jchrisobrien | Old Habits

Current Mood: agitated

Old Habits

Vatican says AIDS can slip through a condom

(I can't send any mail today, so I'm talking about this here).

I don't know why I get so bent out of shape when people knock the Church. In the Church's eyes, I'm not a good Catholic at all. I disagree with a lot of the proclamations of the Church, but I still think I follow the teachings in the Bible. The moment I hear people slamming the Church however, my hackles raise. The question is, why?

Part of that no doubt stems from my old beliefs about the Church. I was very devout all through high school. I actually liked reading the Bible (okay, mainly Revelations). I had a very active imagination, and love thinking about the angels and the War in Heaven and the Nephilim. The Old Testament can totally read like a fantasy novel (some would say that it is. ha ha ha.). I really believed in Good and Evil, and the Church and the angels were on the side of Good.

After reading lots of history, and growing more exposed to life, I came to see that the Church was made of people, who are good and bad. The Church became an institution, and fell prey to corruption and greed and all the things you'd associate with any organization. I thought that the priests would follow their beliefs and since they were the examples for the rest of us, they would follow their own rules. Some of them did. Some of them didn't.

The other thing that bugs me, is the double standard. A lot of faiths believe in abstinence, and find promiscuity a sin. It's not purely a Christian or Catholic thing. Other faiths are just as puritanical, some even more so. But GOD FORBID you say anything bad about Judaism or Islam w/out being labeled a bigot. Why is it okay to talk shit about the Catholic church and not Islam, or Buddhist monks, or Judaism? Oh, the Vatican is evil, they have done horrible things, they should be locked away. No one bats an eye. Now change the Vatican to a sect of Judaism, or the ruling body there. See how quickly you get called a bigot or racist.

The quick and easy answer is to not let it get to me. I am not the Vatican, I do think that telling people not to use condoms because they don't stop AIDS is irresponsible. (*) An attack on Catholicism is not an attack on the people who practice it.

Or is it?

(*) The Church could have avoided a lot of misrepresentation if they had said, condoms reduce the risk of getting AIDS, but they don't prevent it all together. If you want to avoid getting AIDS, don't have sex period. But instead, they make a stupid statement making them look like idiots.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

If they mounted a massive campaign saying "look, condoms are only 90% effective (the WHO stat), so do you really want to take that chance? abstinence is the only way to be certain!" I would have nothing but respect for them. The state health officials should already be making this stuff more widely known.

Both groups need to get the word out. I think the Church has to wise up and say "Look, we don't endorse this, but rather than have an unwanted pregnancy or catching and spreading a disease, protect yourself if you do decide to have sex." They have to stop ending the conversation with "Just wait until marriage."

The other thing that bugs me, is the double standard. A lot of faiths believe in abstinence, and find promiscuity a sin. It's not purely a Christian or Catholic thing. Other faiths are just as puritanical, some even more so. But GOD FORBID you say anything bad about Judaism or Islam w/out being labeled a bigot. Why is it okay to talk shit about the Catholic church and not Islam, or Buddhist monks, or Judaism?

I think one can disagree (not sure what you have in mind by "talk shit") with the teachings of any doctrine or philosophy without being a bigot. It certainly does not make you one. But a point more pertinent to the quote above: The Catholic Church is not a doctrine, and hence should not be on the same tier as Judaism or Islam. It is an institution that regulates much about that doctrine (i.e., Catholicism), but it is not the doctrine itself. The Catholic Church does not equal Catholicism. I understand that in discussion they often get mixed together, and that can certainly be a source of confusion and disagreement.

I see disagreeing as taking issue and arguing a position in the Church. Saying that the Pope should be someone's prison bitch, or even the top, is talking shit.

That is probably the biggest source of my discomfort. I still make that correlation between doctrine and institution. The more I can disconnect the actions of the Church with the teachings of the Church, the better off I'll be.

I still make that correlation between doctrine and institution. The more I can disconnect the actions of the Church with the teachings of the Church, the better off I'll be.

It's funny, I grew up in my non-religious way understanding this difference because my mother explained to me that this was part of the reason why our family didn't go to church (that, plus my atheist dad). She hit her young adulthood and realized that while she believed in a lot of the basic messages of Catholocism, she couldn't in any good conscience support various positions of the Catholic Church, birth control being a prime example, and therefore could not be a member of the Church. I think going through the process of declaring herself a lapsed Catholic* brought her some sense of closure, because she could still respect some teachings without accepting the ultimate authority of the Church.

*I don't mean any official sort of declaration process, just a social one

I need to figure out a faith that has all the basic teachings of Catholicism w/out the more objectionable positions of the Church.

We need a new lable for lapsed Catholics. There's a great passage where Jesus mentioned "when two or three are gathered in my name, I am there". Something that recognizes the smaller, personal nature of the faith.

it's called protestantism. ;p

I thought that was the big difference between Catholicism and 'Christianity' - one doesn't necessarily require adherence to the teachings of any particular church.

