1. Comment #83602 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 3:28 pm

If anyone ever ends up with an unwanted pregnancy as a result of such a refusal, I bet they have grounds to sue the Catholic Church for maintenance.

Go for it girls!

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

2. Comment #83603 by Mango on October 30, 2007 at 3:28 pm

It's always odd to hear about countries like Chile that are more socially progressive than the U.S.

Other Comments by Mango

3. Comment #83604 by papavb on October 30, 2007 at 3:30 pm

@ brian

maybe a subsidized abortion or something

Other Comments by papavb

4. Comment #83605 by RickM on October 30, 2007 at 3:40 pm

It might also be noted, THE WORLD REALLY NEEDS MORE PEOPLE!

Other Comments by RickM

5. Comment #83618 by Duff on October 30, 2007 at 4:47 pm

This pope is the perfect christian counterpart to the iron-aged muslim simple people who want to behead apostates. The catholics deserve their mirror image, fuckwit, muslim brethren.

Other Comments by Duff

6. Comment #83620 by ryanbooker on October 30, 2007 at 5:10 pm

The only satisfactory 'objection' a health care worker should ever make about such things is to resign. They have no business being health care workers.

Other Comments by ryanbooker

7. Comment #83626 by BAEOZ on October 30, 2007 at 5:45 pm

If it's too hot in the kitchen, get the fuck out! If a pharmacist won't do his job, he should find another. Rats is a nasty bugger. He and the likes of Cardinal Pell would have women being treated as chattels in no time if possible. When you've got a nasty world view, such as the catholic one, you're gonna have nasty ways of dealing with the world.....
Other comments by me below (apparently) :)

Other Comments by BAEOZ

8. Comment #83629 by mmurray on October 30, 2007 at 6:01 pm

5. Comment #83618 by Duff on October 30, 2007 at 4:47 pm
This pope is the perfect christian counterpart to the iron-aged muslim simple people who want to behead apostates. The catholics deserve their mirror image, fuckwit, muslim brethren.

You can leave the Catholic church and no-one cares. The worst that might happen is that some-one might waste their time praying for you. The Pope and the Church are dangerous for all kinds of reasons not least of which is that they are to a large extent responsible for overpopulation and the environmental damage flowing from that. But I think it is a mistake to compare them to Islamic fundamentalists. Living in a society dominated by the (*modern*) Catholic Church would be unpleasant but nothing like the nastiness of living under someone like the Taliban.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

9. Comment #83631 by GBG on October 30, 2007 at 6:09 pm

As if anyone is going to listen to what an ex-nazi has to say.

Other Comments by GBG

10. Comment #83634 by kraut on October 30, 2007 at 6:15 pm

"Catholic Church would be unpleasant but nothing like the nastiness of living under someone like the Taliban."

If you refer to "modern" catholizism you might be right - that ended even before the present representative of christ on earth.
The present representative would enjoy going back before the time of the thirty year war - and remember - taliban at least didn 't burn witches, or enslaved native populations in the name of "the lord". The catholic church unleashed and unrestraint would not be different from any other fundamentalism.

Other Comments by kraut

11. Comment #83636 by Bonzai on October 30, 2007 at 6:24 pm

The present representative would enjoy going back before the time of the thirty year war

How do you know? He probably wants to go back to some times shortly before Vatican II, but even then it was nothing like the Talibans.

Other Comments by Bonzai

12. Comment #83638 by Bonzai on October 30, 2007 at 6:33 pm

A German doctor was ordered to pay child support to one of his patients for 18 years because the contraceptive implant he put in her failed and she got pregnant. Maybe some class action suit should be brought against the Vatican. It will take the Church to the cleaner.

Other Comments by Bonzai

13. Comment #83641 by bluebird on October 30, 2007 at 6:51 pm

Kudos to Chilean president Michelle Bachelet for her stance on women's reproductive issues:

http://www.wjz.com/homepage/topstories_story_265004724.html

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Bachelet

Other Comments by bluebird

14. Comment #83642 by Russell Blackford on October 30, 2007 at 6:56 pm

You guys just don't get it: the Great Queen Spider must be appeased.

(I won't give my usual lecture about Catholicism as a cult of misery, etc.; anyone who reads this site has seen it often enough by now.)

