   New Tory peer says in an interview: the cuts will make the poor "breed" http://bit.ly/gGJJ2E 1 hr ago

»   My favourite pictures from yesterday’s student protests http://t.co/A27Lrnq via @libcon 2 hrs ago

»   Why the student protests are unlikely to backfire despite the coverage http://bit.ly/hqXznU explains @AdamRamsay 2 hrs ago

»   Belgium? Who cares about Belgium going down? They probably have just one national bank. It's Portugal & Spain that matter #eurozone 7 hrs ago

»   yup... still awake. This is getting ridiculous. 8 hrs ago

» More updates...


  • Family

    • Earwicga
    • Liberal Conspiracy
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shreen Ayob
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head



  • Technorati: graph / links

    Pope says go forth without multiplying


    by earwicga
    23rd November, 2010 at 5:27 pm    

    Well, not quite.

    Over the weekend excerpts of Peter Seewald’s interview with Pope Benedict were published in Italy with an interesting revision regarding condom use and HIV.   Part of this interview has the Pope saying:

    There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

    Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?
    She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

    Clarification has been sought since as to whether this revision is applicable to everyone.  Catholics for Choice today reports:

    This morning, the Vatican’s spokesperson, Rev. Federico Lombardi, said:

    ‘I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine. He told me no. The problem is this … It’s the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship. This is if you’re a woman, a man, or a transsexual. We’re at the same point.

    This is welcome news from the Vatican, even if it they are words ‘made in a “colloquial and not magisterial” form’.

    UNAIDS - a global view of HIV prevalence in 2009


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Current affairs






    24 Comments below   |   Add your own

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. sunny hundal

      Blogged: : Pope says go forth without multiplying http://bit.ly/hrjvVb


    2. earwicga

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Pope says go forth without multiplying http://bit.ly/hrjvVb


    3. Pharma Sy

      Pickled Politics » Pope says go forth without multiplying http://bit.ly/e787Vu


    4. sunny hundal

      @alphabetofbeing http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/10832




    1. douglas clark — on 23rd November, 2010 at 6:49 pm  

      Weren’t condoms ‘no use’ because an HIV virus could get through the sheath or summat?

      Was not that part of high church doctrine? Was that not a downright lie?

      I’m more interested in who banged the Pope’s head against an available brick wall, than I am in us all pretending that the sea anchor of religious stupidity is a good thing.

      These people are not role models, they are, one and all, complete utter tits.

      I feel a Dawkins’ moment coming on…

      It is time, perhaps to say:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHH8bfPhusM

      One of my top ten tunes…

    2. Don — on 23rd November, 2010 at 8:19 pm  

      Now a cynic, a strident gnu-atheist, might find it sardonically amusing that the first concession on condoms is for male prostitutes.

      With whom the Vatican has had a long standing and evidently still current arrangement.

      I don’t care if Joey Ratz wants to throw a bone to his flock, the best that can be hoped is that the wider flock will just get the idea that the ‘condoms = burn in hell’ dogma is no longer quite so rigid. Get a little wriggle room for the faithful. It’s not much.

      But contraception is still out of bounds. So it’s provisionally, sort off almost ok if you you are engaged in commercial gay sex. But so far not otherwise.

      With very few exceptions, such as that nice Simon Barrow, whenever religious authorities or spokespersons or pundits show just a little of how their minds work, make that telling pronouncement, or just wear a stupid fucking hat and expect us to take it seriously, then I get short on patience.

    3. douglas clark — on 23rd November, 2010 at 8:28 pm  

      don,

      I don’t care if Joey Ratz wants to throw a bone to his flock, the best that can be hoped is that the wider flock will just get the idea that the ‘condoms = burn in hell’ dogma is no longer quite so rigid. Get a little wriggle room for the faithful. It’s not much.

      Yup.

      Wankers, the lot of them. And, yes, I would say that about other religions too!

    4. earwicga — on 23rd November, 2010 at 8:32 pm  

      Don, the clarification says ‘taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship. This is if you’re a woman, a man, or a transsexual. We’re at the same point.’

      It seems that this revision is for everyone, not just male sex-workers as the excerpt published on Saturday suggested.

