[Closed] Papal visit of Pope on Thursday, anyone going.............to protest

Apparently he's in Wimbledon tonight. Sleeping at the house of some papal dude who looks after these things. Doubtless a trip to Centre Court is on the agenda for tomorrow before he hits Westminster. I'd love it if some local scrotes went off joyriding in his popemobile, trashing wimbledon common and squashing wombles.

Leave the wombles alone!

So what was the link between the Nazis and the catholic church?

lyons - Member

Leave the wombles alone!

So what was the link between the Nazis and the catholic church?

Easiest just to google about the Concordat between them. There seems to be a lot of disinformation, but it clearly shows that the Church was at the very least aware of the Nazi Party and its modus operandi and potentially aware of its intentions and was thus effectively buying itself safety at the expense of others instead of alerting the world.

Also shows that Hitler wasn't really atheistic as otherwise he wouldnt have been involved with the Church...and either way it doesnt really matter the focus is on the Catholic church for aligning with him.

The theologics of the Nazi party is a massive red herring

Basically, the current incumbent of that stupid hat is not telling the whole truth...not like him is it 😉

The Catholic Church during ww2 signed a deal with the Nazi's, correctly called the Concordat.This was initially to withdraw their powerful lobby against the Catholics,as with most of the right they had viewed the Russian revolution with a great deal of fear.There are going to be two arguements here.
1) That the Church did not do enought to stop the deportation of the jews/oppose the Nazi party,they made a deal with Hitler being well aware of his views...And to save their own skin.they also, as always, shamefully viewed the Jews as expendable to protect themselves.2700 local priests were enough of a problem that they were sent to the camps.
2) That the church signed the cond't BEFORE the "final solution" and the start of the mass persecution and indeed became enough of a thorn in Hitlers side that he started his own church.They were also strong enough in 1936 to stop the killing of "wasteful mouths."

They actually signed the Concordat in 1933 when Hitler first came to power at his request. This was in line with their policy of signing concordats with other governments (11 I believe) with the aim of ensuring governments did not become involved in the Church, they also saw Hitler as a defender against communism which was clearly anti-religion.

By 1937 the Vatican was denouncing the Nazis, to learn more you need to read up about "Mit brennender Sorge". I have no more knowledge on this than the internet supplies so I won't try to come to a conclusion. Suggesting the Concordat as the prime piece of evidence of Catholic Church's position on Nazism is however misleading.

Fair enough - as i said there is a lot of disinformation.

[i]they also saw Hitler as a defender against communism which was clearly anti-religion.[/i]

However - this kind of thing and the link with thwe Church further indicates that whatever Hitler was, he was not an extreme atheist. So the pope can suck on it 🙂

Hitler was far from an Atheist, like Stalin he believed that religion was a powerful agent of social control, and as such was to be used.His initial appeal was designed to appeal to ordinary lower middle class Germans.Germany had become VERY liberal during the golden age of Weimar,and Hitler's setting himself up as the moral Guardian would appeal to this social group and the very conservative Catholic Church in Germany. However it would be unfair to suggest that the Church colluded with Hitler once they realised what he was all about.It should be noted Hitler had no idea whet he wanted to do with the Jews until the Wanasee conference in 1941,where they came up with the final solution.The Church was very much one of Hitlers targets and they knew it.At that point the Church (at local level) did start speaking out,even if the Vatican kept it's pus shut.

Druidh

I'm glad you've mentioned Godwin's Law, first thing i thought of when i heard that idiotic statement! Taking into consideration the concordat, it further reveals some pretty hefty hypocrisy.

Oh well, at least he's lost the argument by default now. (are we right to call this argument a win now? "we" being British atheists of course)

Shows your ignorance. You need data collected with the same methodology to provide a meaningful comparison - very basic stuff.

No need for name calling.
I'm not sure which data you are referring to here, that in the graph or the numbers of new cases of HIV in Latin America. If the latter, then you need to show your source.

Nope - other factors are at work

I tend to believe the analysis of experts in the field of HIV and epidemiology.

That is my whole problem with your argument, it is based on [i]belief[/i], rather than hard evidence.

Ok.. I've looked closely at the data, and the sources supplied by Charlie, which are pretty robust as far as I can make out. The problem is there just isn't enough data there to make a judgement based on that data as to the impact of the CC on HIV infections on given populations. The only way to be able to safely draw a statistical conclusion is if there is a dramatic change in number of Catholics in one of the populations in question and then monitoring the effect of the CHANGE on the HIV infections data.