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

15. Comment #83650 by dloubet on October 30, 2007 at 7:38 pm

Nah, the Catholic church is just as murderous as the islamic religion, they just do it under the counter, so to speak. How many are dying of AIDs, for lack of condoms, in Africa?

They are murdering people right before our eyes.

And getting away with it.

Other Comments by dloubet

16. Comment #83653 by notbadfora human on October 30, 2007 at 7:44 pm

"Health Minister Livia Turco said that while the Pope had the right to urge young people to be sexually responsible..."

Really? What right does a 70 year old virgin have to lecture anyone on sexual relations?

Other Comments by notbadfora human

17. Comment #83665 by Teapot_Believer on October 30, 2007 at 8:35 pm

Comment #83603 by Mango on October 30, 2007 at 3:28 pm
It's always odd to hear about countries like Chile that are more socially progressive than the U.S.

Yes, but I think this will be for a short time. The Socialist party has stayedin power for almost 18 years. Despite Bachelet's progressive position on the MA pill, her popularity has plunged these last months due to poor country management. It is very likely for the right wing people to seize the executive power in March 2008 (date in which Bachellet's government ends), and they are staunch Catholics.

By the way, Michelle Bachellet is agnostic at least.

Other Comments by Teapot_Believer

18. Comment #83676 by Cartomancer on October 30, 2007 at 9:36 pm

It never ceases to amaze me how the Catholic church these days focuses, with monomaniacal obsession, on a few very minor pieces of dogma they came up with not very long ago. All we ever hear from them is abortion, contraception and gay rights - since when were these the most pressing social issues of the day?

And although gay rights have always been opposed on pretty solid scriptural grounds the whole abortion / contraception thing never used to be an utterly settled issue. The issue for the Catholics has always been when the human foetus acquires a soul and thus becomes a person.

During late antiquity and the middle ages this was far from a settled question - many notable scholastics recoiled from the idea that the soul is transmitted through the semen (a form of the traducianist heresy) because this would make the soul in some way corporeal. Furthermore spilled semen would result in hundreds of wasted souls, something a perfect and benevolent god certainly wouldn't entertain. As such the mosaic law from Exodus 21:22, which states that compensation for striking a woman with child shall be less if the child has not acquired a soul, was highlighted as evidence that the foetus is not alive before about forty days. Of course there were disagreements and alternative paradigms which did posit a soul from the beginning, but this was a somnewhat rarefied academic matter for the most part and there most certainly has not been a Catholic injunction against abortion from the beginning. In fact, just like most other late Romans, the first Catholics cheerfully exposed their unwanted infants at birth.

The modern Catholic obsession with abortion and contraception is really just a paper-thin veil for their more deep-seated obsession with having sex for pleasure. It is a fatuous justification after the fact because they cannot think up anything better to convince people not to sleep with each other - their usual guilt trip tactics are weak and feeble in the face of biological lust. The obsession with homosexuality is similar - we don't get pregnant, so the abortion / contraception thing doesn't work to stop us having sex for pleasure. There really is no other option than to call us unnatural and objectively disordered.

The roots of this obsession with sex for pleasure are undoubtedly deep and very sinister. Freud would have a field day...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

19. Comment #83677 by Teapot_Believer on October 30, 2007 at 10:17 pm

Another thing, please guys give reasons for your claims. So far I haven't been able to read one single post arguing why the pope's views on contraception are wrong.

I have read a little on the matter, and I can say that the way Catholics and Evangelicals support their opposition to non-natural contraception is slightly different. While the second ones resort to scripture to make their points, the first ones don't depend so heavily on the bible. Catholics tend to use logic and argumentation to support their views; at least they do it more often than Evangelicals.

I read an article in Spanish written by a priest in which he speaks his mind on this issue. He begins by inviting the reader to think about an ideal situation that contributes to a better perpetuation of the human race in qualitative terms. The author concludes that this ideal can only be accomplished in a family composed by biological parents where love lasts through thick and thin. He says that all children should be warmly welcomed when they are born in the aforementioned situation. If this is true, then contraception, whose purpose is to prevent babies from being born, is wrong. Why? Because if one of them is born by accident then that child won't be as warmly welcomed as s/he deserves.

