Christians a few tips in your daily walk

[bluehillside Retd.]

DaveM,

But a deafening silence as regards the WHO actively following a program to carry out this 'barbaric' practice on 20 million men in Africa.

This is what the WHO says (from its website):

"There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence."

HIV in human populations didn't exist in biblical times, so I'm not sure what point you think you're making.

Note too:

1. The programme is intended to reduce infection from sexual contact so is specific to adults who presumably have a say in the matter, as opposed to babies who do not.

2. The WHO emphasises "provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings" - none of which were available to Abraham. How many babies would have died from botched attempts, infection etc when there was no HIV prevention upside later on to balance the risk?

The WHO continues:

"Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use." (emphasis added).

Given that the high incidence of HIV in Africa is substantially caused by the very church that prohibits the use of condoms do you not think that the better solution would be change that teaching in the first place rather than to claim that Abraham was right all along? 

[Outrider]

These two concepts are separate. To conflate the two is fallacious and merely encourages ''universal darwinianism''.

If by 'Darwinism' you mean the theory of evolution by natural selection, it doesn't really respond in any way to 'encouragement', it's a conceptual description of natural processes. That's a little like saying that poetic language like 'falling in love' will encourage gravity.

O.

Non sequitur.

I was commenting that Torridon's suggestion, that the use of the term evolution to describe any change proceeds from the Darwinian notion of evolution, was fallacious and encourages other fallacies such as universal darwinianism.

Ah, so you meant it encourages the idea that Darwinism is universal... sorry, poor phrasing your part, I understand now.

O.

[DaveM]

DaveM,

But a deafening silence as regards the WHO actively following a program to carry out this 'barbaric' practice on 20 million men in Africa.

HIV in human populations didn't exist in biblical times, so I'm not sure what point you think you're making.

Given that the high incidence of HIV in Africa is substantially caused by the very church that prohibits the use of condoms do you not think that the better solution would be change that teaching in the first place rather than to claim that Abraham was right all along?

For the record I am probably as well informed on HIV/Aids as most non-health professionals.  I personally knew a brilliant young doctor who was in the same medical class as my daughter and who set up a practice which catered solely for HIV/Aids sufferers.  He was always in demand as a speaker at the global conferences on the subject.  My daughter also happens to be a blood specialist and is very much up to speed on the issue.  In addition I was responsible for getting the national governing body of my church to set up a group in the late 1980's to investigate and develop a response to the looming aids epidemic (which at that time affected some 0.25$ of the population) and which was empathetic, non-judgmental and practical.  As a result this church is very much involved in ministering to and caring for those affected.

You clearly think that HIV/Aids is the only disease which has been linked to circumcision.  Suggest you revisit some of my posts on the earlier threads on circumcision and reconsider.

You comment that the high incidence of HIV in Africa is substantially caused by the very church that prohibits the use of condoms simply highlights your total ignorance of Africa, its people, and its tribal cultures.  The official position adopted by the hierarchy of the RC church has been no more than a minor issue affecting the progression of the epidemic.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

DaveM,

For the record I am probably as well informed on HIV/Aids as most non-health professionals.  I personally knew a brilliant young doctor who was in the same medical class as my daughter and who set up a practice which catered solely for HIV/Aids sufferers.  He was always in demand as a speaker at the global conferences on the subject.  My daughter also happens to be a blood specialist and is very much up to speed on the issue.  In addition I was responsible for getting the national governing body of my church to set up a group in the late 1980's to investigate and develop a response to the looming aids epidemic (which at that time affected some 0.25$ of the population) and which was empathetic, non-judgmental and practical.  As a result this church is very much involved in ministering to and caring for those affected.

That's nice. Did you use your position to campaign for the reversal of the anti-condom policy and, if not, why not?

You clearly think that HIV/Aids is the only disease which has been linked to circumcision.  Suggest you revisit some of my posts on the earlier threads on circumcision and reconsider.

Straw man - I clearly don't. What I do think though - because they say so on their website - is that HIV specifically is the reason for the WHO's campaign.