None of the data so far presented can do that and so neither side should be using the graphs presented as backup to their arguments.

Simply put we need to be able to say something like.. 'Look! The Catholic church was outlawed in country X and within a year the incidences of HIV infections dropped'.. Or something like that or more robust. Just because incidences of HIV in a country are low doesn't mean that the CC are not responsible for the low the numbers. It's not HIGH figures we need to look for but a correlation between the two sets of data. It's the rate of Change of one set of data and the monitored change in the other that will give us information on which to draw a conclusion one way or the other. That's science/statistics for you. Having some kind of faith in the graphs that they demonstrate support for the argument one way of the other is clearly misplaced.

[i]I tend to believe the analysis of experts in the field of HIV and epidemiology.[/i]

That is my whole problem with your argument, it is based on belief, rather than hard evidence.

As a statement defending the catholic church, that is brilliant 🙂

But, putting that aside, i don't understand how this statement can be false:

'A reduction in condom use is likely to correlate to an increase in sexual transmissions'

Less condom use = more chance of fluid transfer = more chance of disease transmission

THUS

Catholic Church scaring people off condoms = % of people who might have otherwise used them now don't.

If a % of those people are infected, then there is a % chance that they will infect their partners.

Additionally...less condom use = greater chance of pregnancy = chance of more childbirths = increases difficulty to escape from poverty

The actual figures will be borderline impossible to ascertain, but that doesnt change the immoral nature of attempting to remove something (condoms) that could potentially massively help.

If the Catholic church was not morally bankrupt, they would be actively endorsing and encouraging condom use as it would reduce infections and unwanted pregnancies, allowing people a better way of life.

But they aren't, they are actively dicouraging it - and i can't really fathom way. There is NO good reason to do so. You can promote good ethics at the same time as sexual awareness - they go hand in hand.

For me rates of infection and whether it's an epidemic or not are completely inconsequential and a fanstastic argument for apologists to hide behind.

[i]The only way to be able to safely draw a statistical conclusion is if there is a dramatic change in number of Catholics in one of the populations in question and then monitoring the effect of the CHANGE on the HIV infections data.[/i]

Sort of. But we can make a statistical inference, using techniques such as correlation. We are unable make or observe the change in number of Catholics so all we can observe is comparable countries with varying numbers of Catholics. The graphs linked, show a large number of countries but one would be hard pushed to show any relationship between the prevalence of Catholicism and the incidence of HIV.

We can also look at the original hypothesis. Which is that if papal influence had any effect on incidence of Aids it would appear in the data. The hypothesis might be questioned, but we need a good causal alternative.

i.e. Papal influence has an effect on incidence of Aids, but htis does not appear in the international data because...

Lifer... I agree.. Common sense dictates the argument on a statistical level is purely an academic excercise. The point I'm making is that bringing stats to an argument better be bloody robust before you start using them to defend a position that involves mortality rates.

[i]That is my whole problem with your argument, it is based on belief, rather than hard evidence.[/i]
As a statement defending the catholic church, that is brilliant

You misunderstand. I am not defending the Catholic church. My engagement with this argument is that in targeting the Catholic church in our effort to combat the spread of AIDS we are misdirecting our efforts. I couldn't careless about the church, but blaming it for things which it is not responsible for, undermines valid criticisms for the bad things it does and it also means that the real causes for the spread of HIV remain addressed and the solution stays farther away.

I'm not defending the moral stance of the church. But that stance is irrelevant. My point is that if you want to change the stance then sure beak on about it, but if you want to do something about human suffering, then find out the causes of that suffering. In this case and that of overpopulation, it doesn't look like it is because of the teachings of the catholic Church

CharlieMungus - Member

That is my whole problem with your argument, it is based on belief, rather than hard evidence.
As a statement defending the catholic church, that is brilliant

You misunderstand. I am not defending the Catholic church. My engagement with this argument is that in targeting the Catholic church in our effort to combat the spread of AIDS we are misdirecting our efforts. I couldn't careless about the church, but blaming it for things which it is not responsible for, undermines valid criticisms for the bad things it does and it also means that the real causes for the spread of HIV remain addressed and the solution stays farther away.

