It's good to see there are a sizable number of Episcopalians who DON'T see homosexuality as a moral issue. The rreal moral issue is the continued injstitutionalized discrimination against homosexuals.
Also, belated kudos for the Episcopalians for coming out against the ANWR drilling plans.
I must have backed the wrong horse in Catholocism, but ramain grateful I fell off the horse when I did. But don't worry, P. Benny 16 is going to fragment the Catholic Church to such an extent that the Episcopal breaks are going to look like hairline fractures by comparison.
I think you are projecting your concerns on the rest of the world. To put it another way, your point of view is very U.S.-centric. If the Catholics outside of the U.S. (and much of Europe) shared your views then they had ample reason to rebel against JP II. They did not because these Catholics do not share feminist, marxist, etc. morality.
Right you are. The Catholic Lite practiced in the US is obviously quickly falling in the crosshairs of the orthodox practicioneers, and Benedict will have less patience with the lax adherence to doctrine than JP did.
But it is the central orthodox argument - that moral relativism is an impossibility - that is fatally flawed. If moral relativism means deciding that if condom use can prevent AIDS spread and save lives then it should be on the table as a viable option for 21st century Catholics in AIDS-ravaged nations. There are greater and lesser evils, and it has been a defining feature of Catholicism to recognize this, in contrast to other Christian denominations that stress that all sins are equal in the eyes of the Big G. The greater evil today is to continue to ignore reality and allow the epidemics to continue.
I think you chose an example which is flawed because there are good scientific reasons to say condom use is not a great way to prevent aids. (Vs. abstinance and monogamy)
I think moral absolutes first came into being because the practice of ethical behaviour promotes to health and well-being of the individuals who lived by those codes. It is certainly true today that a good deal of immoral activities, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, are detrimental to health.
The Church exists as a foundation for these views and it would compromise its existence to become lax on these questions. Just look to the Episcopal Church's suicide by inclusionism.
Mark Steyn points out that, all over the world (including in the US), the rigorus faiths are attracting adherents, while the "anything goes" faiths are in free fall. In an anything goes society, religion should be a refuge, not more of the same.
This does not mean I'm advocating fanaticism, and that I hope to see a resurgence witch burning in the West, and more head chopping in the East. It just means that religion has to be aspirational, and the more it conforms to societal behavior, and the less it demands something from society, the less meaningful and therefore popular it will be.
There are no good scientific arguments against latex condom use to prevent HIV transmission. Unless you get your science from reading Jack Chick religious tracts there is ample evidence that latex condoms uised properly substantially reduce the likelihood of transmission of the virus.
Abstinance is pretty foolproof for reducing the spread of STDs certainly, but monogamy is not if only one partner chooses to be monogamous. Africa is again relevant, where the norm is promiscuous husbands coming home to infect faithful wives. It's a virtual death sentence for the Church to demand that these women perform their wifely duties with their known philandering scum-husbands but NOT to allow them to use means to prevent HIV transmission so they'll actually be around in a few years to raise their children.
I fail to see the flaw in this example.
AVQ,
I agree with your assessment of the Africa situation. My point was that abstinence is much better than condoms at stopping STDs and unwanted pregnancies. I guess it is the example that you chose. In America, I would preach abstinence to teenagers. In Africa, I would preach condoms for married couples.
I read an article about Aids in Africa and they said Aids spread because it was common for men and women to have two or three casual sexual relationships going at a time. Thus, exposure to the virus for a long period among a large subgroup. Also, circumcision was a very high risk factor for transmission.
Oh, so it is the CHURCH's fault that the woman gets AIDS from her husband, not the husband's fault. I got it.
No, it's the Church's fault for being intractable in their positions to the degree that following Church doctrine to the letter will cost you your life and cost your family their mother.
following church doctrine 'to the letter' --abstinence & monogamy-- will precisely prevent that outcome, wont it.
or are church teachings a factor in a 'promiscuous' husbands decision to not use condoms when cheating on his wife in the first place
But is it right to punish the wife for the sins of the husband... to the tune of a virtual death sentence?
I'm not a priest or Cardinal or anything like that, but I'm guessing that a woman who asks God for forgiveness b/c she used a condom to protect herself and children from an unfaithful partner, will indeed find reconciliation.
Which makes you considerably more grounded in reality than the Cardinals and the party line priests. Bravo.
Many of us know priests who indeed break with the party line and counsel their flock in meaningful ways, but that is exactly the free-wheeling liberal American Catholic flexability and (gasp!) moral relativism that the orthodox church wants to rein in.
There's nothing 'relativistic' about a priest conveying reconciliation to a repentent sinner. It would be relativistic for a priest to say it's OK to partake in certain sinful behavior just b/c such behavior makes life easier.
I had no idea the church was forcing wives to have sex with their AIDs-infected husbands as a form of capital punishment.
Or could it be that it's the morally-relativistic husbands and not the church who are putting wives at risk?
Armavirumque: You flutter from example to example in defending your denigration of the Church stand on certain teachings. Stand still for a moment.
In your first comment you state "the real moral issue is the continued institutionalized discrimination against homosexuals" which by your discriminatory and errant, though likely purposeful, use of words implies the Church discriminates against the homosexual person, which the Church has, time and again, clearly stated is not their teaching. The Church condemns the act as sinful, not the person. You may want to go to the next level now but that is where ground on which the argument must be held, not on the ground you suggest by your statement.
In your second comment, you note, "But it is the central orthodox argument - that moral relativism is an impossibility - that is fatally flawed. [...]" Here you, as Bill C rightly notes, suggest that the Church acquiesces to that argument, whereas the Church argues that on several bases that not only are condoms, the programs and the messages it gives, not helpful but detrimental.
In your response to Bill, you suggest there are no good scientific arguments against latex condom use to prevent HIV transmission so I won't even get into studies on the efficacy of condoms such as the Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention, published by July 2001 by NIH. But it seems you make a major leap of faith as to it's value when you depend on it's being "used properly". Excuse me while I giggle.
In the latter half of that comment you skip to marriage relationships. Promiscuity in general is the issue, not promiscuous husbands. The easier task in my opinion is getting non-marrieds to agree to use a condom. For marrieds to persuade a spouse to use a condom, which is the argument you put forward, is like zero, kiddo. (I can just picture the conversation when the wife suggests the returning husband put on a condom first, regardless of their religious affiliation.) And to suggest the Church would demand she not use them in these individual circumstances and also suggest she continue to perform their wifely duties is absurd! They would council abstinence and likely demand they practice abstinence for the exact reasons you give. You've constructed a legless straw man with that argument.
In your last comment you suggest the party line cardinals and priests are the villains, while the party line breaking priests are the good and compassionate. I know that anyone who follows the council of party line priests in regards to avoiding STD's will be safe, how confident are you regarding the council of the priests you prefer? Freewheeling liberal flexibility is why there are STD epidemics and pandemics and they breed in your pool of "moral relativism."
My apologies, Dusty. The church has it wrong on so many levels it's hard to stay focused.
Bill C's initial post was about the growing divides within the Episcopal church, and initial comment was of course one thanking and respecting the forward thinking half of that denomination who are openly accepting of gays, who openly supported Gene Robinson's appointment, etc. As for the second half of that initial post, hate and discrimination and refusing equal rights to a specific group of people is a moral issue as well as a political one - even when the straight and narrow dress it up with robes and incense.
The jump into the looming fractioning of the Catholic Church was, I felt, germane to the discussion at hand, re in-fighting and separatist movements within Christian denominations.
You can giggle all you want when condoms come up in a conversation. My wife tells me her 6th and 7th grade students do the same thing. But the NIH report that you pseudo-referenced actually states that the strongest evidence from the reviewed published literatire is that the "always" users of latex condoms significantly reduced the risk of transmiting the HIV virus to their partners. As for which is the larger leap of faith - suggesting that the proper use of condoms can be taught and learned by those that choose to be sexually active versus believing that abstinance-only education is a viable answer - well, now it's my turn to giggle.
I was intentionally careful in wording my statements regarding marital relations in the situation where a spouse's fidelity is in doubt. I did not put forward the argument that the wife persuade the husband to use a condom for precisely the reason that I did not want the discussion to end with a 'fat chance.' rebuttal. Rather, I said "to use means to prevent HIV transmission." Using today's available options, I'm of course thinking about the FC female condom, which is specifically pushed by WHO and UNAIDS as "an important tool for women who cannot negotiate male condom use due to personal or cultural constraints." And, yes, the FC works best in conjunction with a standard male condom, but it if that is not an option it is better than having no options.
Yo, Bill! I think I found a basis for an Episcopal Revival ...
http://anon.trinity-
global.speed...vice050522M.asx
... um, wait, um, Carnival ... yeah, that's it ... Episcopal Carnival.
Never mind. (But, enjoy it anyway. I got to the 15th minute or so.)
(ht: The Curt Jester)
http://www.splendoroftruth.com/c...ives/
005803.php
Commenting by HaloScan
