Actually yes. Another poster here on RGT posted a Harvard science article suggesting that the Pope's idea is actually very helpful. My question to you is do you understand how many people would be saved by such a plan? Do you know what the Pope's plan is?

Thanks.

I noted this: "Since 2001, about 20 percent of the approximately 3,000 cases processed have resulted in removal of the offender from the priesthood, a Vatican official said recently. In most other cases, removal from public ministry is the result."

About 3,000 case of which 600 resulted in firing the priests and in most of the others taking the priest away from a situation where he could be a molester.

Any "outrage" the Church might have over the NYT story is sorely misplaced.

Are you serious?! Did you even think at all before you wrote this?

The Pope sure looks like an evil bastard.

For people's consideration:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/op...ef=todayspaper

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...2UyOWIzNDVkNDM

Also:

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesqua...coundrel-times

Sorry for not adding my own comments, but as I've said before, this is not an issue I want to really argue about. No excuse can be made for the actions of many of the members of the Church's hierarchy about this. But the recent media campaign to portray a crisis in Pope Benedict XVI's papacy over this issue and to try to implicate him directly in "coverups" is frankly ridiculous.

from what i know the pope advised against using condoms , so if im wrong please correct me.

how will not using condoms stop the spread of AIDS (not having sex is a non issue) ?

How is not having sex a non-issue? That's completely ludicrous.

The facts:

1: Abstinence is 100% effective when used.
2: Condoms are not 100% effective, require materials, increases rate of sex.

This is known as risk compensation, those using condoms will take greater risks and negate the effects of the lower % of AIDS spreading.

The Pope suggests teaching abstinence instead of teaching how to use condoms + providing condoms to Africans.

So to answer your question, 'how will not using condoms stop the spread of AIDS', introducing a better option, abstinence, will stop the spread of AIDS even more.

Jesus, you're ignorant. Do you really think 100% abstinence is a realistic goal? You should get out more. Come take a look at the real world sometime. It's much different out here than inside the bubble you must live in.

+1 Lestat.

I didn't say 100% abstinence is a realistic goal. Please quote where I said that...

Just as I assume your not saying 100% condom usage is a realistic goal, right? But you advocate it because it would supposedly be effective even if not everyone used it.

So... lol strawman.

I have no problem with promoting abstinence - as long as you throw in condom education for those who choose not to.

So basically its ok for the Church to put their nose into everyone's bedroom except their questionable priests who they move around form diocese to diocese for maximum exposure.

Are you saying the best way to guard against STDs and unwanted pregnancies is to maintain something less than 100% abstinence?

It's a realistic goal for me. I used one 100% of the time for the first two years of my marriage whenever my WIFE couldn't take the pill for whatever the reason. And now that I'm divorced, I use one 100% of the time with any girl I don't know very well.

I don't think you even know what a straw man is.

The Catholic church seems to think so.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159142,00.html

I still didn't see where he said that every single human abstaining was a realistic goal. It's ideal, but in no way realistic.

And other people have abstained 100% of the time. Guess which was more effective.

You say it's a realistic goal for everyone to use condoms all the time... this mean you think that all the millions in Africa who are having sex will all use condoms 100% of the time and you believe this is realistic? Come on man, 100% abstinence and 100% condoms are fantasies. We both know this.

And a strawman is an argument against a belief the opponent doesn't have, but the attacker makes it seem he does in order to 'win' the debate.

You said I believed 100% abstinence is a realistic goal and called it ridiculous, attempting to win the argument in this manner. Obviously I don't believe it's a realistic goal - hence strawman.

I totally agree. A vow of abstinence breaks more often than a condom.

you can check my other post in the other thread, full sex ed works wonders compared to abstinence only.

Please quote where he said you said that.

He didn't he asked the question.

Stop using straw-man straw-mans.

which is it?

Anyway, here are statistics showing that condoms + sex ed work better.

It sounds like Pope Benedict's firmness might be what got him into trouble in the first place.

EXACTLY! Rational people say to practice safe sex whenever possible. They do NOT say to never use absitence. However, Catholics DO preach never use birth control.

What you're missing is that people who are taught not to use birth control have no less sex than anyone else on average. However, if they NEVER use birth control, they are at greater risk of contracting STDs or having unwanted pregnancies.

YOU are the one creating the straw-man. Abstinence is unrealistic. Even if 100% condom use is also unrealistic, there is no reason to think the pope's audience has less sex than any other group of people. Therefore, both groups are having sex at aproximately the same rate. The group that ALSO uses condoms is safer from STDs and unwanted pregnancies. This should be common sense. I'm not sure why it isn't to you.

zing