AmericanPapist Comments
Wonder how much more communist propaganda the U.N. is going 'enlighten' us with? If I recall correctly the communists blamed the Catholic Church for the holocaust and still do. They also accuse us being the bullwork of Nazism. They call themselves "inclusive" and "tolerant". I have to laugh at half of the things the U.N. err, the gospel of Satan tells us.
Well, you're not helping matters either with your responses:
I respond:
..."In Latin America the Church's teaching has been ignored, and if every person followed her teaching, I can even more guarantee the epidemic would be resolved in the region, said Thomas Peters, the AmericanPapist in Washington DC.
Wrong. As a "Latin American" Catholic, I have to say your approach is rather simplistic and shows a bit of ignorance regarding the state of the Church in "Latin America" as the moral values that dominate our societies.
First of all, to make such a blanket statement about "Latin America" not “obeying the Church’s teaching” and completely disregarding the cultural difference between one country and another is just plain ignorance. There are so many differences between my country, Venezuela and, say, Mexico, including the state of the Church. For instance, in Venezuela (until now) we did not persecute the Church as it happened in Mexico during the Mexican Revolution.
Secondly, the situation in “Latin America” is much more complex than you portray it to be. It is not a matter of simply "ignoring" the Church's teaching. There are not as many priests in “Latin America” as there are here in America, so catechesis is rather poor. The 17 years I lived in Venezuela I was never told that the use of contraceptives was against Church teaching and I went to Catholic schools all my life with nuns and everything. Not that I needed to know it, because I’m not sexually active, but my mom, for instance, didn’t know it either.
Thirdly, contraceptives in “Latin America” are less accessible than in the U.S and their use is not encouraged at all as it is encouraged in American schools. So, are you saying that “Latin Americans” should start preaching contraception at their schools like in the U.S.?
And finally, do you really think that the majority of Catholics in America "obey" the Church's teaching with regards to abstinence? Cohabitation in “Latin America” is unheard of, while here in the U.S. is pretty normal even for most Catholics that would be deemed by some as “not practicing” Catholics. Our family values are by large much more conservative than those of Americans… my American boyfriend would testify to that any day and he’s even quite conservative already. Either way, I have a lot of non-practicing Catholic friends in “Latin America” who would not even give a thought to living together with their boyfriend/girlfriend and I’m sorry to say that is not the case with my “non-practicing” (American) Catholic friends or kids I know through Youth Ministry.
I don’t even want to get into the socio-economic factors that make the situation in “Latin America” much more complex than you make it sound. If we want to discuss this issue seriously, let’s at least widen our perspectives.
Thomas, I responded pretty much the same way you did. I also think these allegations are just a ploy to pressure the Church to fund condom distribution programs. It is about money, not about stopping the spread of AIDS. It is completely illogical to expect the Catholic Church to support a program that enables behavior that completely contradicts Catholic morality.
Katerina, you're not getting it. AmP is parodying the original article, thus the language, but I'm sure Thom would (and definitely could) say the same things about any area of the world. The point is that it is silly to blame the Church for the spread of a sexually transmitted disease, when the teaching of the Church in the first place is one of chastity.
I'm sorry catechesis is poor re: contraception where you are from. I assure you, it is pretty poor re: contraception here in the US and in Canada as well. Regardless, the Church teaches already, as do most Christian denominations, that premarital sex is immoral as is adultery. Thom's point is that if Church teaching on this point was followed, there would be no need for condoms to quell the spread of STDs such as AIDS.
It is silly to say (as the original article does) that the Church is responsible for the spread of AIDS because of its teaching against condoms, when anyone who is aware of this teaching and cares enough to follow it should presumably be aware of the teaching against premarital sex and adultery.
None of this is a slur against Latin America, except possibly the assumption in the original article that Latin Americans are dumb enough to have moral qualms about condoms but none about promiscuity.
Following on what Kate said, my simple point was that the Church has the answer to the AIDS problem in its teaching, and is in no way the direct cause of the AIDS problem. The generalizations I made were no worse than those present in the article, and greater specificity would have completely bogged down the (narrow) claims I was trying to get across in an effective manner.
Following on what Kate said, my simple point was that the Church has the answer to the AIDS problem in its teaching, and is in no way the direct cause of the AIDS problem.
Not quite, Thomas. In the context of an article on Latin America, you gave away the store with your analogy: you cited a "culture." The immediate context of your analogy is Latin America, so either you were, indeed, diagnosing a problem in Latin America specifically or you were being careless in your use of language. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter. In either case, you gave no indication that your parody or analysis extends beyond the context of "Latin America," which is, mind you, not a monolithic culture in terms of ecclesial and social realities.
Also, you seem to forget that thousands of cases of AIDS in "Latin America" are the result not of "young people not following the Church's teaching on promiscuous premarital sex" but of unsanitary medical facilities and unsafe blood transfusions. And once more, you cite specifically "Latin America." Yours is a rather telescoped view of the AIDS crisis, the global (including the U.S.) phenomenon of promiscuity and Catholic disobedience, and the reality of "Latin America."
Whatever your intentions were--and I am sure they were good (you are good, decent fellow)--you really need to be careful with how you frame your posts, be they serious, expository or parody. I detected the humor and sarcasm in the post. What was not clear to me--or to Katerina--is that you really were breaking away from an ill-informed assumption about "Latin American culture" and speaking in terms of the Church's solution to AIDS worldwide. In the end, however, you, Katerina and I agree that obedience to Catholic teaching on sex ethics would indeed go quite far in curbing the AIDS crisis globally.
As an aside, promiscuity in the United States, even among young Catholics, is no less common. The fact that contraceptive education has become normative in public schools and in many private schools, the transmission of HIV among young people is smaller than in less developed societies. Add to this the fact that contraceptives are widely distributed and accessible in our commercial, consumer society.
Isn't the point here what Reuters said in its story?
Whatever the causes of AIDS in Latin America (or anywhere else), the Catholic Church's place in the blame line must fall well behind the individuals who act promiscuously, the society that promotes or tolerates such promiscuity, the advertisers who exploit young people's natural sexual urges, etc., etc.
The Church endorses a perfect method of prevention (chastity) rather than a flawed method (condoms).
But, in the media today, it is always the goal to divert responsibility away from individuals for their own conduct and place the blame on an institution such as the Catholic Church.
I'm with brassband on this one. Why do so many people have problems following the REAL points of paradoy and analogy? That said, I have often warned against sarcasm (and paradoy is one form of it) in comboxes, etc. Such humor is HIGHLY dependent on voice inflection, facial grammar, and so on, and so it is ROUTIELY misunderstood in comboxes. I rarely use it.
Ah, yes, Dr. Peters, and you also rarely use a critical eye when evaluating your son's blogging. Blood tends to be thicker than reason, I've heard. I can only assume that the ones who "have problems following the REAL points of paradoy and analogy" are the ones who were critical of Thomas' telescoping and clumsy output. Perhaps you'd like to address those criticisms rather than proffering rhetorical asides that double as attempts at dismissal?
P, just take one moment out of your precocious existence and ask yourself if you would say what you just said to my face, or my father's. What valid points you might have had previously are completely dissolved now with your constant patronizing, condescending and uncharitable language. "Blood is thicker than reason"? That sounds nice but it's pure bullshit.
Your categorical assumptions and cynical outlook completely mock your feints at being the "lone objective commenter" in my threads. If we're all so deluded over here then it is you who exhibit a studied profligacy with your time in wasting it constantly on comments such as these. In other words, you're either a sorry sort of self-ignorant intellectual poser or a terribly mean-spirited misanthrope.
Or hey, I guess insulting people's fathers and disrespecting one's elders is "cool" where you come from (it isn't to me). It's surprising that one who is so pridefully sensitive to the cultural differences among the various Latin American countries is so pathetically unable to practice a basic tenent of his own.
But I told myself I wasn't going to give you more than a sliver of my time so I'll stop now. Seriously.
Hmmm...I see passion has replaced reason here. There is not a single vestige of responsible discourse in anything you write here, and I am frankly surprised to see you so unfathomably upset over my relatively innocuous challenges to you and your father. Whatever adumbrations of insult you may have mined from my comments, I think your apt use of vulgarity, thesaurus and ad hominem has eclipsed them. I hold no ill-will toward you or your father, but I invite you to be a bit more thick-skinned both in academia and when discussing serious ideas. This sort of rant is not only uncalled for, it is counter-productive to everything you are attempting to build with a Catholic blog. I forgive you for the angry words you direct toward me, but the next time someone issues an intellectual challenge in response to something either you or your father have written, you may want to think twice before you spew forth verbal vomit in order to deflect everyone from realizing that you don't have an immediate answer.
Nice trying making a grab for the moral high ground, but you've done nothing to earn it. Your passive-aggressive style of first insulting and then handing out forgiveness when those insults receive a just response remind me once again why it's pointless to debate with you.
AmP,
Well, I still forgive you, despite the moral blindness that is pervading your view of "just response." Yikes!
Thom...
One of the hard lessons in blogging is the use of your absolute power. I suggest setting comments guidelines and enforcing them. Even Mark Shea (he of the red-hot comboxes) has been known to ban one or two of his perennial trolls for a time when they get out of hand.
That, or let it go and let your commenters duke it out. Hey, I can use a bit of intellectual sparring once in a while as a relief from the toddler-level social interactions that make up most of my day. :-D
All the best,
Kate
Thanks, Kate, I'll consider it. I figured it was worth a try. I was mistaken. :)
So, are we encouraging Thomas to ban himself for all his name-calling and his use of vulgarity? I think an apology to his readers would suffice. ;)
The UN takes the view that the human immunodeficiency virus, which leads to an acquired immunodeficiency syndrome is spread by a deficiency in condom distribution which leads to a deficiency in condom use.
Good grief.
The fuckers can't admit that it's fucking which causes the fucking disease.
Commenting by HaloScan