You comment that the high incidence of HIV in Africa is substantially caused by the very church that prohibits the use of condoms simply highlights your total ignorance of Africa, its people, and its tribal cultures.  The official position adopted by the hierarchy of the RC church has been no more than a minor issue affecting the progression of the epidemic.

You wish. There's a substantial body of evidence that directly connects condom prohibition with high incidences of HIV, both in Africa and elsewhere. If you seriously think otherwise, why not tell the WHO that they're wrong when they talk explicitly about the need for condom use as part of the anti-HIV campaign in Africa? 

[floo]

The Catholic church's crazy stance on condoms certainly doesn't help the problem of HIV. Surely anything which helps to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies is GOOD. I must have missed the verse in the Bible which states, "Thou shalt not use condoms!" 

[DaveM]

DaveM,

You comment that the high incidence of HIV in Africa is substantially caused by the very church that prohibits the use of condoms simply highlights your total ignorance of Africa, its people, and its tribal cultures.  The official position adopted by the hierarchy of the RC church has been no more than a minor issue affecting the progression of the epidemic.

You wish. There's a substantial body of evidence that directly connects condom prohibition with high incidences of HIV, both in Africa and elsewhere. If you seriously think otherwise, why not tell the WHO that they're wrong when they talk explicitly about the need for condom use as part of the anti-HIV campaign in Africa?

I must have missed the publication, or whatever communication channel was used, which provided the data in support of that statement of yours.  Please supply your reference which claims that there is a direct connection between condom prohibition (by the church) and high incidences of HIV, as being the substantial cause of high HIV rates in Africa, as opposed to simple low levels of condom use. Thanks

[bluehillside Retd.]

DaveM,

I must have missed the publication, or whatever communication channel was used, which provided the data in support of that statement of yours.  Please supply your reference which claims that there is a direct connection between condom prohibition (by the church) and high incidences of HIV, as being the substantial cause of high HIV rates in Africa, as opposed to simple low levels of condom use. Thanks

Then you must have missed an awful lot of them as even a cursory search turns up many of them. Try here for example:

https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3127299.html

The study concludes:

"Consistent use of condoms provides protection from HIV. The level of protection approximates 87%, with a range depending upon the incidence among condom nonusers. Thus, the condom's efficacy at reducing heterosexual transmission may be comparable to or slightly lower than its effectiveness at preventing pregnancy.

Family Planning Perspectives, 1999, 31(6):272-279"

You're welcome.

Oh, and I notice your "nothing to with me Guv" of "(by the church)"as countries in which the RC church was not deeply embedded would somehow also have low condom use. Cute. It's simple enough - if every RC cleric preached condom use from the pulpit then their use would increase, and the incidence of HIV would decrease. 

[DaveM]

DaveM,

I must have missed the publication, or whatever communication channel was used, which provided the data in support of that statement of yours.  Please supply your reference which claims that there is a direct connection between condom prohibition (by the church) and high incidences of HIV, as being the substantial cause of high HIV rates in Africa, as opposed to simple low levels of condom use. Thanks

Then you must have missed an awful lot of them as even a cursory search turns up many of them. Try here for example:

https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3127299.html

The study concludes:

"Consistent use of condoms provides protection from HIV. The level of protection approximates 87%, with a range depending upon the incidence among condom nonusers. Thus, the condom's efficacy at reducing heterosexual transmission may be comparable to or slightly lower than its effectiveness at preventing pregnancy.

Family Planning Perspectives, 1999, 31(6):272-279"

You're welcome.

Good Morning bhs,

Thank you for the reference which you provided. No I have not missed that much.  We are clearly talking past each other. The issue is not the fact that low condom use in Africa has been a major factor contributing to the rapid spread of HIV/Aids in Africa.  There is no dispute on that fact.  If you have interpreted any of my posts in this way then please point any actual statements in them which gave you this impression.

Where I took issue with you was your claim that the prohibition on the use of condoms by the (Roman Catholic) Church was the substantial reason why condom use in Africa was so low.  Unfortunately the article you have provided is of no use in this regard.  As far as I can see the word church, whether RC or not does not appear in the article at all.  So if anything it supports my position.

