The secret history of Catholic caregivers and the AIDS epidemic

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

For the past few years, I have researched how the Catholic Church, both the institution and individual believers, responded to the intense suffering of the most marginalized during the AIDS crisis in the United States. For those of us who are too young to remember, the scope of that suffering can be difficult to comprehend. According to the AIDS research group amfAR, more than 319,000 people in the United States died of complications related to H.I.V. and AIDS between 1981 and 1995.....

Today, the House of Ruth is a multi-site housing and social services center that serves more than 600 people annually. (It is estimated that about 6,600 people in Kentucky live with H.I.V.) It is one of the largest resources of its kind in the state, which has experienced a surge of new H.I.V. diagnoses in recent years....

Some people, Catholics included, made life more difficult for the vulnerable.

The vast majority of Americans did nothing at all.

But more than a few people provided a gentle touch, free of judgment and scorn. These are just a few stories. Many other people have shared their stories with me, and I am seeking to hear more, because embedded in these histories are lasting witnesses to the power of Jesus’ call to love one another.

To read more:

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2019/05/31/secret-history-catholic-caregivers-and-aids-epidemic?fbclid=IwAR06LWVsK_w9kal0eDPE0zlOj6anGOUnKz_lGh32mTY8YBTskGCY9y8YqKk

[trotsky]

1. What is the current position of the RCC on the use of condoms to prevent transmission?

It's one of the cheapest and most effective tools we have to combat the spread of the virus.

[Cartoonist]

2. Old article. Has it changed much?

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/issues_publications/the-lesser-evil/

The Lesser Evil: The Catholic Church and the AIDS Epidemic
By Patricia Miller
Autumn 2001

“When priests preach against using contraception, they are committing a serious mistake which is costing human lives.” With this distinctly undiplomatic language, Peter Piot, head of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), voiced the international community’s continuing distress over the Catholic church’s policy on condoms. “We do not ask the church to promote contraception, but merely to stop banning its use,” Piot told the Frankfurter Rundschau newspaper following the United Nations’ conference on AIDS this past summer. The three-day special UN session stressed the need for nations to begin to talk plainly about AIDS in response to a catastrophic pandemic that has taken 22 million lives in less than 20 years. The final conference document specifically noted the need for countries to expand access to condoms within five years.

Apparently the Catholic church was not listening to the unprecedented statement that many took as a sign that the world was finally ready to deal with the AIDS epidemic in a serious way. Archbishop Javier Lozano, who headed the Vatican delegation to the meeting, called for a prevention strategy revolving around “matrimonial fidelity” and “chastity and abstinence,” while excluding “campaigns associated with models of behavior which destroy life and promote the spread of the evil in question”-a clear reference to the safe sex and condom education campaigns that the meeting delegates had affirmed as essential to halting AIDS.

[trotsky]

3. So it would appear the positive examples given in the OP are people who ignored their religion...

and simply acted as decent, compassionate human beings.

I wonder how many more Catholics would have acted like decent, compassionate human beings if their church wasn't teaching them that homosexuals are violating "natural law" and sinning?

[guillaumeb]

9. Did you read the bolded portion?

Some people, Catholics included, made life more difficult for the vulnerable.

The vast majority of Americans did nothing at all.

So, what did you do? What did most people do?

[trotsky]

11. I did indeed.

I was in elementary school when the AIDS epidemic began, so I'm afraid there wasn't much I *could* do.

Why are you reluctant to talk about the religious aspects of this topic, when you posted it in the Religion group?

Perhaps you should have posted it somewhere else if you didn't want people to talk about religion.

[guillaumeb]

13. And what did you do?

What did most people do?

Nothing.

[trotsky]

15. Why are you reluctant to talk about the religious aspects of this topic?

You posted it in the Religion group. Why did you do that if you didn't want anyone to talk about religion?

[guillaumeb]

17. Diversion in service to your agenda.

As MM is fond of saying, start another thread.

Haver fun reading about whataboutism.

[trotsky]

20. Why are you reluctant to talk about the religious aspects of this topic?

What discussion are you allowing instead? Reminder: you posted in the Religion group.