    5. Don — on 23rd November, 2010 at 8:57 pm  

      earwicga,

      Thanks. I expect there will be further developments, and if this does turn out to be a wider papal approval (or equivocation or general concession) on the use of condoms to combat AIDS, that would be good. If it went anywhere in practice.

      Are you optimistic about this?

    6. Niaz — on 23rd November, 2010 at 9:12 pm  

      Douglas Clark yes but other religions don’t have rules as strict as the Catholic church on condom use. So blaming them for something they don’t subscribe to does rather make you the wanker.

    7. douglas clark — on 23rd November, 2010 at 9:53 pm  

      Niaz,

      But you don’t get me, do you?

      I am against all religious idiocy. Which includes catholic ridiculous beliefs about penetration of AIDS virus, through condoms.

      I would be interested to know what religion you follow, because it is likely, probable, even, that whatever belief you have is equally open to mirth.

      I may be a wanker - certainly all the tits from Harrys’ Place think so - but you have to prove that, rather than predicate it.

    8. earwicga — on 23rd November, 2010 at 10:04 pm  

      Don, I am actually. Obviously not all clerical will embrace this, but those that do can really make a difference.

    9. Katy Newton — on 23rd November, 2010 at 10:35 pm  

      Was the Pope wearing his special Infallible Hat when he said it? I don’t know very much about Catholicism but I know that the Pope has to wear a special Infallible Hat or he isn’t considered infallible, which means that supposedly mature and educated people can carry on pretending that wearing a condom to avoid giving your sexual partners STDs isn’t a good idea.

    10. douglas clark — on 23rd November, 2010 at 10:54 pm  

      Katy Newton @ 9

      Fucks sake, an infallible hat?

      The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost, and, err, the Hat!

    11. earwicga — on 23rd November, 2010 at 11:08 pm  

      Katy, I’m not sure about an Infallible Hat’. There is an Infallible Chair (sort of) - ‘the Latin phrase ex cathedra, literally meaning “from the chair”, refers to a teaching by the pope that is considered to be made with the intention of invoking infallibility.’

      This statement about condom use wasn’t made ex cathedra.

    12. Katy Newton — on 23rd November, 2010 at 11:12 pm  

      I like the idea of invoking infallibility. I am going to do this more often. I am being infallible NOW.

    13. Don — on 23rd November, 2010 at 11:45 pm  

      Simon says. Wear a condom.

    14. Sunny — on 24th November, 2010 at 5:40 am  

      I’ve been pretty infallible since I started this blog.

    15. douglas clark — on 24th November, 2010 at 7:35 am  

      Only when your beard was properly trimmed. And hats that!

    16. douglas clark — on 24th November, 2010 at 8:22 am  

      Katy Newton @ 12,

      I trust you had your hat on when you made that comment! There must be an entire sub-genre on what constitutes a fashionable hat to wear when commenting on t’internet!

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/29802630@N08/4371394692/

    17. Kismet Hardy — on 24th November, 2010 at 10:39 am  

      Perhaps now the monkeys at Durex will start making realistic sizes that don’t end up making my cock look like a teabag floating inside an astronaut’s helmet

    18. Katy Newton — on 24th November, 2010 at 3:40 pm  

      @Douglas I am already devising the InfalliHat, which makes me infallible on matters of Catholic doctrine whilst protecting my milkbottle skin from the sun’s cruel heat.

    19. earwicga — on 24th November, 2010 at 4:51 pm  

      Are you planning on moving from the UK once you have devised your InfaliHat Katy? There’s no chance of the sun’t cruel heat bothering us again.

    20. Shamit — on 24th November, 2010 at 10:53 pm  

      The Pope is trying to catch up and not find so many of his top line bishops in Africa preaching something which goes against the very essence of Catholic teaching.

      Bishops in Africa don’t have the usual hang ups that bothers the Catholic Church - such as communion, use of condoms, accepting sex before marriage - in effect bishops in Africa and Asia are much more moderate and pragmatic.

      So why was the Pope’s comment necessary? In fact it was a bit dumb - so is he saying that Catholic Church would openly accept gay priests (not - even though many of them are child molesters)? So its not okay to have sex with a condom on if you are married?

      Well Pope - your flock has left you behind better catch up soon mate - he is an irelevant tosser and someone who is criminally negligent for protecting child abusers.

      Even Netanyahu is a better person than this German git.



    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.