So I will repeat my position.  While the low use of condoms is a major issue contributing to the spread of HIV/Aids in Africa the prohibition on their use by the RC church is a very minor factor.  You need to look deeper at other African cultural and tribal attitudes to identify the reasons for low condom use.

I note with interest that your reference article was published in 1999 and that its opening comments state, ‘heterosexual intercourse is the primary mode of HIV infection worldwide. In the United States, male homosexual contact and intravenous drug use account for the majority of HIV infections, but transmission via heterosexual contact continues to increase. 

Perhaps I can build on this to illustrate two contrasting examples.

You may recall that in the late 1980’s (if my memory is correct) one of the features of San Francisco were the ‘Gay Bars’ which were very popular with a small section of the gay community and where it was known that sexual contacts with multiple partners were common.  That was until a few individuals became seriously ill.  It did not take long for the medical profession to realise that these were who individuals were reaching an advanced stage of Aids complications.  Further investigations showed that HIV/Aids infection rates were now spreading amongst this community.

But this was a well-educated, sophisticated group who had no problem in recognising and accepting the underlying source of the problem and they rapidly adjusted their lifestyle accordingly.  Many resorted to having single partners and were voluntarily tested to establish their HIV status.  The use of condoms was widely adopted and the spread of infections was virtually stopped in its tracks.

In South Africa, where it is essentially a heterosexual issue, the level of HIV infections at that time was about 0,25%.  Further north in Central Africa it was much higher but grossly under-reported.  It is, in fact, interesting that the spread of HIV southwards in sub-Saharan Africa can be followed with remarkable precision down the great trucking routes of Africa.  In South Africa the port of Durban (the country’s major harbour) was the biggest single final trucking destination.  No surprises that it was in Kwazulu-Natal that HIV infections in this country were highest.

In South Africa the level of infections in 1990 were doubling approximately every eight to nine months.  It was clear that there only a small window of opportunity existed in which to persuade people to change their sexual habits if disaster was to be averted.  A campaign, the ABC approach, was launched with the objective of achieving this.  The vast majority of churches backed the campaign and none publicly spoke out against it.

A – Abstain
B – Be faithful to one partner 
C – Use a condom

The emphasis was very much on B & C.  Graphic advertising was used to try and get the message across.  But to little avail.  There was a great aversion and reluctance amongst men to use condoms.  In addition there was widespread scepticism and disbelief that the cause of a small number (at that time) of people dying of what was commonly known as ‘Slims Disease’ could possibly be a consequence of a casual act of unprotected sex some seven years previously.

By the time the article in your reference was written in 1999, the level of HIV infection in South Africa was well above 20% and large numbers were dying.  Confronted with the stark reality of almost everyone having lost a close friend or family member to the epidemic, attitudes were slowly changing and condom usage increased.  But by then the horse had long bolted.

So I hold to my assertion that the attitude of the RC church on condom use is a very minor factor and not a substantial factor contributing to the spread of HIV/Aids in Africa. 

Enjoy your day   

[bluehillside Retd.]

DaveM,

Good Morning bhs,

Thank you for the reference which you provided. No I have not missed that much.  We are clearly talking past each other. The issue is not the fact that low condom use in Africa has been a major factor contributing to the rapid spread of HIV/Aids in Africa.  There is no dispute on that fact.  If you have interpreted any of my posts in this way then please point any actual statements in them which gave you this impression.

Where I took issue with you was your claim that the prohibition on the use of condoms by the (Roman Catholic) Church was the substantial reason why condom use in Africa was so low.  Unfortunately the article you have provided is of no use in this regard.  As far as I can see the word church, whether RC or not does not appear in the article at all.  So if anything it supports my position.

So I will repeat my position.  While the low use of condoms is a major issue contributing to the spread of HIV/Aids in Africa the prohibition on their use by the RC church is a very minor factor.  You need to look deeper at other African cultural and tribal attitudes to identify the reasons for low condom use.

