|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: GOD Bless John Paul II | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
Jar, I have to disagree with you on this one. He devoted his life to promoting ignorance and obedience to his church. He purposefully set out not to just discourage use of contraception in Africa, but to ensure that rural Africans should not be educated about the availability of contraception. That is, his specific goal was to ensure rural Africans did not know about the contraception that was available to them. The church for which he is responsible has a fully documented history of covering up its own crimes (i.e. child abuse) and promoting anti-gay and anti-woman policies. Furthermore he stands for the most elitist form of politics in which his views, and the views of his church, are handed down to some of the most downtrodden people on the planet with the lie that they are given by God. He is directly responsible for a large number of deaths from HIV in the third world, and is culpable in not speaking out against some of the most heinous political organizations on the planet operating for example in central america (his religious heartland).
mick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
Hi jar,
I made a number of accusations against JPII in my last post, and you said that they were "silly". here's my considered response. I've tried to provide documentary evidence where possible, and I've tried to use some Catholic sources of evidence to back up my points in a way that I hope is not too partisan. I'm taking a lot of time and effort in making this response comprehensive, because I know you usually make sensible comments and I know you are not just trying to rubbish me here. first, i want to talk about the "legal" (or ethical) responsibility of the pope for the behaviour of his church. According to the vatican website,
quote: This means that the activities of the Catholic church at a lower level of organizational hierarchy are carried out by virtue of the authority of the pontiff. In other words, the activities of the church at all levels of its hierarchy are valid when they are carried out in accordance with the authority vested in the pope. So the pope is responsible (in an organizational/policy sense) for the behaviour of his underlings. In the civic world, this is laid out quite straightforwardly in law. For example, Donald Rumsfeld is legally responsible, through his promotion of policies or inaction in preventing policies which he knew were being enacted, for the action of every single soldier in the US army. The legal basis of his responsibility (and that of a number of generals in the US army) is laid out in detail at the ACLU website (National Security | American Civil Liberties Union). The ACLU aren't saying that Rumsfeld personally terrifyied prisoners of war with attack dogs, but that he has organizational responsibility for permitting policies, or failing to prevent policies, that broke the Geneva conventions. In the case of the Catholic hierarchy, the laws are rather more fluid (in that the Catholic Church isn't a "state actor" and hasn't signed up to international conventions such as the rights of women, the geneva conventions, etc.). But I take it for granted that the Pope is directly responsible for the organization that he heads, insofar as he has knowledge of policies being enacted by lower levels of the hierarchy, that his action or inaction could change policies being enacted by lower levels of the hierarchy, and that actions at lower levels of the hierarchy are enacted in his authority. This interpretation of the pope's responsibility is enshrined in the vatican's own website quote that I provided earlier. The defence of my previous post will rest on this legal/ethical basis. I know that the legal basis doesn't strictly apply to the Catholic church in that the Catholic church isn't a state, but I see no reason why the legal principle of organization responsbility is not applicable. I quote extensively but I consciously try to avoid "quote mining". Accusation 1:
He purposefully set out not to just discourage use of contraception in Africa, but to ensure that rural Africans should not be educated about the availability of contraception. That is, his specific goal was to ensure rural Africans did not know about the contraception that was available to them. The World Health Organization considers the condom to be the most effective preventative of HIV/AIDS. At their website (404) they state:
quote: This webpage was written in June, 2000, and is presumably available to the Pope within Vatican city. The views of condom use by Catholic Bishops (who are under the direct authority of the pope) are quite different from the scientifically accepted view. According to Catholic News (cathnews.com, a catholic website) the Bishop of Port Luis, Mauritius, said in 2003 that "The condom is a stopgap, a lesser evil, but not the solution." In October, 2003, the president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, told a BBC TV programme: "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom. " (Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids | World news | The Guardian). He was claiming that the condom does not provide protection from HIV. According the Guardian newspaper:
quote: The Archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndigni Nzeki, is on record as saying that "Aids... has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms." [emphasis added] the BBC documentary described above includes film of a Catholic nun advising her HIV-infected choirmaster against using condoms with his wife because "the virus can pass through". (
BBC NEWS | Health | Vatican in HIV condom row
) The website of the charity Catholic Relief harps on about the devastation caused by AIDS in Africa but makes no mention of the only reliable solution - condom use (| CRS) John Paul II personally endorsed Catholic aid programmes that lied about condom use (0 - Call to a member function get() on null) to rural Africans. Nowhere in my post did I say that the Catholic Church's view on contraception was different for Africa than for elsewhere. I did not say that it "targets one group". I would, however, say that the lies of the Catholic hierarchy are particularly egregious when they are applied to Africa, which is being well and truly fucked by the virus and by the Catholic religious hierarchy. I said in my post that
He purposefully set out not to just discourage use of contraception in Africa, but to ensure that rural Africans should not be educated about the availability of contraception. That is, his specific goal was to ensure rural Africans did not know about the contraception that was available to them. You replied,
Nonsense. Sorry but that is simply silly. I believe that I have proven my point regarding the first accusation so please retract your statement that I am being "simply silly". I have shown that Bishops, nuns, and the pope himself are claiming that condoms don't protect from HIV, and they are talking to uneducated people who are likely to die from the disease and leave orphans who will starve to death or get involved in child prostitution. this is promoting ignorance and obedience to the church, rather than doing what is best for the sufferer, as I rightly said in my original post. Accusation 2