However, the most striking part is about to come. It is about contraceptive pills. He first starts by supporting natural contraceptive methods. He says that these demand sexual control from the couple because they know that they won't be able to have sex on specific days. According to him, this is beneficial because both are shaping their respective personalities and refuse to become dominated by their sexual instincts. Then, he takes on contraceptive pills by claiming that a woman who takes them has refused and failed to shape her own personality because she has chosen not to restrain herself sexually. That woman, according to him, is a person who cannot control her sexual impulses and has a distorted vision of sexuality. Therefore, those women and those men who wear condoms are slaves of their own biological instincts.

I think this should be the common opinion of the Catholic church. If this is about run-of-the-mill contraceptive pills, imagine what these folks think about the MA pill.

Other Comments by Teapot_Believer

20. Comment #83689 by Augustus Osari on October 31, 2007 at 12:07 am

Teapot_Believer:

First, all psychology is the combination of biological instincts and memes, which depend upon each other. If people can be "slaves of their own biological instincts," that is essentially saying that all people are slaves of biological instincts simply because they think. After all, every thought is based on biology, which takes the psychological form of instinct, no?

Second, at the most basic level, it is rationally clear that the fetuses which are aborted during early pregnancy are not so aborted immorally, as they do not yet have any real nervous system or brain to speak of. They can suffer neither physically nor mentally.

Third, contraceptives and abortions block the birth of children. If contraception and abortion are allowed, then accidents cannot happen: even if contraception fails, then abortion will take care of the problem.

Through these three points, it should be clear that sexuality, contraception, and early abortion are all perfectly fine. It can only be argued otherwise if the supernatural is accepted as existent, and there is not currently any evidence which would suggest the existence of the supernatural.

Other Comments by Augustus Osari

21. Comment #83690 by MuNky82 on October 31, 2007 at 12:26 am

The Morning After Pill promotes promiscuity? These dumbwits probably don't know anything. My lady had to take one a while back. She complained how horrible she felt for days afterwards, and it messed up her cycle. It is as the description says - EMERGENCY contraception, when other methods fail. Not a regular method.

What if the woman has been raped? Won't that child be a product of evil instead of love? Won't that child carry that yoke all his life?

Other Comments by MuNky82

22. Comment #83698 by eric.malitz on October 31, 2007 at 1:30 am

well put augustus.
This is the stuff that REALLY makes me angry about religion.
Does anyone know of other specific instances of the pope making statments about other issues in biology (outside of sex/sex preference) ???
Please link if so.

Other Comments by eric.malitz

23. Comment #83702 by Philip1978 on October 31, 2007 at 1:36 am

MuNky82

"What if the woman has been raped? Won't that child be a product of evil instead of love? Won't that child carry that yoke all his life?"

They don't care about rape victims, I have heard of countless stories of women who have been raped and the Catholic Church still insists that abortion and such the like are all wrong. One story that always gets my anger flowing was some poor 14 year old girl out in Ireland was brutally raped, beaten and left for dead but was found and restored back to health. It was only after tests were done that they found out she was pregnant. She had to come over to England to get the procedure done because of the religious idiots who said it was wrong to abort.

I personally think the Vatican be sent to prison for what it has done to this world, it has no right to inflict such psychological barbarism all the name of "holiness". They are essentially condoning rape and yet the world still respects and honours them, its disgusting.

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

24. Comment #83707 by Logicel on October 31, 2007 at 2:29 am

Teapot_Believer wrote: Catholics tend to use logic and argumentation to support their views; at least they do it more often than Evangelicals.
_________

Catholics use rationalizations; they start off with a premise they deem to be true and then go through mental contortions to find 'reasons' for their beliefs. They fool no one who has critical thinking skills. As the Net is influencing discourse more and more, I am noticing that the Papal diarrhea is getting more prevalent.

The veneer that Catholics are reasonable is just that, scratch that veneer a little bit, and the virulent pus will easily bubble up.

Other Comments by Logicel

25. Comment #83708 by Quetzalcoatl on October 31, 2007 at 2:41 am

Logicel-

indeed. One of the funniest things I read recently was a Catholic blog entry which went through a maze of rationalisations to explain why Dumbledore from Harry Potter couldn't POSSIBLY be gay, and JK Rowling doesn't know what she's talking about. You've got to laugh.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

26. Comment #83728 by Matt7895 on October 31, 2007 at 4:10 am

The Pope can go to hell.