I note with interest that your reference article was published in 1999 and that its opening comments state, ‘heterosexual intercourse is the primary mode of HIV infection worldwide. In the United States, male homosexual contact and intravenous drug use account for the majority of HIV infections, but transmission via heterosexual contact continues to increase. 

Perhaps I can build on this to illustrate two contrasting examples.

You may recall that in the late 1980’s (if my memory is correct) one of the features of San Francisco were the ‘Gay Bars’ which were very popular with a small section of the gay community and where it was known that sexual contacts with multiple partners were common.  That was until a few individuals became seriously ill.  It did not take long for the medical profession to realise that these were who individuals were reaching an advanced stage of Aids complications.  Further investigations showed that HIV/Aids infection rates were now spreading amongst this community.

But this was a well-educated, sophisticated group who had no problem in recognising and accepting the underlying source of the problem and they rapidly adjusted their lifestyle accordingly.  Many resorted to having single partners and were voluntarily tested to establish their HIV status.  The use of condoms was widely adopted and the spread of infections was virtually stopped in its tracks.

In South Africa, where it is essentially a heterosexual issue, the level of HIV infections at that time was about 0,25%.  Further north in Central Africa it was much higher but grossly under-reported.  It is, in fact, interesting that the spread of HIV southwards in sub-Saharan Africa can be followed with remarkable precision down the great trucking routes of Africa.  In South Africa the port of Durban (the country’s major harbour) was the biggest single final trucking destination.  No surprises that it was in Kwazulu-Natal that HIV infections in this country were highest.

In South Africa the level of infections in 1990 were doubling approximately every eight to nine months.  It was clear that there only a small window of opportunity existed in which to persuade people to change their sexual habits if disaster was to be averted.  A campaign, the ABC approach, was launched with the objective of achieving this.  The vast majority of churches backed the campaign and none publicly spoke out against it.

A – Abstain
B – Be faithful to one partner 
C – Use a condom

The emphasis was very much on B & C.  Graphic advertising was used to try and get the message across.  But to little avail.  There was a great aversion and reluctance amongst men to use condoms.  In addition there was widespread scepticism and disbelief that the cause of a small number (at that time) of people dying of what was commonly known as ‘Slims Disease’ could possibly be a consequence of a casual act of unprotected sex some seven years previously.

By the time the article in your reference was written in 1999, the level of HIV infection in South Africa was well above 20% and large numbers were dying.  Confronted with the stark reality of almost everyone having lost a close friend or family member to the epidemic, attitudes were slowly changing and condom usage increased.  But by then the horse had long bolted.

So I hold to my assertion that the attitude of the RC church on condom use is a very minor factor and not a substantial factor contributing to the spread of HIV/Aids in Africa.

Thanks for taking the time to post this. Clearly people are now dead who would otherwise be alive but for the teachings of their faith - to suggest otherwise would be idle. You seem though to want to be shown that the RC influence is "substantial" before accepting that it's a bad thing. I'd suggest that it's a bad thing even with one unnecessary death, but you'd need to define "substantial" to determine how bad it is.   

Clearly the active campaign of disinformation in which the RC church engaged by telling people in HIV/AIDS stricken countries not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass didn't help. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo for example backed the claim, despite the WHO showing it to be false.

Worse yet, in Lwak, near Lake Victoria local priests claimed "that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids"; in Kenya (where c20% have HIV) the Archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Nzeki said, "the Catholic Church condemns condoms for promoting promiscuity" and also repeated the claim about permeability.

I entirely accept that there are cultural issues at play in Africa too, and I'm not sure how with any precision you'd determine whether it's RC 99% to blame/culture 1% to blame, the other way around or somewhere in between. There's a bunch of academic papers on the subject, but they tend to be small scale - "the influence of the church on condom use in students at Lusaka University" type of thing. I accept too that some local priests did (and presumably still do) promote the "C" of ABC on the ground.

The facts remain though that:

1. The RC church is highly embedded in countries with high HIV rates in which it is also highly authoritarian.

2. The RC church has in the past at least actively engaged in a programme of disinformation about the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV.