[guillaumeb]

35. Continued whataboutism.

Are you literally unable to admit that good was done?

If so, what does that say about your claimed desire for dialogue?

[trotsky]

52. Why are you reluctant to talk about the religious aspects of this topic?

It's in the Religion group. Surely you posted it here for a reason. What is the reason?

Why are you falsely accusing me of whataboutism when I am asking about the very topic of this group?

[Major Nikon]

23. Because child raping priests and the RCCs coverup needs a "counterpoint"

Meanwhile no organization on earth is more responsible for the AIDS epidemic than the RCC. They have campaigned the world over against the distribution of condoms which are the most effective defense we have against the disease.

But yeah, you can’t talk about the RCC and AIDS in a thread about the RCC and AIDS because of the whatabout, at least according to the most prolific whataboutist in this group.

[trotsky]

25. Nailed it. n/t

[MineralMan]

28. Well, I'll tell you what I did. What did YOU do?

I knew people who contracted HIV and had AIDS. They were friends of mine. I continued my friendship with them, drove them to appointments with health care professionals, brought them food when they were sick, and tried to comfort them when they were dying. That was before there were treatments for HIV infections. An AIDS diagnosis was a death sentence, then. I even knew one Catholic priest who died of AIDS during that period. I met him in a hospital.

It was hard to find medical people who would help them in the 1980s. It was hard to find people who were willing to be near them. Ambulance drivers put on hazmat suits to handle them for transport. It was easy, though, to find people who condemned them, shunned them, avoided them, and were glad when they died.

What did you do, Monsieur B? Did you ignore the problem, like most people did at the time?

You're asking people what they did, so answer your own question, please. What did you do?

Please do not ask question you are unwilling to answer. Thanks.

[guillaumeb]

4. May 31, 2019.

So yes, it is "old".

[trotsky]

7. Please read carefully.

He's calling the article he posted old, which it is. But has the RCC position changed since then?

[guillaumeb]

5. If you read the article, you know what it is about.

I understand your need to attack anything that is posted that might present theists in a positive light.

[trotsky]

6. Why are you misrepresenting my position? To control the narrative?

I asked you what the RCC's position was on the use of condoms, which prevent the spread of AIDS. Do you know?

[guillaumeb]

8. You engaged in classic whataboutism.

A charge that you love to make even when it does not apply.

Ironic that you would engage in it here.

If you wish, start your own post about this topic.

[trotsky]

10. Your article is about Catholics helping AIDS patients.

You posted it in the Religion group, meaning you think the religious aspect of the article is important.

I asked a question about that religion's teachings.

You illustrate again that you don't know what "whataboutism" means.

I understand why you are unwilling to answer my question, though.

[guillaumeb]

12. Classic whataboutism.

I must bookmark this for the next time you incorrectly raise that charge.

And one of us does not know what the term actually means.

I suggest that you Google the term to avoid making the mistake again.

[trotsky]

14. "one of us does not know what the term actually means."

Yup, I agree with that statement.

[guillaumeb]

16. But you do not understand it.

This could help:

Whataboutism gives a clue to its meaning in its name. It is not merely the changing of a subject ("What about the economy?&quot to deflect away from an earlier subject as a political strategy; it’s essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse than what the original party was accused of doing, however unconnected the offenses may be.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/whataboutism-origin-meaning


Note the bolded portion which refers to changing the subject. Exactly what you did. The topic is aiding people with AIDS.

[trotsky]

19. Whataboutism is more than your cherry-picked sentence.

And by quoting that, you demonstrate that you are the one who doesn't understand the term.

[guillaumeb]

30. Laughable.

Let this be a teaching moment:

I posted about theists helping AIDS victims.

You, not liking the idea of a positive post about theists, responded with" but what about...etc".

And that is classic whataboutism.

[trotsky]

59. You posted about Catholics in particular helping AIDS victims.

In doing so, those Catholics were going against the teachings of their own church.

I think that's worthy of discussion, particularly here in the Religion group. You do not, and would rather attack me.