The church for which he is responsible has a fully documented history of covering up its own crimes (i.e. child abuse) and promoting anti-gay and anti-woman policies. Your statement that JPII is "far more moderate than many christian fundamentalists" doesn't say much. It's like saying that Stalin was less anti-semitic than Hitler. I don't know where to start in describing the Catholic cover-up of child abuse. It's been going on for a long time. An internal church document dated 1962, and written in Latin(!) obtained recently, showed that orders to cover up child abuse cases came directly from the top of the Church hierarchy. JPII was not pope at the time, but I think it gives a good idea of the Church's view on sin. Read about it at Vatican told bishops to cover up sex abuse | World news | The Guardian. The document informed whistleblowers that they would face excommunication. A British lawyer acting for UK abused children said:
quote: Part of the problem is that the Catholic church is so intertwined with the political hierarchy that justice is sidelined. according to the FindLaw legal commentary website, regarding the boston trials,
quote: Please note that these abuses took place during the tenure of JPII. Also note that the article quoted above was by an "establishment" lawyer who has advised Congress and state legislatures and has worked at Princeton Theological Seminary (FindLaw Legal Blogs - FindLaw) - in other words, not a liberal atheist with a grudge. furthermore, we should bear in mind that the church's apparent opening-up to the possibility that it has sinned was only forced upon it by the courts. If court action had not taken place, I have no reason to suspect that JPII would have done anything to curtail the abuse. After all, he had done nothing for the previous 20 years or so. read about the treatment of John Geoghan by the church hierarchy during the tenure of JPII. when his crimes came to light to the Catholic church, all they did was move him from parish to parish. It was systematic covering-up that was forced into the open by legal action. The underlings of the pope knew about it for years (possible decades) but they did nothing. The Boston Globe has described the role of the Church hierarchy as a " culture of secrecy, decepetion, and intimidation" (The Boston Globe). A priest who complained to his superiors about one of his child-abusing colleagues received no reply, so he went to the police. This resulted in him being reprimanded by his superiors (
Boston Globe / Spotlight / Abuse in the Catholic Church / The clergy
). The families of abused children were paid off (The Boston Globe) and the Catholic hierarchy refused public access to their documents (
Boston Globe / Spotlight / Abuse in the Catholic Church / Investigations and lawsuits
). all of these activities carried out by official members of the church acting on the authority of the pope. Accusation 3:
he stands for the most elitist form of politics in which his views, and the views of his church, are handed down to some of the most downtrodden people on the planet with the lie that they are given by God. According to Vatican II:
quote: (quote from Papal Infallibility | Catholic Answers)this is where the pope gets his authority from. don't fight it. Jar, I'm tired now and may provide further documentary evidence when I've had a short nap. Cheers Mick [edited by mick to correct a typo - the pope has been in place for "20 years or so", not "40 years or so"] This message has been edited by mick, 04-04-2005 05:41 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
Jar,
I am amazed that you repeat yourself,
Your first accusation is simply silly I have provided documentary evidence to support my first accusation. It may be factually incorrect but it isn't "silly". In fact it is you who is being silly in not responding to my substantive points. Please explain how I've been "silly", or take back your insult. My response was measured and backed up by independent sources, some of which are Catholic in origin. I took a great deal of effort to make my response, whereas you have made no effort whatsoever. All you are doing is repeating that I am silly without any substantive debate.
Now you may find that sad, I know I do, but it certainly not evil..Disagree with them, argue with them, encourage change and I'll support you. Say that it is evil and I'll disagree with you Jar, I have never said that the pope was evil. Please cite me saying this, or withdraw your lazy argument. My post is titled "evil, maybe" but this is just because I was replying to a previous post. your post is also titled, "evil, maybe". In these posts I have never said the the pope was evil.
You say that the Church was forced to take whatever action they did only by the courts. Actually, there are cases, believe it or not, outside Boston. And the position of the Roman Catholic Church, even in those areas not under the jurisdiction of the Mass Attorney General, has been to place the individual under the secular law. I provided evidence in favour of my arguments - you have provided none. In fact the existence of isolated occasions where the Catholic church has taken priests to court has no consequence to my argument, which is that the Catholic church has covered up abuse during the tenure of JPII. You cannot deny that such cover ups took place, as they have been admitted by the Catholic church. Your argument is "the pedophile is okay, because although he abused a few thousand kids during the late twentieth century, he admitted to one or two of them"
I'll be happy to join in on Papist Knocking in another thread but no more here You misunderstand me. I'm not papist knocking. I'm knocking people who cause the death of thousands of people from HIV. I'm knocking people who cover up after pedophiles and other child abusers. I'm not knocking catholicism. My initial few paragraphs make this clear - responsibility lies with the people who commit the crimes, and their superiors who allow it continue without doing anything to stop it. It is an organizational crime. Individual catholic worshippers are not to blame, and I did not say they are. mick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
fair enough.
I'm a bit upset that you think it's okay to say that I'm silly, vacuous and have empty arguments, despite the fact that I'm the only person on this thread who's posted a single piece of documentary evidence to support my point of view. I'm sorry that you don't want to discuss your original post (I do wonder why you posted in the first place, though, if you didn't want a discussion). anyway, i hope my post is of interest to other users. this is the end of the debate as far as I'm concerned. mick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
I'm taking bets on who is going to be the first to be suspended on this thread
I promised not to keep debating here, but I couldn't resist one observation. I did find it amusing there were complaints about "arguing over the man's corpse while it's still warm". Troy, would you rather have people argue politics over your corpse, or would you rather have your corpse put into an open coffin draped in red velvet and have a bunch of politicians pass by and cry over it to improve their standing with the religious community in their own countries? Is arguing about politics really worse that the pagentry and media nonsense going on right now? anyway, this is definitely the last post. mick
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024