3. Official Vatican policy is still that condom use is a no-no.

How many are dead as the result? Don't know, but surely you wouldn't want to claim that its role has been helpful would you?

Enjoy your day

And you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

DaveM,

Good Morning bhs,

Thank you for the reference which you provided. No I have not missed that much.  We are clearly talking past each other. The issue is not the fact that low condom use in Africa has been a major factor contributing to the rapid spread of HIV/Aids in Africa.  There is no dispute on that fact.  If you have interpreted any of my posts in this way then please point any actual statements in them which gave you this impression.

Where I took issue with you was your claim that the prohibition on the use of condoms by the (Roman Catholic) Church was the substantial reason why condom use in Africa was so low.  Unfortunately the article you have provided is of no use in this regard.  As far as I can see the word church, whether RC or not does not appear in the article at all.  So if anything it supports my position.

So I will repeat my position.  While the low use of condoms is a major issue contributing to the spread of HIV/Aids in Africa the prohibition on their use by the RC church is a very minor factor.  You need to look deeper at other African cultural and tribal attitudes to identify the reasons for low condom use.

I note with interest that your reference article was published in 1999 and that its opening comments state, ‘heterosexual intercourse is the primary mode of HIV infection worldwide. In the United States, male homosexual contact and intravenous drug use account for the majority of HIV infections, but transmission via heterosexual contact continues to increase. 

Perhaps I can build on this to illustrate two contrasting examples.

You may recall that in the late 1980’s (if my memory is correct) one of the features of San Francisco were the ‘Gay Bars’ which were very popular with a small section of the gay community and where it was known that sexual contacts with multiple partners were common.  That was until a few individuals became seriously ill.  It did not take long for the medical profession to realise that these were who individuals were reaching an advanced stage of Aids complications.  Further investigations showed that HIV/Aids infection rates were now spreading amongst this community.

But this was a well-educated, sophisticated group who had no problem in recognising and accepting the underlying source of the problem and they rapidly adjusted their lifestyle accordingly.  Many resorted to having single partners and were voluntarily tested to establish their HIV status.  The use of condoms was widely adopted and the spread of infections was virtually stopped in its tracks.

In South Africa, where it is essentially a heterosexual issue, the level of HIV infections at that time was about 0,25%.  Further north in Central Africa it was much higher but grossly under-reported.  It is, in fact, interesting that the spread of HIV southwards in sub-Saharan Africa can be followed with remarkable precision down the great trucking routes of Africa.  In South Africa the port of Durban (the country’s major harbour) was the biggest single final trucking destination.  No surprises that it was in Kwazulu-Natal that HIV infections in this country were highest.

In South Africa the level of infections in 1990 were doubling approximately every eight to nine months.  It was clear that there only a small window of opportunity existed in which to persuade people to change their sexual habits if disaster was to be averted.  A campaign, the ABC approach, was launched with the objective of achieving this.  The vast majority of churches backed the campaign and none publicly spoke out against it.

A – Abstain
B – Be faithful to one partner 
C – Use a condom

The emphasis was very much on B & C.  Graphic advertising was used to try and get the message across.  But to little avail.  There was a great aversion and reluctance amongst men to use condoms.  In addition there was widespread scepticism and disbelief that the cause of a small number (at that time) of people dying of what was commonly known as ‘Slims Disease’ could possibly be a consequence of a casual act of unprotected sex some seven years previously.

By the time the article in your reference was written in 1999, the level of HIV infection in South Africa was well above 20% and large numbers were dying.  Confronted with the stark reality of almost everyone having lost a close friend or family member to the epidemic, attitudes were slowly changing and condom usage increased.  But by then the horse had long bolted.

So I hold to my assertion that the attitude of the RC church on condom use is a very minor factor and not a substantial factor contributing to the spread of HIV/Aids in Africa.

Thanks for taking the time to post this. Clearly people are now dead who would otherwise be alive but for the teachings of their faith

Are you trying to say that putting it about and seeking out virgins for unprotected sex is not to blame also?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingabout,

Are you trying to say that putting it about and seeking out virgins for unprotected sex is not to blame also?

No, and nor have I suggested such a thing.

You'll be running out of straw soon won't you?

[Leonard James]

Thanks for taking the time to post this. Clearly people are now dead who would otherwise be alive but for the teachings of their faith - to suggest otherwise would be idle. You seem though to want to be shown that the RC influence is "substantial" before accepting that it's a bad thing. I'd suggest that it's a bad thing even with one unnecessary death, but you'd need to define "substantial" to determine how bad it is.   

Clearly the active campaign of disinformation in which the RC church engaged by telling people in HIV/AIDS stricken countries not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass didn't help. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo for example backed the claim, despite the WHO showing it to be false.

Worse yet, in Lwak, near Lake Victoria local priests claimed "that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids. while in Kenya (where c20% have HIV) the Archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Nzeki said, "the Catholic Church condemns condoms for promoting promiscuity and the rise of HIV/AIDS in that country and also repeated the claim about permeability.

I entirely accept that there are cultural issues at play in Africa too, and I'm not sure how with any precision you'd determine whether it's RC 99% to blame/culture 1% to blame, the other way around or somewhere in between. There's a bunch of academic papers on the subject, but they tend to be small scale - "the influence of the church on condom use in students at Lusaka University" type of thing. I accept too that some local priests did (and presumably still do) promote the "C" of ABC on the ground.

The facts remain though that:

1. The RC church is highly embedded in countries with high HIV rates in which it is also highly authoritarian.

2. The RC church has in the past at least actively engaged in a programme of disinformation about the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV.

3. Official Vatican policy is still that condom use is a no-no.

How many are dead as the result? Don't know, but surely you wouldn't want to claim that its role has been helpful would you?

It would appear that such teaching wasn't very well thought through, since it actually caused a reduction in the numbers of their own faithful.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderingabout,

Are you trying to say that putting it about and seeking out virgins for unprotected sex is not to blame also?

No, and nor have I suggested such a thing.

You'll be running out of straw soon won't you?

I'm just asking a question.
I agree that they should be practicing safe sex.....what is the balance between local sexual practice as the cause of dying and the rulings of the catholic church?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh, and I notice your "nothing to with me Guv" of "(by the church)"as countries in which the RC church was not deeply embedded would somehow also have low condom use. Cute. It's simple enough - if every RC cleric preached condom use from the pulpit then their use would increase, and the incidence of HIV would decrease.

Not sure, having heard accounts of local sexual practices which eschew condom use and traditional local views on monogamy, who in a relationship spreads disease, how much listening to the pulpit is occurring.
If  pulpit calls for sexual abstinence are being ignored, how can you then argue a stern authoritarian control over the populace?

[floo]

Oh, and I notice your "nothing to with me Guv" of "(by the church)"as countries in which the RC church was not deeply embedded would somehow also have low condom use. Cute. It's simple enough - if every RC cleric preached condom use from the pulpit then their use would increase, and the incidence of HIV would decrease.

Not sure, having heard accounts of local sexual practices which eschew condom use and traditional local views on monogamy, who in a relationship spreads disease, how much listening to the pulpit is occurring.
If  pulpit calls for sexual abstinence are being ignored, how can you then argue a stern authoritarian control over the populace?

People should definitely NOT kow tow to what any authoritarian preacher has to say. They are in charge of their own lives, and have to make their own judgements accordingly.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh, and I notice your "nothing to with me Guv" of "(by the church)"as countries in which the RC church was not deeply embedded would somehow also have low condom use. Cute. It's simple enough - if every RC cleric preached condom use from the pulpit then their use would increase, and the incidence of HIV would decrease.

Not sure, having heard accounts of local sexual practices which eschew condom use and traditional local views on monogamy, who in a relationship spreads disease, how much listening to the pulpit is occurring.
If  pulpit calls for sexual abstinence are being ignored, how can you then argue a stern authoritarian control over the populace?