Why?

[guillaumeb]

75. So do you now understand why your response

was an example of the whataboutism fallacy?

[trotsky]

85. Nope. Because it's not.

You are simply wielding "whataboutism" as a club to silence viewpoints you don't want to see expressed.

For what must be at least the 200th time I've told you, this is the Religion group. From the SoP: "Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted."

You posted about a small group of religious people doing a good thing.

I asked a question about their religion, to discuss whether their religion directed them to do this or not. Because religion, religious motivations, and religious doctrine are ON TOPIC here. (The Chinese government, not so much.)

You scream "WHATABOUTISM."

Is this dialog? Work on that, g.

[guillaumeb]

104. Sorry for your misunderstanding.

Perhaps take a course in debate.

[trotsky]

116. #gaslighting

Thanks for showing everyone how a Christian behaves, g.

[Major Nikon]

26. Because some people have a deeply seeded need to pretend they are a victim

Rather odd that someone would actually believe they are some kind of victim when asked a question about their (former?) religion victimizing others. Kinda sounds familiar.

[guillaumeb]

29. Ironic that you bring this up.

But the irony was unintentional, I am certain.

[Mariana]

45. Perhaps the numerous personal messages Gil receives

asking him to continue doing what he is doing, and praising his efforts in this group, have become less numerous. Have his legions of fans lost interest in the goings-on in the Religion Group? Is he desperately trying to rekindle their ardor with these latest crazed performances?

[trotsky]

55. Entirely possible.

Performance art needs an audience.

[Mariana]

57. I wonder if he has any new material planned for this season

or are we just going to see more reruns.

[trotsky]

58. Well, it appears he was finally shamed into abandoning his "choir" and "11th commandment" nonsense.

He hasn't tried those canards in quite a while.

So unless he's going to become a one-note performer with his laughable "whataboutism" charge on everyone else, he's going to have to come up with something new to keep the audience engaged.

It's a shame that if he just acted with alleged "Christian" values such as compassion, tolerance, and refraining from judging others, he'd likely have a much better experience here and wouldn't have to relegate himself to this pathetic shtick. He's clearly intelligent enough to engage in actual dialog, so why doesn't he want to?

[Mariana]

60. His "choir" routine appears to be back in the rotation.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=315042

[trotsky]

61. Well damn, I spoke too soon.

Goes to show what having hope for improvement will get ya.

[guillaumeb]

46. Congratualtions on being the first responder,

and the first to engage in whataboutism.

What would MM say?

[Mariana]

47. ...

[MineralMan]

48. LOL!

[guillaumeb]

49. More sad than laughable.

But it set the tone, so to speak, for the choir.

[Mariana]

51. ...

[MineralMan]

62. LOL! The choir...

You're recycling the choir schtick?

[Major Nikon]

63. I'm still waiting for the 11th Commandment schtick to come back around

That shit was hilarious.

[MineralMan]

64. I'm still waiting for him to answer the same question he asked:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=315017

I suspect we will not see a reply to that. He likes to ask loaded questions but refuses to answer his own queries. There is a reason for that, I suppose.

[Major Nikon]

66. You just don't understand

There's a difference between good faith discussion and giving a sermon. It's kind of like the difference between talking with Noam Chomsky and a streetcorner preacher.

[MineralMan]

67. Well, M. B. has issues with his homilectics, I think.

He has a limited set of arguments to make, so he tends to get repetitive with them.

The congregation is getting bored, I'm sure.

[Major Nikon]

70. "arguments"?

I think you may have misspelled 'fallacies'.

[MineralMan]

71. That's entirely possible. It's easy to conflate

fallacies with arguments, certainly.

[Major Nikon]

72. Some reduce such conflations into a low art form

Then when bullshit is called on the fallacy, there's always gaslighting. To be fair though, imagining a entire fan club that doesn't know the difference has to be something of a challenge in an of itself.

[guillaumeb]

76. More of a sextet at this point. eom

[MineralMan]

79. A sextet sings louder than a soloist.

But we don't actually sing together. Each of us is singing a different song.

[guillaumeb]

80. But there is such harmony.

[Major Nikon]

50. Choir! Whatabout Chinese Atheists! 11th Commandment!

Argie-Bargie!

Someone is pulling on all the canned replies. Must be having a meltdown over the latest train wreck thread.

[trotsky]

56. I'm sorry you don't understand what that word means.

Why are you accusing me of whataboutism when I'm staying on the topic of this group?

Please explain.

[MineralMan]

18. Some Catholics, including some priests and nuns, did good work, yes,

back then with AIDs sufferers. In every group of people, some did the same. Others ignored HIV. However, the official Roman Catholic Church did not do that. Instead it shunned LGBTQ people, sometimes even prohibiting Catholics from the Eucharist. Officially and institutionally, gays and lesbians were shunned by the RCC. It was one of the most shameful episodes in that period of time. I remember it well, and knew people who received that kind of treatment from the church they had been in all their lives.

You know that, I'm sure. But, you're trying to expand the efforts of a few Catholics into a false view of the church's real attitude and treatment of people who contracted HIV.

I think that's a shamefully deceptive thing to do. You might think otherwise.

Why is it a "secret history?" That's easy. It was kept as a secret within the Church, because the Church condemned LGBTQ people on a regular basis, and would not have approved.

[trotsky]

21. Exactly.

The people doing good are the ones who bucked their church, whose humanity and compassion OVERRODE their religious instruction and the official position of their church.

Curious that guillaumeb would post this in the Religion group and refuse to allow anyone to ask about the religious aspects of it.

[MineralMan]

22. Well, perhaps Monsieur B was unaware of the church's long and

still continuing attitudes toward alternative sexual behavior. Maybe he doesn't remember those times. Or maybe he didn't actually read the entire article from which he posted a minimal excerpt. I don't know.

Why he'd expect to post about some clergy and associates who went against official church policy and not start a discussion of that particular denomination of Christianity, I also don't know.

'Tis a puzzlement...

According to Monsieur B, he is old enough to remember. I remember, and I'm only a few years older than he claims to be.

Odd, that. I wonder what his actual point was for posting this fragment? I can't figure it out.

[trotsky]

24. Why it's almost as if he just wants to control the narrative.

That when people do good things, we should credit their religion and the fact that they are theists.

Even if when doing those good things, they are going against their religion and what their religion teaches their god wants.

[MineralMan]

27. Well, that trick never works out well for Monsieur B.

As I said, there were (and are) people of all sorts who helped people with AIDS back then and now, regardless of what church they went to or no church at all. It's because they're good people regardless of what their church teaches. Some people are full of compassion and free of bigotry, regardless of their religious beliefs. What those people were doing to help had nothing to do with Catholicism or "theism." It was just good, caring people doing what good, caring people do.

And so it is and has always been. Some priests I have known have been caring, compassionate people. Others have sexually molested children. It has nothing to do with their religious affiliations. Nothing whatsoever. They'd have been that way, regardless.

Monsieur B. likes to point out such good, caring people and attribute their attitudes to their beliefs. At the same time, he decries anyone pointing out people who are doing terrible things, and who are also religious. The difference between the caring people who helped AIDS patients and the child molesters is that the organized Roman Catholic Church didn't like what the caring people were doing. At the same time, it was hiding child-abusing priests from exposure and shipping them around to other parishes to do the same things there. You'd think it approved of the child abuse, but not the compassionate care for the ill.

In one case, the Church did not support those who were caring for people who had a disease, but did support people who were sexually abusing children. So, the church is involved in support, but not with the good group. Instead, it supported those who were causing harm.

Monsieur B. doesn't understand the difference between the two behaviors by the RCC, apparently. The rest of us understand that he has convinced himself that the church is good for society. He will hear no evidence to the contrary.

[guillaumeb]

34. The 1/2 that is correct is outweighed by the 1/2 that is nonsense.

But you are convinced by your own narrative.

[MineralMan]

39. You're not making sense, Monsieur B.

[guillaumeb]

42. If you cannot understand what I said,

perhaps the fault is yours.

[Mariana]

43. Gil, if your posts are being misunderstood all the time

It's reasonable to consider the possibility that the problem is you.

Don't you think it's odd how everyone else manages to make their meaning clear to the other participants in this group? You are the only one who consistently has this issue. Have you ever stopped to wonder why?

[guillaumeb]

44. Nonsense.

But keep building that narrative, and confusing a tiny few with "everyone".

All part of keeping harmony in that small group, correct?

Interesting how, when I post outside of the Religion Group, this supposed misunderstanding rarely occurs.

Almost as if some very few here have an agenda that includes attacking theists and creating misunderstanding.

[trotsky]

69. The narrative you keep whining about is the one you yourself have created.

Remember all the times you've dismissed others' points of view by calling them "confused"?

Here, let me refresh your memory:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=313284
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=313140
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=313006
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=307252
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=310602
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=310596
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=304222
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=295988
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=294478
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=289288
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=289074
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=288900
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=288895
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=287999
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=287373
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=286552
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=284415
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=283706
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=283585
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=283574
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=283554
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=283545
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=280702
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=279686
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=279439
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=279431
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=279429
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=278963
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=278912

And that's only going back a year.

[guillaumeb]

33. More diversion.

Why can you not simply admit that good work was done?

Are you unable to admit it?

Or do these posts conflict with your goal for the Religion Group?

[trotsky]

53. Good work WAS done.

But was it because of their religion?

Why are you attacking me for simply asking that?

[Major Nikon]

65. You just don't understand

When a priest rapes a child and the RCC engages in a conspiracy to conceal the crime, that is just "human behavior".

When a Catholic helps a dying AIDS patient even after the RCC exacerbated the disease, religion gets the credit.

[guillaumeb]

74. Finally.

But you still felt compelled to add some hyperbole.

Now, work on that.

[trotsky]

84. I never said this wasn't a good thing, g. Quit pushing your false narrative.

Now answer my question. Did they do it because of their religion?

[guillaumeb]

32. Yes, by all means enable the whataboutism.

And divert from the article as fast as possible.

So what is your motive for doing so? Why, to enable the diversion and the general attack on theists. We can all figure it out.

[MineralMan]

38. Truth is my motive, Monsieur B.

[guillaumeb]

41. A good one.

And when you discover what you believe to be this truth, make it the subject of a post.

With appropriate documentation, of course.

[Major Nikon]

36. ...

[guillaumeb]

31. Your assertion is ridiculous,

mainly because your claim of a false view is refuted by the actual article, and my bolded statements.

[MineralMan]

37. Oh, bother and balderdash!

[guillaumeb]

40. Much better.

In fact, your best in this thread.

[Act_of_Reparation]

68. LOL

Just another hilariously offensive blip on an uninterrupted hilariously offensive trend.

Is there no depth to which you won't sink?

[guillaumeb]

77. I apologize for posting good news.

You might like my June 6 post as well.

[Mariana]

81. ...

[Act_of_Reparation]

83. You shouldn't apologize for posting good news.

You should apologize for posting offensive bullshit.

[guillaumeb]

102. I understand that good news about theists offends you. eom

[edhopper]

73. So I have learned from this

if you post a new thread, you can police what people respond and demand everyone accepts the narrative you want.

Any disagreement is either from confusion or "whataboutism"

[guillaumeb]

78. I would say, with all respect, that you have not learned from this.

If anyone posts on a specific topic, and a few respond with variants of the "what about this...", that is diversion and thus whataboutism as well.

[trotsky]

86. Yes, imply anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or confused.

Instead of EVER doing a bit of self-reflection.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=313284
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=313140
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=313006
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=307252
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=310602
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=310596
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=304222
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=295988
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=294478
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=289288
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=289074
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=288900
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=288895
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=287999
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=287373
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=286552
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=284415
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=283706
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=283585
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=283574
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=283554
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=283545
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=280702
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=279686
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=279439
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=279431
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=279429
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=278963
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=278912

[edhopper]

87. It was "what about this"

The article wasn't about people helping AIDS victims. It was about Catholics helping them.
It is warranted to point out how the Catholic Church did in fact make the AIDS crisis worse and still do in their efforts to fight condom distribution in countries ravaged by AIDS.

It appears that any opposition to your posts is met with claims of whatabout or confusion. It also appears you are the only only one who considers them so.

[trotsky]

96. Oh dear.

You're in the choir now for sure.

[edhopper]

100. Always have been

[guillaumeb]

105. It is diversion and whataboutism to attemtp to divert,

and to ask what about a different topic.

[edhopper]

108. Nope,

don't see it that way.

Why was the article about Catholics and AIDS? Why did you post it in the religion forum?

Were you making any point about Catholics and AIDS? IF not, what point were you trying to make.

And why would a discussion about Catholics and Aids not be worthwhile?

[guillaumeb]

109. Your last point is diversion from the actual topic.

If you wrote on that topic, that would be different.

But this article is not a complete history of the RCC. It is about some theists and the AIDS issue.

Just like my posts about Chinese repression of theists are not intended to be a definitive history of China.

[edhopper]

110. It seems to be about CATHOLICS and AIDS

not "theists"

[guillaumeb]

111. Catholics are a subset of theists.

But the post was limited to those in the RCC who gave comfort to the AIDS victims.

[MineralMan]

112. So is the subset of theists who shunned and excluded

people with AIDS. Surely you remember those theists, too, right?

[edhopper]

113. So it is about Catholics and AIDS

Therefore it seems logical that it would bring up a discussion about Catholics and AIDS, including the Catholic Church. That would be very pertinent.

Maybe the next time you post a thread, you should list the allowable subjects for replies.

[Mariana]

114. I think this is the kind of dialog Gil would like to see here:

Gil's OP: The secret history of Catholic caregivers and the AIDS epidemic.

Good: How wonderful!
Good: We should all be grateful!
Good: Theists are the best!

These kinds of responses are unacceptable:

Bad: Why were there so few of them?
Bad: Why did they have to keep their activities secret?
Bad: Why did the Church oppose the most effective measure to prevent the spread of HIV?

Etc.

[AtheistCrusader]

117. Which is also a subset of catholics, who ignored, or campaiged against tools that would limit AIDS

transmission rates. (Such as condoms.)

[AtheistCrusader]

101. A short Democratic Underground play.

You: (Apropos of nothing) "Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus was a great senator and a capable military general during the Gallic wars, that served the empire loyally for most of his professional career, and particularly during the Republican Civil War, during which he built a fleet from scratch in 30 days to support his then-commander, Julius Caesar, in the blockade and capture of Massilia."

Another poster: "But he did conspire to murder, and personally lured Julius Caesar directly to his assassination that one time."

You: 'WHATABOUTISM!'

exunt

[Major Nikon]

82. The most prolific whatabouter keeps pointing the whatabout finger

...and failing. Next comes the gaslighting.

[trotsky]

88. I have a question about the article. Why is the history "secret"?

Who or what did these people have to hide their actions from?

[MineralMan]

89. Oh, good question...

I predict this answer: "I didn't write that headline. What about that?"

[trotsky]

95. Bzzzt.

The correct answer is likely "I didn't write that headline. WHATABOUT THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT??"

[AtheistCrusader]

90. So, some individuals defied their official church position on an issue and did some nice work

while the church itself went on to MAKE SURE AIDS spread far and wide in Africa for decades and killed millions.

Pope John Paul II[edit]
John Paul II's position against artificial birth control, including the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV,[23] was harshly criticised by doctors and AIDS activists, who said that it led to countless deaths and millions of AIDS orphans.[24] Critics have also claimed that large families are caused by lack of contraception and exacerbate Third World poverty and problems such as street children in South America.
On 15 November 1989, John Paul II addressed the 4th International Conference of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Health Care Workers[25] in the following terms: "It seems profoundly damaging to the dignity of the human being, and for this reason morally illicit, to support a prevention of AIDS that is based on a recourse to means and remedies that violate an authentically human sense of sexuality, and which are a palliative to the deeper suffering which involve the responsibility of individuals and of society."[26] This was interpreted in May 1990 by the Roman Catholic bishops of Madagascar as a "solemn reminder" giving ground for their view that in the context of positions such as that of Cardinal Lustiger who stated that it was a "lesser evil", "the condom remains a 'moral evil'".[26]
In September 1990, John Paul II visited the small town of Mwanza, in northern Tanzania, and gave a speech that many believe set the tone for the AIDS crisis in Africa. Being unequivocal, he told his audience that condoms were a sin in any circumstances. He lauded family values and praised fidelity and abstinence as the only true ways to combat the disease.[27]
In December 1995, the Pontifical Council for the Family issued guidelines saying that "parents must also reject the promotion of so-called "safe sex" or "safer sex", a dangerous and immoral policy based on the deluded theory that the condom can provide adequate protection against AIDS."[28]

Yay. They are working hard (your article) to mitigate a small amount of the damage the Roman Catholic Church has directly caused.

The headline of the article you posted is a lie. It is not a 'secret history', it's simply over-shadowed by the Church's normal daylight activities.

[MineralMan]

91. Yes. Exactly.

Some individual Catholics did something good. That's not surprising. There are good, kind, loving people in almost all groups. Meanwhile, the Roman Catholic Hierarchy relied on doctrine and made very bad decisions for people, both Catholic and non-Catholic.

The RCCs paranoia about contraception cost many people their lives. They could have done the compassionate thing, but did not.

Jesus wept.

[AtheistCrusader]

92. It is my personal belief that the RCC is quite fine with people being poor, and in dire straits

because they are statistically more recruit-able.
It's all about the revenue.

Or to put it another way; follow the money.

[MineralMan]

93. I suppose it depends on what level of the hierarchy you're talking about.

The Pope and his Cardinals and Bishops have one set of priorities. Those are very different, in many cases, from the concerns of, say, a parish priest. The Vatican does not deal with individual people. It deals with populations of people. The parish priest deals with people individually and in groups no larger than his congregation.

It's a lot like political civil governments. Different issues arise at different levels of the organization.

[AtheistCrusader]

94. Oh absolutely.

When I refer to the "RCC", I'm referring to policy-makers, so mostly Archbishop and above.

Deacons, Priests, and for the most part Bishops are just doing what they are told.

[trotsky]

97. Just take a look at Mother Teresa's operation.

She praised the suffering people endured, because it brought them closer to Jesus.

It makes sense when you consider that a lot of RCC theology arose during a time when kings and aristocracy had to figure out a way to keep the peasants in their place, and the church was only too happy to help.

[Mariana]

98. She praised the suffering OTHER people endured.

She wasn't interested in doing any suffering herself.

[trotsky]

99. Well c'mon now.

Clearly she was already as close to Jesus as a person can be; there was no need for her to suffer! /s

[Lordquinton]

103. Man, that article is a white wash

Second, the institutional church’s relationship to L.G.B.T. people today is fraught. But there are historical examples of kindness between Catholics and L.G.B.T. people during the epidemic that can be helpful as we navigate major societal shifts.

The implication that somehow it's today's church that has some issues with LGBT "because of the perceived hostility of some church leaders toward those with non-normative sexualities." (AKA The Pope) but then tries to make it seem like that's just how it is now (without pointing any fingers, of course) I should be front and center that what made these people brave was how they went against church teachings. Instead they are being used as a prop for rehabilitation of a well earned image.

The RCC helped wipe out an entire generation of LGBT, the community bears the scars and many don't even know why, which is why education and pride are so very important. The church needs to be reminded of it's actual role in the epidemic, and we cannot allow them to act like they were on the right side.

[guillaumeb]

106. Was the article untrue? eom

[Lordquinton]

107. Was I incorrect in anything I said?

[Lordquinton]

115. Was I incorrect in anything I said?

[Lordquinton]

118. You've had a long time to think about it, Was I incorrect in anything I said?