Hell, there are atheiests who could arguably call themselves christians, in that they respect and espouse the philosophy of Christ without necessarily believing that he was divine.

Hmm .. are you a Christian if you like the ideas but don't think Christ was divine? And if you don't, why would you call yourself a Christian any more than you'd name yourself after one of the thousands of other people who might have espoused the same beliefs? Just because Christ was more famous?

I doubt the Christians who do believe the divine part would go for including you if you didn't believe it :)

I can't find the "Atheists for Christ" website that I saw a link to recently (didn't actually look at the website at the time, but it stuck in my mind a little - hence this comment).

I think of an atheist calling himself a christian in the same way that those who agree with Marx's philosophy calling themselves marxists - just a shorthand for the ideology you've chosen. Shorthand being the key word there - I can't think of anyone with the same amount of name-recognition value that taught the same things as Christ, though on face his ideas seem (especially today) pretty damn commonplace. There's a semantic argument to be made for either case, really - I'm not saying I wouldn't laugh at an atheist christian, just that I can see how one could make the case for being both.

But I agree that it probably wouldn't fly with big-c Christians, kinda like the way Jews for Jesus is considered more or less a joke (by most Jews and Christians, I think).

Perhaps I should go with the Christian title more.

"Hi, I'm Chris, and I'm a Christian."

I sound like a fucking tool. :)

I think people (in my experience) rag on the Catholic Church more openly than they do other religions/races/etc. because it's closer to their own and generally considered more dominant. The Church hasn't been a persecuted minority in the same way that Jews or blacks have been, for example, and it carries a lot of clout worldwide (and is therefore open to more public scrutiny). Many of us come from some sort of Christian background, so we bitch about what we consider to be perversions or general diversions from our own beliefs or practices.

bleh, poor wording. I agree with Damiel's distinction between the Church as an institution and Catholicism as a faith, but I didn't make that clear in my comment.

but the church certainly has been, or at least large populations of catholics certainl have been, a persecuted minority in certain times nad places. what about england/ireland? severe anti-catholic practices in the US in the last century?

The Catholic Church was heavily persecuted in it's inception. There were fierce wars in England and Ireland between Protestants and Catholics. Even into this century, being a Catholic in this country could get you dirty looks, discrimination, or beatings.

The Church did become a very powerful institution, but the people in it weren't always protected by that.

Many of us do come from Christian backgrounds, but a lot of people (epecially among our friends) are agnostic, atheistic, pagan, etc. They don't associate with Christianity. They are a tolerant group of people on the whole, but on Christianity the tolerance slides a bit.

You and Atalanta busted me on Christianity's past of persecution--a past which I'm aware of, but wasn't considering in looking at the Church's power and influence in the modern world.

Even among our atheist/etc. friends, many have grown up with the influence of Christianity in some form or another (if they grew up in the United States), and some seem to want to put as much distance between them and the institution as possible.

They do have power and influence, as an organization. I'm saying that the people in it were and in some places are being persecuted. That's all.

I'm all for them putting distance between them and the Church. :)

Even into this century, being a Catholic in this country could get you dirty looks, discrimination, or beatings.

Um, where? Fundamentalist demonstrators or protestors, maybe. Your average Catholic going about their business? I doubt it.

As a person who has had occasion to talk "shit" about the church, I will respond. My major problem with many people who call themselves Catholic is that they openly disagree with many of the policies of the Church, and even with parts of the doctrine of catholic faith, but continue to refer to themselves as Catholics, and possibly attend and finacially contribute to a Catholic church. I'm not just talking about sex here; many people also object to the Church's treatment of women as second-class humans, celibate clergy, literal definitions of heaven and hell, etc. I can understand the choice of participating in a known community despite some small concerns, but together, these are not small. I don't understand why more people don't pick up and leave the Catholic church and take their census numbers and their dollars with them. Many Protestant faiths contain the meat of catholic faith without the political overtones and Puritan interest in everyone's sex life. Personally, I disagree with both the institutional church and with deity-based faith in general, so I have removed myself entirely. I disagree with a number of other religions on both institutional and faith-based issues, but for some reason, most of them (in this country, anyway) aren't trying to force themselves on me like a drunken frat boy [hey, we're discussing slurs, right?]. The Hassidim aren't trying to make Kosher laws a federal issue.

I respect those who do their honest best to live the life they deem right or good, no matter the label, as long as it does not involve stepping on the rights of others. I also respect anyone who chooses to try to change the Church from within rather than lapse or change churches, and is making a visible effort to do so. Everyone who calls themself a Catholic and gleefully goes about premaritally fucking and drinking to excess and not giving one minute or cent to charity is a hypocrite, and that's a lot of people.

Still, Pope prison bitch jokes are just as stupid and wrong as nigger jokes, and only serve to display one's ignorance.

Um, where? Fundamentalist demonstrators or protestors, maybe. Your average Catholic going about their business? I doubt it.