People should definitely NOT kow tow to what any authoritarian preacher has to say. They are in charge of their own lives, and have to make their own judgements accordingly.

Quite and if they are leaving the pews then indulging in fornication and adulterous shagfests under local custom then that shows they can't be ''Kow towing'', doesn't it.

[floo]

I wonder how many Catholics on this forum have stuck two fingers up to their church's teaching on contraceptives and other issues?

Our former neighbours were a church going Catholic couple. They produced just two kids who were well into their teens before the couple decided to actually tie the knot. I reckon they must have got quite a bit of earache from their priest, but stuck to their guns!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I wonder how many Catholics on this forum have stuck two fingers up to their church's teaching on contraceptives and other issues?

Our former neighbours were a church going Catholic couple. They produced just two kids who were well into their teens before the couple decided to actually tie the knot. I reckon must have got quite a bit of earache from their priest, but stuck to their guns!

or the church had a very pragmatic priest. Most English priests probably have unmarried parents and couples in their congregations and things are and have been more Father Ted than Father Torquemada.

[floo]

I wonder how many Catholics on this forum have stuck two fingers up to their church's teaching on contraceptives and other issues?

Our former neighbours were a church going Catholic couple. They produced just two kids who were well into their teens before the couple decided to actually tie the knot. I reckon must have got quite a bit of earache from their priest, but stuck to their guns!

or the church had a very pragmatic priest. Most English priests probably have unmarried parents and couples in their congregations and things are and have been more Father Ted than Father Torquemada.

Father Ted/Father Torquemad, who are they?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I wonder how many Catholics on this forum have stuck two fingers up to their church's teaching on contraceptives and other issues?

Our former neighbours were a church going Catholic couple. They produced just two kids who were well into their teens before the couple decided to actually tie the knot. I reckon must have got quite a bit of earache from their priest, but stuck to their guns!

or the church had a very pragmatic priest. Most English priests probably have unmarried parents and couples in their congregations and things are and have been more Father Ted than Father Torquemada.

Father Ted/Father Torquemad, who are they?

Father Ted is a fictional representation of a pragmatic priest.

Father Torquemada ran the Spanish inquisition several centuries ago....or last Tuesday if you are an antitheist................and you are.

[floo]

I wonder how many Catholics on this forum have stuck two fingers up to their church's teaching on contraceptives and other issues?

Our former neighbours were a church going Catholic couple. They produced just two kids who were well into their teens before the couple decided to actually tie the knot. I reckon must have got quite a bit of earache from their priest, but stuck to their guns!

or the church had a very pragmatic priest. Most English priests probably have unmarried parents and couples in their congregations and things are and have been more Father Ted than Father Torquemada.

Father Ted/Father Torquemad, who are they?

Father Ted is a fictional representation of a pragmatic priest.

Father Torquemada ran the Spanish inquisition several centuries ago....or last Tuesday if you are an antitheist................and you are.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh?

[DaveM]

bhs

Thanks for post #188.  I suppose we could continue debating, in ever decreasing circles, our respective views on the % allocation of blame to be attributed to the various parties.  But that strikes me as a singularly unproductive exercise.  Hopefully we have now reached a reasonable understanding of our respective positions and my view is that we have taken this particular exchange as far as it can usefully go for now.  So my feeling is to draw a line under it for the moment.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi DaveM,

Thanks for post #188.  I suppose we could continue debating, in ever decreasing circles, our respective views on the % allocation of blame to be attributed to the various parties.  But that strikes me as a singularly unproductive exercise.  Hopefully we have now reached a reasonable understanding of our respective positions and my view is that we have taken this particular exchange as far as it can usefully go for now.  So my feeling is to draw a line under it for the moment.

Sounds fair enough. I will though come back to it if I find more detail. One of the problems here is that disease spreads as a mathematical progression - what if just one person contracted HIV wholly because of the instructions of his priest to avoid condoms and that person infected ten more people, each of whom then infected another ten for example?

Assuming that all of them died, would the church then have been responsible for one death or for 111 deaths?