Other Comments by Matt7895

27. Comment #83734 by irate_atheist on October 31, 2007 at 4:23 am

27. Comment #83728 by Matt7895 -

The Pope can go to hell.

Whether we're right, or he's right, technically he can't.

Now that's what I call papal infallibility!

Other Comments by irate_atheist

28. Comment #83736 by Dinah on October 31, 2007 at 4:37 am

Not only is there Roland Rat to contend with over there, but Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor over here, with his weasel words regarding abortion. The Cardinal apparently now favours the 'softly softly' approach, trying to reduce the 24-week limit in which abortions can legally be carried out. But make no mistake: the Cardinal's aim is to make all abortion illegal, no matter what the circumstances. Think what this would mean in practice. Before the 1967 legislation, thousands of illegal abortions took place in this country every year, with women frequently dying from botched abortions carried out by amateurs, or dragged off to the courts and prison for having, or even attempting to have an abortion. And, as usual, it would be the poor who would suffer –the better off could afford to go abroad, or find a clinic in this country prepared to flout the rules at a price. And what of those who did not break the law? Twelve year olds who had been raped being forced to carry the child to full term and then go through the trauma of childbirth, along with women carrying a grossly deformed or disabled child with no hope of survival outside the womb. Foetuses matter far more to the Catholic Church than adult women and girls. To be acceptable Catholics women either have to be a virgins, or baby-making machines denied the right or information to control their own fertility. Fortunately, the Cardinal's servile parroting of his Church's triumph of dogmatism over compassion and humanity is unlikely to get him anywhere in this country, but such attitudes wreak havoc in many Third World countries where the Church is able to exercise much more power.

Other Comments by Dinah

29. Comment #83744 by epeeist on October 31, 2007 at 5:57 am

Comment #83734 by irate_atheist

27. Comment #83728 by Matt7895 -

The Pope can go to hell.

Whether we're right, or he's right, technically he can't.

Not according to Dante, if you read the "Inferno" you will find Nicholas III down in circle 8 of hell.

Other Comments by epeeist

30. Comment #83750 by irate_atheist on October 31, 2007 at 6:12 am

30. Comment #83744 by epeeist -

Well, OK, you tenacious stickler. I'll admit I did remove the other possible options. Now, you wouldn't ever see any theists doing that sort of framing in their arguments, would you?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

31. Comment #83751 by Matt7895 on October 31, 2007 at 6:17 am

He'll burn in hell in the eyes of Westboro Baptist Church. To them everyone outside their sordid little community is going to burn.

Other Comments by Matt7895

32. Comment #83755 by catalinmerfu on October 31, 2007 at 6:28 am

Pharmacists should dispense pills for preventing cardinals to cover up pedophile priests.

Other Comments by catalinmerfu

33. Comment #83756 by BillySands on October 31, 2007 at 6:30 am

Booo, the pope! Get wee flea to sort out this antichrist. Are any of the regular nutters on any threads at the moment?

Other Comments by BillySands

34. Comment #83757 by epeeist on October 31, 2007 at 6:32 am

Comment #83756 by BillySands

Are any of the regular nutters on any threads at the moment?

Well Dianelos is about at the moment, there doesn't seem to be a thread without him to decrying atheist morals.

Err sorry, that should be lack of morals.

Other Comments by epeeist

35. Comment #83758 by sidfaiwu on October 31, 2007 at 6:34 am

The Pope told an international conference on Monday that pharmacists should be guaranteed the right to conscientious objection in cases where medicines they distribute can block pregnancy, provoke abortion or assist euthanasia.

I agree with Pope Evil CCLXVII, pharmacists should have the right to object. Similarly, pharmacies should have the right to fire pharmacists that fail to perform the duties of the job and/or turn away paying customers. If you find aspects of a job immoral don't do that job! That's how they should unconscientiously object.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

36. Comment #83765 by cowalker on October 31, 2007 at 7:18 am

Interesting how the religious control freaks have zeroed in on pharmacists as the Enablers of Evil.

What about the CEOs and shareholders of the drug companies that manufacture the forbidden medications? What about the people in sales departments who carry out ad campaigns for them? What about the folks who run the machinery that manufactures the pills and packages them? What about the guys who drive the trucks carrying them to the distribution centers? What about the people who deliver them to the stores? What about the doctors who prescribe them? Now that the morning after pill is available without a prescription, why doesn't the clerk who rings up purchases have a responsibility equal to that of the pharmacist's to refuse to sell it on the basis of conscience?

Why is it all on the pharmacist?

Well, the religious control freaks know that CEOs and shareholders and doctors have too much self-confidence to be manipulated. They've made up their minds based on their personal moral beliefs and scientific evidence, either for or against, and they're not going to change their minds just because the pope says so.

People who have less clout than pharmacists--people who are not professionals--can't afford to make trouble for themselves in the workplace by demanding special conscience rights based on hairsplitting distinctions. (Can you imagine a vegetarian applying for a job as a grocery clerk and demanding that a "colleague" ring up all meat purchases--including yogurt and candy with gelatin in it?) That's the practical side. But shouldn't the pope demand that employers provide a conscience clause for all these people? Why should THEY be forced to participate in MURDER just because it would be a total headache for employers to allow them to choose not to? What a concession to elitism and the ownership class the religious control freaks make when they ignore all the non-professionals in this matter!

Somehow, in spite of their education and professional status, many pharamacists seem to be vulnerable to being manipulated by authority. It makes me wonder if there is something about the personality type attracted to the discipline that makes them susceptible to authoritarian rule.

Other Comments by cowalker

37. Comment #83766 by Philip1978 on October 31, 2007 at 7:19 am

Billy

Hmm David vs Darth, normally I am opposed to violence but in this case I would pay good money to see those two rip each other to bits! But,after seeing you Scots in action against terrorists I think David would "banjo" Darth into the floor!

I wonder which side Biz and Devolved would take, chaps if you are reading this I would love to know?! Fides would obviously fight on Darth's side (at least I think he would, he is a Catholic isnt he? Fides, apologies if I got that wrong, if I am going to insult someone's religion I would hate to get it wrong!) :)

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

38. Comment #83768 by irate_atheist on October 31, 2007 at 7:26 am

Comment #83766 by Philip1978-

Fides, apologies if I got that wrong, if I am going to insult someone's religion I would hate to get it wrong!) :)

Sorry mate, but the god he worships isn't the one you don't believe in, and he knows it.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

39. Comment #83770 by Philip1978 on October 31, 2007 at 7:30 am

"Sorry mate, but the god he worships isn't the one you don't believe in, and he knows it."

Hahahhaa cool!

I thought I was being vague enough when I said Catholic!! :)

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

40. Comment #83774 by BillySands on October 31, 2007 at 8:14 am

Cheers Epeeist,
If we have no morals, I guess that trashes the argument from "moral law". I'm going to see Aubrey manning tonight, I think he is going to talk about intelligence and "morals" in other animals. Anyone near by, here is the link http://www.royalphil.arts.gla.ac.uk/home.htm
The next talk is on consciousness.

Philip, I think wee flea would stookie him with his big book and then light a bon fire - using cathoilics a kindlin - just like the good old days

Other Comments by BillySands

41. Comment #83775 by condorito on October 31, 2007 at 8:15 am

"It's always odd to hear about countries like Chile that are more socially progressive than the U.S. "

hmmm too bad the oligopoly in the pharmaceutical industry has colluded and won't sell the pill, despite the law that forces them to. They say they'll rather pay the fine.

Other Comments by condorito

42. Comment #83780 by fides_et_ratio on October 31, 2007 at 9:00 am

You're right Philip, as for Mr. Angry, right and wrong though not in equal measure, but mildly amusing nonetheless.

Of course the Holy Father's correct to stand up for those wishing to make sound moral choices without fear of prosecution.