Well, when my parents got married in Scranton, PA in the 1960s it was considered a mixed marriage because my dad was of a Baptist background and my mother Catholic. My grandmother made it very clear how displeased she was that she would have to set foot in a Catholic church, for the first time in her life, for their wedding. In that town at that time, Catholics were looked down on as idolatrous, ignorant and superstitious people keeping themselves in poverty because they keep cranking out those children and becoming a burden on society. I would imagine people are much more chill about it all now, but social discrimination against Catholics was certainly alive and well there at the time.

Ah, Scranton. :)

Catholics were heavily discriminated against at the turn of the century, and that attitude remained. You don't see it as much today, I'll admit.

In a way, you've made me feel better about not identifying as Catholic. You've hit the nail on the head, really. I don't agree with their stance or sex, or homosexuals, or limiting the power of women. I still think Heaven and Hell are neat though, at least as concepts. I stopped going to Church because I couldn't call myself a good Catholic if I held onto my beliefs. I don't even go on Christmas, because I told myself I'd never become a twice a year Catholic.

The church does "force itself" on you, but other religions exert pressure too. Instead of The Church doing it, the community does it. Crowds of Hindus stoning an adulterer.

Both buddhist and judaic religions are also not established as a Higher Than Government Power that is widely accepted throughout the world. Certainly buddhists and jews are NOT keeping clergy who are guilty of crime out of jail nor are they paying off the victims. Neither are they publishing in the media about sexuality, abortion, or just in general what the 'sin of the moment' is. That article is careless and irresponsible. They are a huge ruling body. I'm sorry but I don't see that as religion, I see that as dictating and instilling fear into people. the church is the center of media attention for lots of reasons, sadly, most of the reasons are not good ones.

as for the difference between the attack on people vs attack on church...

i think this is why i said if i ever had children i'd like them to grow up and choose their own religion, should they choose to have one. i think perhaps choosing a religion is much like picking a name brand of a product you use. it's all in how it suits you, if it suits you at all...

i don't fault you or anyone else for being catholic or any other religion. i fault the way the church represents itself and truthfully, i would question you if you lived your life exactly they told you to, if you did. i'd simply want to know if you yourself believed your guidance or if you were merely following the rules out of a sense of obligation.

Certainly buddhists and jews are NOT keeping clergy who are guilty of crime out of jail nor are they paying off the victims

er, I don't know about that... a fellow graduate student stayed at a monastary in China while doing his anthropological fieldwork, and those buddhists monks were no saints. I think people are people, no matter what religion they are, and power is corrupting.

agreed on people and power.

The Church did become a major power in the world, and has paid the price for it. That is, they mixed politics and religion and became a tyrranical organization in the Middle Ages. While they have toned that down considerably in the 20th century, the mindset is still there.

Don't rabbis publish about the evils going on the world? They may not do it as much as Catholics do, I'll admit. And I'm sure there are perverts in the synagogues, temples, and mosques just like there are here. I can't believe that the Catholic Church is the only religion that has pedophiles in it.

The article IS irresponsible. The Church just can't get it through their heads that people may not listen to them about abstinance. Their refusal to acknowledge other methods of birth control is appalling.

If I said I followed the Church exactly as they told me too, I doubt I'd have many friends left. *grin*

Don't rabbis publish about the evils

You said 'Church' :)
There will always be renegades.... :)

And no, some Rabbi last year got busted for pedophilia....

Sinner :-p

Two issues here, I think.

#1. Talking shit about anything is reductive and stupid. That said, we all do it from time to time about a lot of different things. When people say, "That's retarded," I flinch and cringe. I grew up around too many retarded people to be comfortable with that usage. Do I think that everyone who uses it is a bigoted asshole who really hates retarded people? Not even close. Same goes for people who say things about the Catholic Church; it doesn't mean they think every Catholic is a tool.

#2. No other religion with the world-wide power of Catholicism (which I think includes only non-Catholic Christianity, Hinduism [although not really a religion, it is often lumped in with them], and Buddhism) actively advocates for behaviors among their flock that will kill both them and the people with whom they interact. This goes far beyond a religion establishing behaviors in accordance to faith. This is flagrantly perpetrating and worsening the direst public health crisis in human history[1]. If that doesn't justify an indictment for crimes against humanity, I'm not sure what does.

[1] If you think I'm exaggerating, do a quick google for how many people in Africa alone are going to be dead within 10 years. AIDS will kill more people than the Holocaust, and to actively campaign against the one thing that will slow the death rate is at best turning a blind eye to the extermination of millions of people. At worst, it's murdering them.

1. I'm waaay too sensitive on that. Today has helped me look at why Catholic bashing irritates me, and is helping me distinguish between what I believe, and the administrative body of the Church that keeps saying Really Stupid Things.

2. After reading dozens of e-mails today, I now find myself agreeing with mvoid's earlier statement (I think that was him.) The Chruch won't change it's stance on condoms (even though it should, but it would weaken their whole stance on sex, which they probably should). The should at least say "You don't want AIDS? Try abstinence!" It might not be realistic, but it's criminal to foster the ideas that condoms are useless, so why use them?

I don't think you're exaggerating about AIDS at all.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Old Habits

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject