That is not what this public debate is about
Stop the presses – a Catholic archbishop is a Catholic archbishop. He disagrees with Tony Blair about homosexuality. Stone the crows.
Mr Blair is a very fine politician and he has got very well-tuned political senses. But I am afraid the way the Catholic Church thinks is rather different to that and I think I will take my guide from Pope Benedict actually.
Well yes, we know. The way the Catholic church thinks is rather different: it ignores new ideas and knowledge about what is best for human beings, what does and does not harm people, what is and is not fair in human terms, and the like, and instead it consults its prejudices, attributes them to an unavailable supernatural being called ‘God,’ and declares them authoritative and beyond question. Yes that is different; it’s also ass backwards and wrong. Taking one’s ‘guide’ from pope Benedict is a terrible idea, because pope Ben’s thinking has all the flaws that go with the prejudice-attribution-unavailable deity-beyond question complex.
He also defended the Pope’s recent remarks about condoms made last month en route to his first Papal visit to Africa…Archbishop Nichols said: “What he actually talked about was the need to humanise sexuality and I think to some extent he was speaking up in protection of African women.” Asked if he would advise a “married, faithful, Catholic couple” not to use condoms where one had HIV/Aids, the Archbishop said: “That is a very sensitive point and there are different views on that.” Pressed to give his view, he said: “That is not what this public debate is about…that is the point I would rather pursue, that we really do have to raise people’s expectations of themselves.”
In other words, first he defended the pope’s ‘remarks’ about condoms that amount to telling people to commit slow agonizing suicide, then refused to answer a perfectly serious sensible question about the real-life outcome of such ‘remarks.’ In other words, he acted with the grotesque, shocking, abhorrent irresponsibility with which the Catholic church as an institution does act on this subject. It’s contemptible. It’s disgusting. It’s immoral. He should be ashamed of himself, and he should act to repair the damage immediately. Of course he won’t, but he should. They have no shame, these monsters.
“Mr. Blair suggested the Church should modernise and “accept that the world is changing”.
Tony Blair knew exactly what he was buying into when he joined the Roman Catholic Church. He knew we were living in an ever-changing world and he wanted to escape from it – by joining the church that he already knew had antediluvian ways. Now he is crying wolf, which is a bit too late.
Mr. Blair has another thing coming to him if he thinks he will be able step on the toes of Papa Ben and his band of holy cohorts.
The self appointed Abraham Faith Foundation founder will see how non-invincible a convert he is when the pope is seen by all his worldwide flock to be steering his anointed crosier in his direction.
Nobody, but nobody gets in the way of the mighty power of the Vatican. Mr. Blair will soon get his comeuppance. He does not even think like a Roman Catholic and that factor alone would not endear him to RC’s in general. Converts in general are treated with terrible suspicion and usually sit quietly, but this ex-Prime Minister has done nothing but put his head above the parapet. He is mad for fame. Politicians of his standing are prone to seeking out other high profile positions for themselves when they leave power.
This man is slowly walking into the lions den
Roman Catholic thinking IS very different to that of Protestant thinking. For a start, I must state the obvious; Roman Catholicism teaching comes from Rome, while Protestantism comes from GB. Although they are both Christian based – the belief systems are very different, transubstantiation, (within the lower churches) bible reading etc, Sunday school, hymns, the list goes on ad infinitum. RC’s in general do not go into Protestant churches and are very slowly only beginning to get along with each other as people.
If Tony Blair thought like a Roman Catholic, he would be engaging in things in the same way other RC converts do indeed. For example, he would be sitting quietly in the back church seat and very slowly weighing up things that are wrong within Roman Catholicism. He would not be barging in from the Anglican Church and foisting his Protestant mindset on the people despite the entrenched attitudes of their pope. He would not (after only a wet-week in the Roman Catholic Church) be telling Ben to rethink his views irrespective of whether they were right or wrong. FORCING the Church to accept gays is not the way for him to go about trying to seek change. If Mr. Blair had any wit, he would be seeking the voices of those within the Church to express his opinions He would not be an egotistical voice in the wilderness.
Mr. Blair travels the world on behalf of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, which aims to promote understanding of the main religions. He is a one-man band. He sees himself as some sort of prophet. In the interview Mr. Blair spoke of a “quiet revolution in thinking” and implied that he believed the Pope to be out of step , IMHO so too is Mr. Blair. He needs to get a cop on and stand in line with the rest of those within the church who want change. He thinks his famous status will; buy him change – well it wont. Lots of RC’s just see him as some eccentric outsider convert who is making a holy show of himself.
Mr. Blair plans to take the Abrahamic religious world by storm. Next thing we will hear is that he has become a Muslim as he also thought that in Islam there would eventually be a change of heart. “I believe that, ultimately, people will find their way to a sensible reformation of attitudes.”