What I find interesting is the much demonstrated athiest obsession with homosexuality, sex, abortion and contraception. When talking about Catholicism it's all that seems to get a mention on here. This isn't directed at you Philip, I am aware of your wider interest in Catholic teaching as evidenced through your understanding of the guidelines for drivers. As for the others, I think a little psychoanalysis is in order.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

43. Comment #83781 by fides_et_ratio on October 31, 2007 at 9:01 am

Not to mention of course the athiest obsession with God.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

44. Comment #83782 by artemisa on October 31, 2007 at 9:06 am

What I can't understand about prolife supporters is that they care so much about life before birth but I see little, or certainly not enough, help
once a baby is born.

Consider all the kids that are hungry in the world, homeless people, kids growing without even a base education, lack of health insurance.

It seems to me that prolifers should be more consistent and care for all life or be honest and say the only care for pre-life only.

p.s. forgot stem cell research.

Other Comments by artemisa

45. Comment #83787 by sidfaiwu on October 31, 2007 at 9:34 am

Hello fides_et_ratio,

What I find interesting is the much demonstrated athiest obsession with homosexuality, sex, abortion and contraception. When talking about Catholicism it's all that seems to get a mention on here.

What I find interesting is the much demonstrated obsession with sex, boys, and pedophilia. When talking about NAMBLA it's all that seems to get a mention.

When a group does great harm in the world, it is natural and appropriate to focus on that harm in a effort to reduce or eliminate it. The Catholic Church does great harm in its stance on homosexuality, sex, abortion and contraception. Thus those topics get the attention.

You already knew that, of course. What you were really trying to do is equate atheism with those controversial topics. It's a pretty weak attempt at equivocation if you ask me.

Not to mention of course the athiest obsession with God.

I think they are simply amazed and despondent that so many otherwise rational people are so thoroughly deluded.

P.S. You may want to edit your spelling of the word 'atheist'. You have the 'i' and the 'e' reversed.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

46. Comment #83804 by IanG on October 31, 2007 at 10:33 am

I think there are two issues here: firstly the legitimacy of the Pope as an authority on these issues; and secondly, the morality of his opinion.

On the first issue, his legitimacy is in serious question. The Pope is qualified in Theology: an area that many would say is a non-subject. Looking further we discover that his utterances are supposed to carry extra weight, because, rather than in spite of, his claim that he has a direct line to a supernatural being for whose existence there is no evidence or any other good reason to believe in.

So, as regards legitimacy, we can say that the Pope has none because he himself specifically rests his final authority on Superman without presenting convincing argument for the existence of the latter gentleman, (have you noticed, it's always a man!) We can reasonably say that his statements necessarily carry less value than those of the average atheist passenger on the Clapham omnibus. If the Pope wants to opine without recourse to the supernatural, then he's entitled to be listened to, but he needs to join the tail-end of a very long queue of people who have established credentials immeasurably better than his.

On the second issue, we can begin by asserting that actions have consequences and that a consideration of consequences is a reasonable component of any evaluation of the morality of decisions.

As I have written in other threads, the objective evidence of the consequences of the Pope's pronouncements on condoms in Africa alone is that he and his immediate predecessor have been the cause of the avoidable or reducible misery, suffering and death of millions of people.

Leaving the centuries-old stuff and all the other religions on one side, the teachings and influence of the Catholic Church alone have, during the past fifty years alone, caused terrible suffering which was avoidable. This isn't moral, it's utterly immoral.

This man is the head of an organisation that formally classifies fifty percent of the human population on this planet as being ineligible for full equal rights within our species.

The track record is therefore, of numerous, utterly immoral teachings and actions. And I haven't mentioned the "teachings" on homosexuality or the concealment of pandemic, priestly pederasty.

So, as regards making statements on moral issues, an organisation that routinely utters some of the most immoral advice and commits some of the most immoral acts on the planet simply has no credentials.

His expectation that he will be listened to and taken seriously is an indication of an assumption that his utterances are due special respect. Preferential treatment to put it another way. And he chooses to interfere with the way people go about their work.

This intervention is non-trivial: he is getting into issues of law and contract. To the extent that all individuals and institutions are subject to the Rule of Law, he is setting himself above these considerations and instructing others to do the same.

The Pontiff's grounds for uttering this latest poisonous diktat are, not only that a hypothetical, yet-to-be-discovered, supernatural essence inhabits each microscopic blob of cells in a uterus or a Petri dish, but also that it's a sin to prevent the creation of these blobs of cells in the first place, because this prevents the as-yet-unobserved supernatural essence from "becoming".

This sort of nonsense brings to mind the utterances of the early Christian sage, Tertullian (c.150-230AD), who is still revered in certain quarters for such profound wisdoms as:

"Prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est."

Which translates as: "It is to be believed, because it is absurd."

And:

"Certum est, quia impossible est."

Which means: "It is certain, because it is impossible."

We should assure Pope Benedict that we agree that his views are absurd and his view of the real world is impossible, but that, in our world, we neither honour ignorance nor respect defiant belief in either the absurd or the impossible.

Me? Well, this all puts me in mind of Alice's White Queen who, you will recall, sometimes believed in as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

Which leaves me with the lingering question as to whether the ultimate holy tome is The Bible, or Alice through the Looking Glass.

I know which one is the more believable, the more compassionate and the more human.

Other Comments by IanG

47. Comment #83811 by BillySands on October 31, 2007 at 11:10 am

What I find interesting is the much demonstrated athiest obsession with homosexuality, sex, abortion and contraception. When talking about Catholicism it's all that seems to get a mention on here. This isn't directed at you Philip, I am aware of your wider interest in Catholic teaching as evidenced through your understanding of the guidelines for drivers. As for the others, I think a little psychoanalysis is in order.

It's a question of allowing people to make their own minds up, and in the case of homosexuality, not branding someone as evil - especially if they dont have a choice. It is also about not leting some abstinate man tell folk what is right and wrong.
Dont confusearguing against religion with an obsession about god either - that implies we think he exists, we dont.

Other Comments by BillySands

48. Comment #83840 by Tyler Durden on October 31, 2007 at 12:54 pm

Comment #83780 by fides_et_ratio

What I find interesting is the much demonstrated athiest obsession with homosexuality, sex, abortion and contraception. When talking about Catholicism it's all that seems to get a mention on here... I think a little psychoanalysis is in order.

fides_et_ratio,

we are not obsessed (to use your term) with "homosexuality, sex, abortion and contraception." We are interested in, and annoyed at, the hypocrisy, double-standards, sexual abuse, civil rights intrusion and bronze-age thinking here in the 21st century that seems to surround the Catholic Church.

I don't take my morals, ethics, science, medical advice or sexual thinking from an antiquated book written by bookish men thousands of years ago, do you?

Why is your omnipotent god so interested in what we do in the privacy of our own bedrooms? Has he nothing else to be doing? Or do you seriously not see the measure of control the church has had, persists to have, and would like to continue having in people's lives? This is about control, not worship.

As for psychoanalysis: Freud called religion a "universal obsessional neurosis" (Standard Edition, III, pp. 143–56), while Jung contended that "all religions are imaginary".

"If the sole reason why you must not kill your neighbour is because God has forbidden it and will severely punish you for it in this or the next life - then, when you learn that there is no God and that you need not fear His punishment, you will certainly kill your neighbour without hesitation, and you can only be prevented from doing so by mundane force. Thus either these dangerous masses must be held down most severely and kept most carefully away from any chance of intellectual awakening, or else the relationship between civilization and religion must undergo a fundamental revision." Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion

Perhaps you could lay down on the couch and we can find out why you are so obsessed with an imaginary friend in the sky/your mind.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

49. Comment #83843 by IanG on October 31, 2007 at 1:04 pm

Thank you Tyler Durden. Very well put.

Other Comments by IanG

50. Comment #83874 by STLstrike3 on October 31, 2007 at 2:05 pm

The Catholic Church, indeed Christians in general, oppose any public health measure that makes intercourse a safer enterprise. They desire the threat of pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, and indeed cervical cancer. They have built an empire on fear. Why stop now?

What possible objection could anyone have to the Gardasil vaccination (the one that protects girls from genital warts and cervical cancer)? Oh, that's right... it's the Christians yapping again.

I wonder what the pope thinks about all those Muslim taxi drivers in Minneapolis who refuse to carry passengers with alcohol based on "religious" reasons. Anyone remember that brouhaha? The most sober and rational response to that fray was the answer that makes the most sense here:

If you are unable to perform the duties of your job for any reason, then find another job.

Other Comments by STLstrike3