I was being flippant - it made me laugh coming from the 'other-side' as it where. But yes, appreciate the position you are arguing and that there are other factors, but i don't think that changes the viewpoint that what the Catholic Church is doing is wrong, as stated above 🙂

There now seems to be some birth rate data associated with that original graph

I'm not defending the moral stance of the church. But that stance is irrelevant. My point is that if you want to change the stance then sure beak on about it, but if you want to do something about human suffering, then find out the causes of that suffering. In this case and that of overpopulation, it doesn't look like it is because of the teachings of the catholic Church

I don't think anyone is saying its all their fault, that would be ridiculous. But potentially they could help instead of hindering, if they could pull their heads out of their arses and realise that its not the 1st century anymore

Tim, thanks for engaging. I see your point about 'any number' being more than necessary, but I guess we differ in the scales we are looking at. If the Church changed its teaching, I think the percentage of people who changed their behaviour would be inconsequential in terms of the spread. And so at the risk of repeating myself 😛 there seems little point in concentrating our efforts on the teachings of the CC.

How much is effort is required on the part of the CC to simply change the doctrine. It's a policy change. That's a piece of paper. Some words, written down, could save lives. It's not 'all our efforts'. It's a change that is the easiest one to make that could make some difference. Tackling one issue is not mutually exclusive with tackling others.

The pope could do that today. He is infallible by CC accounts. His word matters. he could simply utter some words and lives could change. It's the fact he doesn't see that or that he does but still chooses not to that in my eyes and those of many millions, including members of the CC itself that marks him as a poor human being.

Would save them a lot of efort and embarrassment as well!

Trouble is, just simply changing doctrine that has stood for hundreds of years or longer isn't very easy, not for the CC. Might seem easy to us infidels, but as with our Laws, doctrine can't just be changed on a whim. Otherwise Popes could just change things to suit themselves, and the CC has had enough with the Borgias and others. I'd imagine it would have to go before some sort of committee, but maybe lower order members would need to vote or something. I din't really understand how it works, perhaps I'm wrong.

Does it say, 'thou shalt not use condoms' in the Bible? No, it talks about the sanctity of Human life. Surely the condom/contraception is a relatively very recent part of the doctrine? So, it could be changed?

The Pope's stance on this matter is extremely negative and damaging. Will he change his stance? Surely it's up to Catholics to pressure/lobby for change, no? For Catholic theologians (theologists? You know, the blokes what study scripture and that. Clerics?) to come up with something that would say that condom use at least is ok.

But then, as I've said; it's down to the individual how they choose to act. The problem in Africa is that knowledge of HIV/AIDS is very poor amongst populations of people who have little or no access to education and even basic healthcare. Superstitions and traditional beliefs are very influential, fear and mistrust of outside influences means that many will simply ignore health advice. Then there's access to condoms; how many can readily get cheap or free condoms? This is one of the biggest issues. To blame Catholicism for the entire problem is to ignore the big picture.

Yes, the Catholic Church needs to change it's stance. But hating Catholics isn't going to help.

He is infallible by CC accounts.

not really, not most of the time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Also, I'm not sure, but the ruling on condoms contraception etc. Is not so much a policy on its own, more like one of the offshoots 🙂 of doctrinal thought. I imagine that just changing that ruling, might meant that it is inconsistent with a whole load of other ideas, which might not be so easily changed. I know, I know, Church, hypocrisy, etc. but hey. I don't make the rules.

But hating Catholics isn't going to help.

On this point:

I don't explicitly hate Catholics, but I feel that organised religion is an immoral and cruel concept and the aforementioned stance of the Catholic Church is one clear example of why I feel this way.

It makes no sense to me why someone would keep actively supporting and lauding the figurehead of a body which has so much that is deeply wrong at the core of its belief system - there is no question that mysogny, homophobia, the concept of purgatory and the restriction of contraception/sexual protection are disgusting concepts...yet they seem to be able to be actively supported by The CC (and in fairness, many other religions) in modern society.

Papal influence has an effect on incidence of Aids, but htis does not appear in the international data because... educated catholics ignor ehis advice and use condoms?
Does the data include condom usage amongst catholics for example in coutries with high and low rates?...I have not kept up with thread so hope I am not going over old ground.

There is also the possibility that some people are not registered as catholic but are under their suggestion...

perhaps