Mr Blair means big business. Maybe he should try walking on water, as he would do that faster than trying to change the mindset of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately!
There’s a good deal to that. I think all Catholics should be yelling at the pope at the tops of their voices – but what I really think is just that they shouldn’t be Catholics; being Catholic and yelling at the pope is very much second best. It is truly inane for Blair to join a church which is well known to be highly authoritarian and hierarchical and reactionary and then start telling it what’s wrong with it. Yes, Tony, there’s a lot wrong with it, and that’s why you shouldn’t have joined it. He gave away any moral authority he might have had by doing that. It’s like joining a Nazi party and then trying to make it a little more polite.
“I’m sure he must have designs on the Papacy for himself.”
On the other hand, even better still, designs of bypassing the papacy, by creating an even higher rank for himself, such as an ÜberÜberpapst with an added perquisite of becoming an instantaneous living saint.
The crocus is a herald of spring. Blair is a herald of the next enlightenment.
He will write a new inspirational proclamation of the one true church – it will consist of incandescent phenomenal concoctions from all the three divine Abrahamic religions.
Equally he was awed by George Bush, another big kid.
Nah, Marie-T, he can only do soundbites. On the other hand, there is room for a 4th Abrahamic religion. . .Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, move over!
If only Tony had never taken ‘destiny’ and ‘legacy’ seriously, he could have been a great prime minister.
But without that ego he probably would never have made it.
I think the jury is still out on the condom controversy. The Pope may have got it right, if only by accident.
PRO POPE:
Pope Benedict’s recent brief remark against condoms has caused an uproar in the press, but several prominent scientists dedicated to preventing AIDS are defending the Pope, saying he was correct in his analysis. In an interview with CNA, Dr. Edward Green explained that although condoms should work, in theory, they may be “exacerbating the problem” in Africa.
Benedict XVI’s Tuesday comments on condoms were made as part of his explanation of the Church’s two prong approach to fighting AIDS. At one point in his response the Pontiff stressed that AIDS cannot be overcome by advertising slogans and distributing condoms and argued that they “worsen the problem.” The media responded with an avalanche of over 4,000 articles on the subject, calling Benedict a “threat to public health,” and saying that the Catholic Church should “enter the 21st century.”
Senior Harvard Research Scientist for AIDS Prevention, Dr. Edward Green, who is the author of five books, including “Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning from Successes in Developing Countries” discussed his support for Pope Benedict XVI’s comments with CNA.
According to Dr. Green, science is finding that the media is actually on the wrong side of the issue. In fact, Green says that not only do condoms not work, but that they may be “exacerbating the problem” in Africa.
….
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15445
CONTRA POPE:
A prestigious medical journal today accused Pope Benedict of distorting scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine by saying that condoms increase the spread of Aids.
The Lancet in an editorial called on the Pope to retract the comments made last week, saying anything less would be an immense disservice to the public and health advocates fighting to contain the disease.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/lancet-says-pope-distorting-condom-facts-1655647.html
This is an empirical, not a moral issue — and the experts disagree as to the facts of the case. Of course, the Pope is no expert, but then neither are most of us.
Incidentally, the Catholic Church is opposed to artificial contraception on ‘transcendant’ moral grounds, because God (as interpreted by Rome) frowns on non-reproductive sexual intercourse.
A truly traditionalist pope would actually have had the guts to assert that the use of condoms is sinful EVEN IF they resulted in saving millions of lives. God is not into this-worldly consequentialism. What are a few decades of earthly suffering when compared with an eternity of bliss (or hell)?
Sigh – yes, another Catholic apologist has already told us about the lone doctor who says the pope is right. Note the source: the catholic news agency. No bias there.
It’s a moral issue and an empirical one.
I know why the church is opposed to contraception. So what?
Is it all just a joke? But what for? We know what the pope thinks and says.
I suppose the RC source has a credibility problem. Anyhow here’s an article by the ‘lone doctor’ himself:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html
Extract:
“Let me quickly add that condom promotion has worked in countries such as Thailand and Cambodia, where most HIV is transmitted through commercial sex and where it has been possible to enforce a 100 percent condom use policy in brothels (but not outside of them). In theory, condom promotions ought to work everywhere. And intuitively, some condom use ought to be better than no use. But that’s not what the research in Africa shows.
Why not?
One reason is “risk compensation.” That is, when people think they’re made safe by using condoms at least some of the time, they actually engage in riskier sex.”
…
The book to read is Rethinking AIDS Prevention (also by the lone doctor):
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rethinking-AIDS-Prevention-Edward-Green/dp/0865693161/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239701156&sr=1-3
No thanks.
Tony Blair will one day be recognized as the most important religious thinker =theologian that the Italian mission has provided. I cannot doubt of his sanctification.