Wellies

[caddyman]

Nobody is quite sure what the Pope meant with his comments on the use of condoms: some are portraying it as a major shift of Vatican policy, the Vatican itself is playing it down.

Morland in The Times suggests that the comment is probably not as radical or realistic as many might hope.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/seealso/2010/11/daily_view_pope_condones_condo.html

Comments

[ginasketch.livejournal.com]

Personally I think "condoms are ok in some cases" isn't very progressive. Though I'm glad he's shifting his view.

It kind of sickens me how much people defend this guy. "waaaaah you're being offensive to Catholics by criticizing himmm."

Not a thought given to all he groups HE criticizes.

[littleonionz.livejournal.com]

I'm offended by catholics for giving up free will and letting an old bloke in a frock dictate how to have sex, tragic and baffling.

[thalinoviel.livejournal.com]

It's been discussed before, actually for decades. The issue has been that while they prevent disease (which is universally considered a good thing) they also prevent conception, and if modified so that they don't (no really this was asked) they also won't prevent disease.

This has been coming for a while, especially since Africa is one of the fastest growing Catholic populations. I'm still pretty surprised the Rottweiler has actually been the one to finally bend to reason. I just hope the more right-wing elements of the Church don't have him shot and replaced with someone crazier.

[failing-angel.livejournal.com]

Considering he wasn't exactly putting forth this line last year, it does sound like a shift in doctrine; so whilst it might be small, it is still a shift - particularly coming from "God's rottweiler"

[fencingsculptor.livejournal.com]

I am a practising Catholic and I’m happy to go on record as say I think that much of the Dogma associated with the Church is frankly bonkers, especially it’s views on sex contraception and the place of the Church itself.

So please don’t find offence in all of us!

There are established historic reasons for such dogma if you care to look into it -
I’m not defending it – but the reasons are understandable in context.

The Church doesn’t even accept my favourite Gospel ‘The Gospel of St Thomas’ – because basically it says you don’t need to go to church and buy into the dogma to be a good Christian / get to know God. Can’t think why they refuse to accept that Gospel. Pity because it’s a very Zen text…

[littleonionz.livejournal.com]

I should have perhaps said 'the catholics...'

We possibly shouldn't delve into history, these kind of debates never end well, particularly on tahinterweb:)

However; and I speak from a position of really disliking religion, shirley if you say you are catholic, a buddhist, a hindu a ... you have to accept the whole kit and cabbodle? can you say you are a 'whatever' if you cherry pick the bits you like and ignore the rest?

This isn't bait, I personally don't think you can. Tthere are elements of several religions I quite like, they seem enlightened and a way forward for the developement of humanity, but other bits of hate and ignorance always preclude me from sinking in to the collective and feeling the love. I am genuinely interested in what your thoughts are on this as you seem to have squared the circle for yourself.