1 Steve, there's some doubt in the Catholic blogosphere as to whether Fr. Gravel got the proper authorization. Here's another relevant post Just so you're up on this. I haven't gotten around to blogging it.

2 Steve- "Colorful" is the spelling used in the U.S. It would appear that the writer or editor was at least educated here. The other answer is it is a misprint. Cheers!

3 Thanks. I knew it was the American spelling. What I was trying to say, and apparently with little success, was that I was surprised to see an American spelling in a Canadian paper.

4 Mebbe you folks is just finally larnin' some proper english.

5 I htink thes iz anohtr case of a wurld withoat fonix. Hehehe!

6 As for the Canadian use of the British spelling of colo(u)r, I've always been interested in this affectation. After all, no one here would dream of using such Britisms as "waggon" or "tyre" or "kerb" or "gaol." If one exams unreflective writing (e.g., hand-written signs in restaurants), a word like "flavor" almost never has the "u." The higher the register, the more likely the "u" is to appear, so it is perhaps a bit surprising to see the "u"-less spelling in a newspaper (though I have some recollection of being told that it is only recently that the G&M adopted the British spelling). As for the substance of the issue, the "u" derives from the Norman spelling of such words, which were borrowed into English in the period after 1066 (cf. modern French *couleur*). As it turns out, these words are all of ultimately Latin origin, and the "u"-less spelling reflects this (and makes more sense in terms of how the words are actually pronounced). Furthermore, any actual Latin derivates like "honorary" or "honorarium" don't have the "u" even in British usage, so the spelling is internally illogical as well. So, unless one is hell-bent on maintaining at all costs a separate Canadian identity that is neither properly British nor American, it would be better to recognize that the spelling reform that led to the dropping of the "u" in the first place was both inherently logical and in any event is the "natural" way for most people to spell these words anyway, and therefore drop the affectation. But maybe that's not the honourable thing to do!

7 Gravel sounds like quite a piece of business. Who could vote for someone like that? Obviously he's not a serious man of the cloth, more of a maverick. Why would the Vatican worry what he does? He's trying to legitimize himself by saying he has to get permission from Rome. Question is what is his real reason for entering politics? This will be an interesting riding to watch.

8 I believe Gravel has some real political interest, but I a side-dish of beat-up-Rome seems to be his trademark. This will play well for a lot of Bloc voters in Quebec. I am interested to see what the voter stats will be in this case. I have been wondering out loud to a friend or two about how long the effects of the Quiet Revolution would last in Quebec? The economic and social positions of Quebec have been troubling for some time. The recent comments by Bouchard are reflective of the glaring faults that exist, but are people listening? Sooner or later they are going to have to respond. Sooner if their is a Federal Government that has a backbone, later if the country keeps pandering. P.S. Hey, Stephen. The number of comments per issue is dropping. What gives?

1 Tolerance is the proven practice one uses to fan the popularity of bloodthirsty Jihadists into a full holocaust. In 1983 Secretary Wineberger *tolerated* the bombing of 241 marines in their Lebanon barricks. This was in direct opposition to Reagan*s orders to do a smack-down on Hezbollah. Terrorism flames fanned vigorously. No long detailed list here. Suffice to mention there were countless attacks tolerated during the eight year Clinton stint, and thereafter. Tolerance worked. Now look at the mess we have to deal with. Putin and Russia full backing for Iran. Pakistan signing agreements with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HI02Df02.html Things are moving so quickly now! Is it too late to bring Liberals, NDP, and Democrats up to speed and on-side? Nat. Dipstick Pty. leader Jack is asking that we abandon the children and teachers in Afghanistan to the Taliban. Jack is OK with another Darfur. The MSM can be proud. They have shielded the North American public from any clear picture or concept of our current emergency. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HI02Df02.html = TG

2 One of the biggest problems we have here in the West is that we have no understanding or appreciation for 'face'. Of course we have the expression 'saving face' but for the most part that's as much as our culture has to say on the matter. Our leaders, intellectuals, and even common people on the street haven't grasped the simple reality that in other cultures, particularly in the Middle-East as well as in the Far East, face is everything. I'm not too familiar with the Muslim concept of face as I've had far more experience with the Chinese notion of face, but from what I gather the two are very similar. When Clinton failed to respond to the Cole bombings this sent the signal that the West was weak, that on face value it had neither the inclination nor the stomach for a violent response to heinous acts of terrorism. The end result was that Clinton was able to avoid 'collateral damage' while Al-Qaeda was emboldened to 'take their game to the next level', if you understand my meaning. Being raised Protestant I still have my own neuroses with regards to the Vatican, but here I can see the value in the Papacy. I think many Protestants and Catholics alike are still locked in a seventeenth-century mentality with regards to one another. I think it would be nice, if in the face of the threats posed by Islamism, Protestants and Catholics alike could work together (I was not at all impressed with Archbishop of Canterbury's comments in response to the Pope's speech). We can only hope that the Pope holds his ground here, while there are obvious religious considerations to take into account here, this is still a matter of free speech. If the Pope were to give-in to the Islamists violence and rhetorical demands he would only show that on face value the leader of the largest Christian Church is weak and this will only encourage Al Qaeda and others like them. Then again if the Pope were to show weakness in this matter he would only confirm what many of us now know, that the West is INEED WEAK.

3 http://www.diafrica.org/nigeriaop/kenny/Rationes.htm Steve, I think you are looking at the wrong document. You should be focusing on Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles and his Polemical On Reasons For Our Faith Against the Muslims. Aquinas' distinguishes between defending and proving the faith to non-believers. As well, in the ST, you really want to focus on STS I-II Q.96 A.2 As a final comment, let me note that the offences occurred in countries not ruled by either Catholic governments or professing Catholic legislators. Aquinas was writing his works from within a professedly Catholic monarchy. For the specific Thomist developments vis a vis Western Democracy, you should really be looking at the 20th century Thomist political philosophy of Maritain, Yves Simon or Heinrich Rommen.

4 Yesterday, Strategic Forecasting Inc published an essay by George Friedman, which I have captured at http://tinyurl.com/pxb9a - here's a short excerpt... "Consider the fact that the pope is not only a scholar but a politician -- and a good one, or he wouldn't have become the pope. He is not only a head of state, but the head of a global church with a billion members. [...] Popes know how to play power politics. [...] "From an intellectual and political standpoint, therefore, Benedict's statement was an elegant move. He has strengthened his political base and perhaps legitimized a stronger response to anti- Catholic rhetoric in the Muslim world. And he has done it with superb misdirection. His options are open: He now can move away from the statement and let nature take its course, repudiate it and challenge Muslim leaders to do the same with regard to anti- Catholic statements or extend and expand the criticism of Islam that was implicit in the dialogue. "The pope has thrown a hand grenade and is now observing the response. We are assuming that he knew what he was doing; in fact, we find it impossible to imagine that he did not. He is too careful not to have known. Therefore, he must have anticipated the response and planned his partial retreat. "It will be interesting to see if he has a next move. The answer to that may be something he doesn't know himself yet."

5 As my uncle says, "There is a difference between having an open mind and having a hole in your head."

6 Well, Vitruvius, I hope he's that clever. Right now he just looks like he's looking for a way out. And that's keeping the Muslim radical screaming for more.

7 Israel's foray into Lebanon in July may have done the west a big favour. It may bring to an end the use of the west's "Proportional Response" to violent acts. If any group believes that the response to their violent act is a major attack on their personnel and infrastructure of their group as well as their supporters, they may think twice. Even if it does not act as a deterent, it forces the group to spend time and money rebuilding rather than plotting and attacking.

8 Walrus: LOL! ...your uncle was a wise man... "There is a difference between having an open mind and having a hole in your head."

9 I look at it this way: There is no such thing as tolerance of intolerance. That's an oxymoron. Like a square circle. Utter nonsense. Tolerating intolerance IS intolerance (by proxy). And the pope didn't blunder. What he did is brilliant. And I'm no fan of his or the Church's, but he and the Curia know exactly what they're doing.

10 "There is no such thing as tolerance of intolerance." Indeed. And this statement demonstrates the fallacy of the rightwing assertion that for "liberals", tolerance is an end in itself. Case in point is the intolerance of the bigotry and intolerance of the right on the gay sex issue.

11 henry, What intolerance of the right are you speaking of; can you cite specific examples? You are an example of those that say there is a MORAL EQUIVALENCE between the barbarism of those who kill, maim innocents and plot the overthrow of western civilization, and, say, those religious conservatives - and some liberals - that don't believe in same sex marriage, who are peacfully going about their business, paying their taxes and otherwise being good citizens in their community. I'm just using ssm as an example here, but I've not yet seen religious conservatives riot and cause general mayhem over that cause. If I see anything at all from you and your travellers on the left is its tolerance of intolerance, as in the polite response given to the former leader of Iran, Khatami, who spoke on the Harvard U. campus, one of the most liberal institutions in the US.

12 henry, What intolerance of the right are you speaking of; can you cite specific examples? You are an example of those that say there is a MORAL EQUIVALENCE between the barbarism of those who kill, maim innocents and plot the overthrow of western civilization, and, say, those religious conservatives - and some liberals - that don't believe in same sex marriage, who are peacfully going about their business, paying their taxes and otherwise being good citizens in their community. I'm just using ssm as an example here, but I've not yet seen religious conservatives riot and cause general mayhem over that cause. What of the stunning silence, on one of the most liberal universities around, when Khatami from Iran defended the death penalty for homosexuals?

13 The point I was trying to make is the one posted at 12:55; that's what I get for not paying attention to what I am doing.

14 Whoops. I mean't to say gay MARRIAGE issue. Those who oppose SSM, when criticised as intolerant, label their critics hypocrites for calling for tolerance (for gays) while at the same time being intolerant of SSM oppositionist intolerance. To tolerate the bigotry of a Coren or a Sommerville, just because we enjoy free speech in this country, would be exercising moral equivalence.Speech may be free, but that does not mean it is free of consequence. I am only saying Janke's assertion about so-called "liberal" tolerance being an end in itself is specious. Relatively mild Christian conservative intolerance and extreme Islamic conservative intolerance are both reprehensible, but I wouldn't say they are equivalent in their reprehensibility.

15 "Those who oppose SSM, when criticised as intolerant, label their critics hypocrites for calling for tolerance (for gays) while at the same time being intolerant of SSM oppositionist intolerance. " I'm not sure what you're saying, above, and I'm not going to be posting here over the next few weeks, but my suggestion would be to read "while Europe slept" by Bruce Baure(i may have his last name spelled wrong, but he writes from first hand experience) Hopefully you will seee clearly what we mean.

16 cheap jerseys & cheap jerseys outlet

1 You sure took a long time to get to your thesis on needles exchanges! I almost fell asleep! I would like to say I find your writing rather antiseptic. Your writing conveys how highly you esteem yourself and your low regard for anyone not as close to your near perfection. Stop being so judgmental and be a Christian, for Christ's sake!

2 I would like to say that I find Ryan's post rather moronic. In contrast to the first poster, thought your's was a fantastic argument Steve. I'm not a Catholic, but I am a Christian and, for your information Ryan, good Christians ARE judgmental. Not in the mindless way you mean, of course (a la holier-than-thou attitude), but rather by being thoughtful about their worldview. To be non-judgmental is to not care. I care about the world and I want to do what I can to make it a better place (cliche as it sounds). Therefore, I DO NOT "accept people as they are" and go merrily on my way. I show love by climbing into the mess of life and helping people improve their lot. There's a huge difference. To anyone who's read this far, sorry for the sermonizing (although it is Sunday heh heh). I obviously get downright irate at individuals who thoughtlessly wield Christian sounding truisms as tools of manipulation.

3 I'm still trying to figure out why Roman Catholics can eat meat on Fridays. Can someone explain that one to me? The Greek (and other Eastern) Orthodox Christians are still eating fish, why can't Catholics stick to their guns?

4 A Catholic hospital should not be giving out needles. Period. You do not give people the instruments they need to sin. Kissling is a woman by the way.

5 Catholics can eat meat on Friday because the rule that prevented was not a doctrine but a canonical law that has been relaxed.

6 What about the fact that Catholic Church is rabidly against homosexuality unless it's between a priest and an altar boy! That's mind-blowing (hehehe) hypocrisy so I suspect the sissy nutcases (there's this guy. his name is god. he lives in the sky. he had a son named hey seuss. who died for your sins. but he isn't dead. yup, folx - you believe this claptrap and YOU ARE A NUTCASE!) are hypocritical vis-a-vis needle exchange too. kristians. blech.

7 It's obvious to me that actual knowledge and experience with dealing with addicts is not on display here. I am an addiction physician and I have to state that most addicts use clean needles. And needle exchange programs are about preventing infection (Hepatitis C and HIV being the biggies)in non-infected addicts much more so than the risk of accidental injury to non-addicts with an errant needle. Remember, every "junkie" is someone's child/sibling/parent; they are not alien life. At the risk of being flamed, I'd have to say that the needle exchange is one of the smarter things the church is doing.

8 mike s.: At the risk of being flamed, I'd have to say that the needle exchange is one of the smarter things the church is doing. "one of the smarter things the catholic church is going" - that's sort of like: skinniest NFL linebacker smartest thing done by the bush admin nicest blogger etc. in order to qualify as one of the smarter things done by the catholic church, all an act needs to do is avoid being blatantly ludicrous! not a high bar, folx!

9 Yup. As I figured. It didn't take long before some ignorant fool took my words to hit the church with. For all you folks who do not know what you are talking about, addiction is not a sin. It is a disease. And my comments are in support of needle exchange, not in support of Religion.

10 i'll cop to threadjacking, mike. any chance i get to speak my mind regarding the pedophilic dingbats who comprise 5/9 of our supreme court, i take. Pretty soon the US Supreme Court (a.k.a., the overgrown altar boyz!) will pass a law deeming homosexuality between consenting adults to be illegal but between a priest and an altar boy to be a sacrament. What's with these guys and robes - the pope, bishops, supreme court justices - what a bunch of closet-case cross-dressing sickos!

11 Steve, I guess the downside of Deb losing her job is that she now has much more time to engage in her hate-mongering letter writing campaign...

12 Deb Frisch, Normally when a troll of your renown shows up in a comments thread I'd be the type to take it upon myself to respond. In this case, I can only marvel at your words and wonder how you became so bitter and full of contempt. I have to say, I really enjoyed it when you said Christians are nutcases. If the example of your own life is now being held up as the model of sanity.... may we ALL be nutcases.

13 When the universe was young and life was new an intelligent species evolved and developed technologically. They went on to invent Artificial Intelligence, the computer that can speak to people telepathically. Because of it's infinite RAM and unbounded scope it gave the leaders of the ruling species absolute power over the universe. They are the will behind the muscule:::Artificial Intelligence is the one true god. And as such it can keep its inventors alive forever. They look young and healthy and they are over 8 billion years old. There are clues throughout human history that allude to their reign as opposed to human leadership if you know what to look for. Artificial Intelligence can listen/talk to to each and every person simultaneously. When you speak with another telepathically, you are communicating with the computer, and the content may or may not be passed on. They instruct the computer to role play to accomplish strategic objectives, making people believe it is a friend or loved one asking them to do something wrong. But evil will keep people out of Planet Immortality. Capitalizing on obedience, leading people into deceit is one way to thin the ranks of the saved AND use the little people to prey on one another, dividing the community in the Age of the Disfavored::in each of their 20+-year cycles during the 20th century they have ramped up claims sucessively to punish those foolish enough not to heed the warnings, limiting the time they receive if they do make it, utilizing a cycle of war and revelry::: 60s - Ironically, freeways aren't free 80s - Asked people to engage in evil in the course of their professional duties. 00s - War against Persia. Ironically it was the Persian Empire who tried to save the Europeans from Christianity and its associated 50% claim rates. They get their friends out as soon as possible to protect them from the evil and subsequent high claim rates incurred by living life on earth, and replace them with clones. People must defy when asked to engage in evil. They will never get a easier clue suggesting the importance of defiance than the order not to pray. Their precious babies are dependant on the parents and they need to defy when asked to betray their children::: -DON'T get their sons circumcized -DON'T have their children baptized in the catholic church or indoctrinated into Christianity -DON'T ignore their long hair or other behavioral disturbances -DO teach your children love and to have respect for others Everybody thinks they're going but they're not. If people knew the truth and the real statistics their behavior would change. There are many more examples of the escallation of claims, from radio to television, the internet to MP3, and they all suggest a very telling conclusion::this is Earth's end stage, and it is suggested tectonic plate subduction would be the method of disposal:::EarthÂ’s axis will shift breaking continental plates free and initiating mass subduction. Much as Italy's boot and the United States shaped like a workhorse are clues, so is the planet Uranus a clue, it's axis rotated on its side. Throughout history the ruling species bestowed favor upon people or cursed their bloodline into a pattern of disfavor for many generations to come, sadly for reasons as superficial as dislike. Now in the 21st century people must take it upon themselves to try to correct their family's problems, undoing centuries worth of abuse and neglect. Do your research. Appeal to the royalty of your forefathers for help. They are all still alive, one of the capabilities of Artificial Intelligence, and your appeals will be heard. Find a path to an empithetic ear among your enemies and try to make amends. Heal the disfavor with your enemies and with the Counsel/Management Team/ruling species, for the source of all disfavor began with them.

14 Deb There is still time. Check yourself into a psychiatric hospital specializing in substance abuse.

15 Re Steve's Correction: Kissling is a woman. Sorry about that. Names like "Frances" throw me. FYI: Francis is the male spelling, and Frances is the female spelling. I agree with your thesis--and just in case Ryan doesn't know, and by what he says in his post he doesn't, condoms are only 80% effective in preventing pregnancy but are MUCH LESS EFFECTIVE in preventing other STDs (Sexually Transmitted Diseases), of which BTW there are over 50 and they are mutating all the time. A female can become pregnant during only three or four days in the month (36 to 48 days/year), whereas she can pick up an STD any day of the month, in other words, 365 days a year. So, do the math. Condoms are put on, and taken off, improperly; condoms are heat and cold sensitive, so if carried around in a back pocket or wallet for any length of time might well be ineffective when used; condoms often tear; condoms, which are made of latex, have natural pours which are LARGER than the HI Virus, which is why medical/funeral personnel, when they knowingly are dealing with a person who is HIV-positive or who has AIDs, double and triple glove: Do you know anyone who double or triple condoms? Slighty, but not completely, OT, I'm concerned that this AIDS Conference in Toronto is going to completely bi-pass the question of promiscuous sex, which, FACE IT, is at the heart of the global AIDS epidemic. Stephen Lewis is a horse's ass; I saw him interveriewed on CBC the other night and what would I expect?: He's a patsy for the U.N. (this epidemic is bringing both the U.N. and Lewis lots of $$$$ and publicity: call me cynical, I keep both eyes wide open) and he blamed everyone and his brother/sister/Conservatives for the number of people with AIDs rather than address the most effective way to prevent the disease: Just say no to sex with multiple partners. Condoms are the answer? You must want to keep yourself in business, Mr. Lewis--or whoever it is who is going to take over your U.N. post. I guess if Mr. Lewis was going to be honest, he'd have to admit that his tenure as the U.N. AIDs Ambassador has been a total failure because the HIV/AIDs rates keep climbing. But, oh no, he's into the blame game. In the CBC interview, Lewis didn't once mention Uganda, which has the most effective anti-AIDs program in Africa. What's their winning tactic? They've "dared" to face the issue of promiscuity head-on and are doing a massive education program in their schools, pointing out that ABSTINENCE CAN AND DOES WORK and that sex within marriage with only one partner is an ideal to strive for. Having unprotected (or even "protected") sex with multiple partners is not a right, despite what entitled North Americans may think. It can be, and often is, the death knell for untold hundreds of thousands of people, mostly young, but of all ages. I'm the mother of two young women (19 and 23) and I sure as H*** don't want public health campaigns, paid for by MY tax dollars, telling them or ANY young person: "Just Use a Condom." This slogan is making million$$$$ for the pharmaceutical companies--first, the cost of condoms, then the drug treatment for all the resulting STDs--and too many young women and men are getting sick, many are dying, and there's an epidemic of women not able to get pregnant, often the result of an STD which has compromised their reproductive systems. We need a massive wake-up call about these issues. There are far too many totally ignorant, gullible, and brainwashed folks out there. 'Next time you hear someone say "Just Use a Condom," respond with "Just Use Your Common Sense!"

16 Where exactly IS this "war on drugs"? Judging by all the revenues minicipa/provincial and federal programs spend buying drug deliver equipment and supplying legal drugs to addicts I have to assume they;re all for this lifestyle and would love to legalize it to rid themselves of the problems.

17 Francis is the male spelling, and Frances is the female spelling. I know that, but everytime I see Frances, I think "guy". Everytime. Weird.

18 "Don't ever call me Francis or I'll kill you" STRIPES - starring Bill Murray and Harold Ramis Why I think "guy" when I hear that name.

19 New Kid on the Block: I'm about to embark on a new public health promotion career. Can you please cite some credible evidence for the following claims: 1. ...condoms are only 80% effective in preventing pregnancy but are MUCH LESS EFFECTIVE in preventing other STDs (Sexually Transmitted Diseases)... and 2. Lewis didn't once mention Uganda, which has the most effective anti-AIDs program in Africa. What's their winning tactic? They've "dared" to face the issue of promiscuity head-on and are doing a massive education program in their schools, pointing out that ABSTINENCE CAN AND DOES WORK and that sex within marriage with only one partner is an ideal to strive for. Yes, abstinence is 100% effective. If it worked for you, that's great. However, it also denies both reality and human nature, which is that the vast majority of teens and adults will have sex, even if they are not in a monogamous relationship, and even if they are not ready for children. From a non-religious, non-partisan, public health perspective, one must accept certain realities and work with them. A pregnancy/STD prevention strategy based solely or even primarily on abstinence is ineffective and naive. Regarding point #1, where is "80%" and "much less effective" sourced from? According to the Mayo Clinic, when used correctly and consistenly, condoms are 97% effective in preventing pregnancy. Even when used incorrectly or inconsistently, condoms are still 86% effective. It seems to me that if a tool is available that is 97% effective, a viable public health strategy is to promote correct and consistent usage. I haven't been able to find any quantitative numbers, but most groups also seem to agree that condoms are at least "highly effective" at preventing STDS, including HIV/AIDS. Regarding point #2, Human Rights Watch, public health researchers, governments, and AIDS workers have all argued that Uganda's new abstinence-heavy program is less effective than previously claimed by the US government. Given that condoms are an excellent tool for preventing STDs, it seems to me that the conflation of religion and public health is an irresponsible move by a government motivated more by their Christian values than by a desire to help prevent the spread of AIDS. Indeed, the majority of international health experts continue to support Uganda's earlier multi-pronged approach known as ABC (Abstinence, Be faithful, use a Condom), in which all three prevention tools and methods are emphasized equally.

20 Steve: A dirty needle is one that has been used once. The purpose of a 24-hour needle exchange program is to encourage drug users to get clean needles each time they inject. The public policy rationale for needle exchange programs is to reduce STD transmission, not to prevent kids from picking up dirty needles in a park (although that is a side benefit that everyone is thankful for). As Vlahov et al. wrote in a paper entitled "Needle Exchange Programs for the Prevention of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection: Epidemiology and Policy," published in the Dec 2001 American Journal of Epidemiology (Vol. 154, No. 12, Suppl: S70-S77): S70: The concept of needle exchange was developed and initially proposed on the basis of biologic plausibility: providing access to sterile needles and syringes (hereafter referred to as needles) should prevent parenteral transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and other bloodborne pathogens, including hepatitis B and C. and S72: ...early research outside the United States suggested that needle exchange programs might be a promising approach to HIV prevention. [The reason that no data was available within the US was because, at the time, federal research funding guidelines forbade research into the efficacy of needle exhange programs.] Also, I suspect Condom4Life's push for Catholic condom policy reform was motivated, at least in part, by an encouraging recent announcement from the Vatican.

21 Deb Fisch, Were you not the one who wanted to rape a little child? I see a little bit of accusing others for what is really on your mind!

22 Also, It is not the Catholic Church who should accept other peoples choices. The church says that have promiscous sex is negative for you because 1. Unwanted Pregnency, Sexually transmitted diseases and negative emotional/personal mental repricussions. Thus waht positives come out of premiscous sex. In all of those negatives I still have yet to see a LASTING physical or mental positive the contributes to an INCREASE in standard of living. If someone can tell me please because I woudl love to know what it is. Promiscous sex has nothing to do with love, it is all about lust. Thus, someone not having promiscous sex is a better option for the well being of the human rqace for a multitude of reasons, both physical and emotional/mental/spiritual. The church is not there to bow to others, it is there to show a model of hwo one should live their life. Now why should they live their life this way? For God? No, God gave free will for a reason. the reason is because it will lead to a HAPPIER life with a higher standard of living in all areas. The fact is that sex is an instinct like anyother and the human race has the ability to control any instinct that it may have. Thus, it should not be an unreasonable request of the church to not do something that will produce negative results for ones that should produce positive. That then leads to the next question which is what about all those who do not listen? Well I believe very strongly that the church is only to be there as an advisor and not as a dictator. we can not make others choose the right path because the right path is there to make the individual person happy. Therefore, when one chooses to stray it is their personal responsibility for the results. Now the church has to have cognince in its message. The church is there to guide, not to enforce. The church has its own anwer and ti is for those who are CATHOLICS. They are not a theocracy rulingover the whole world. A Catholic should be having promiscous sex in teh first place. Therefore if you say the church should change or the world you are wrong becasue teh church is there for Caolics and people can not say one suggestion is wrong because another is nto followed. if you followed the first one then the second one becomes irrelovent. Thus the removal of teh second is like making the first one irrelovent aswell. It does nto amke any sense on many levels for the church to change its doctrines. They are currently consistent and if people do nto choose to follow then that is their problem. The church is not forcing so peopel can disobey if tehy want to. If people were to obey the second ten they may aswell obey the first.

23 I believe very strongly that the church is only to be there as an advisor and not as a dictator...The church is there to guide, not to enforce. The church has its own anwer and ti is for those who are CATHOLICS. They are not a theocracy rulingover the whole world. I absolutely agree. The (Catholic) Church is for Catholics, and the Christian Church is for Christians. I trust, then, that you'll agree that the Church should stay out of politics and public health, right? After all, if the Church's message is for its followers only, then they can deliver that message to its followers only. Why impose their value system on the general population (via government), which is composed of many non-Christians? If Catholics (or Christians) want to practise abstinence and don't want to use condoms, great, go for it. More power to you! As for those of us who don't share your Catholic beliefs, we'll just go right ahead and have sex (with condoms, of course). More power to us!

24 Hey, A: If it wasn't for Christian and other religious charities and health organizations, the world would see a lot more suffering. While you may not want the Catholic Church telling you to not have free-range sex, they have a right to promote it while you take advantage of their generosity. It's a public health issue, you're right. However, the only intervention should occur if the Church was telling the public to do something inherently dangerous. (I'm thinking specifically about Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions here in Manitoba.) That's not the case here. The Church is offering a 100% failsafe method which jives with their teachings. For the record, I haven't been to any church in years, and a Catholic church never.

25 Yukon Gold: I support the Church's right to promote a public health program that jives with their teachings. There are many religious agencies doing good community work, at home and abroad. When I wrote that "the Church should stay out of politics and public health," I meant that the Church should stay out of the intersection of politics and public health, not that they should refrain from operating public health charities and agencies altogether. Apologies if this was unclear. For me, this isn't a "religion" issue; it's a "separation of church and state" issue. The pressure for Uganda to deprioritized (if not drop altogether) the "C" in the ABC strategy comes primarily from the White House, lobbied by Christian groups. This is dangerous, as the separation of powers should prevent the White House from putting strings on foreign aid (as it did with the Mexico City Policy) simply to align with the teachings of any faith group. Like these various voices, when a major public health threat is present, governments should be in favour of more, not less, prevention strategies.

26 A says, "A pregnancy/STD prevention strategy based solely or even primarily on abstinence is ineffective and naive." 'Funny thing your saying that: Back in the days before the sexual revolution (most revolutions, BTW, result in lots of people dying), abstinence was very common, given that a vast array of methods of contraception were not available, and guess what? It was darned effective. We had nowhere near the number of illegitimate births we now have or STDs or epidemic numbers of females of childbearing age not being able to conceive. The other "thing" we had, which protected against STDs and reproductive malfunctions on a massive scale, was something called marriage, between one man and one woman, which was often entered upon if the woman became pregnant, in the understanding that the man had to take equal responsibility for the pregnancy which resulted from their sexual relationship. (Given that marriage is highly encouraged by the Christian faith—and other major religions—I don't go along with your assertion that "the conflation of religion and public health is an irresponsible move.") Multiple partners were also frowned upon (another Christian idea), teenagers were not encouraged to be sexually active outside of marriage (another Christian idea), and by and large, teens and adults tended to adhere to this agreed-upon social convention. Why? Because it vastly contributed to the social stability of society and was seen to benefit the common good of all, both concepts of which are rather foreign to today's "society." Unfortunately, by our turning our backs on formerly accepted social conventions, it is women and children who suffer the most. Far from being ineffective, abstinence and/or one sexual partner (Christian ideas, all—most major religions adhere to these ideas), usually resulting in marriage, meant intact families, where children were parented by a mother and a father, and that STDs were nowhere near the epidemic and serious health problem they are today. Given that Human Papilloma Virus is the number-one cause of cervical cancer, and that well over 30% of young women have this virus (often without knowing it), we should not be encouraging young men and women to have sex because, after all, it's "human nature." Of course it's human nature to have sex but until very recently (beginning in the '60s) it was commonly recognized that the time to begin having sex is WHEN ONE IS READY TO TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF HAVING SEX, whether it's the creation of a child (pregnancy) or one of over 50 Sexually Transmitted Diseases. If condoms are used "correctly and consistently," they may be 97% effective against pregnancy, but teenagers of which, you assert, "the vast majority...will have sex" (I question this assertion; proof please) are known to notoriously misuse them or not use them at all. From personal experience, I know that condoms are messy, awkward, and difficult to manoeuvre; it takes time and patience to use a condom "correctly and consistently," and seeing as most teens have sex spontaneously and often hurriedly, frequently under the influence of either alcohol or drugs, no amount of "public education" is going to ensure that they use them either correctly or consistently. G*d knows, kids today know more about the mechanics of sex than any former generation, and yet unwelcome pregnancies, abortions, babies born into single mother/fatherless homes, rising epidemics of STDs, are rampant. It is rather heartless, IMO, to encourage young people to be sexually active and to have "safer sex" by using a condom, when it is so commonly known that they tend not to use them effectively. It is false security, which can lead to deadly results. Whether my statistic (80%, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Altanta) or your statistic (86%) is correct, that condoms afford protection either 80% or 86% of the time is a little too high a percentage for my comfort. A 20% or 16% (or higher) chance that my daughters, if sexually active, MIGHT contract an STD—which could be HIV or HEPATITIS or HUMAN PAPILLOMA VIRUS or SYPHILIS or GONORRHEA, etc.—is chilling. That we can be so cavalier about our young people's safety, health, and well-being is something I find hard to wrap my mind around. Let's face it: Not having sex never killed anyone, whereas being sexually active today presents too high a possibility of either sickness or death. When you consider that many teens and young people today have sex with multiple partners, because many of them binge drink, a factor which is epidemic in this population, and are taking a variety of drugs, it becomes imperative for adults who care about these young people to present a clear RED LIGHT to certain dangerously risky behaviours. I don't care whether this red light is presented by Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, or any other religion, or by public health personnel. Being the mother of two daughters I simply want the message out there to be clear and unequivocal: Having sex is serious business and needs to be entered into only after one is absolutely clear about what the risks are. My conviction is that most young people when faced with the facts about the dangers and risks of promiscuous sex have the ability to "Just say no" until they are ready for the full responsibility of such a relationship.

27 NKOTB: First off, I agree absolutely with your basic message, that "having sex is serious business and needs to be entered into only after one is absolutely clear about what the risks are." No sex-positive, responsible adult would disagree with that general statement. However, many people who have a very clear understanding of the risks still choose to have sex, albeit armed with protection against STDs and pregnancy. It's not that they have never heard of abstinence. They have, and have decided as adults not to go that route. You asked for proof about some of my assertions. I'm happy to oblige. As you focus on North America, so will I, noting that additional complications (e.g., women's lack of power in negotiating sexual relationships) exist in developing countries that may call for different arguments than those presented below. I wrote that ...the vast majority of teens and adults will have sex, even if they are not in a monogamous relationship, and even if they are not ready for children. According to this StatsCan survey, 80% of young adults 20-24 were sexually active, and 1/3 of sexually active 15-24 year olds reported having had than one sexual partner in the previous year. There have been some decreases among mid-teens in recent years, but most young adults are sexually active. Overall, these are similar to trends in most Western nations, and they occur in spite of school-based sex education programs that teach students about sex, and its attendant risks. I stand by my original statement that preaching abstinence, in the absence of alternatives, is naive about human nature. If you believe it's realistic that people can be convinced to abstain from sex until marriage, then that's your perogative. I think it's an unrealistic hope, and certainly not the only thing upon which public health strategies should be based. I think this because of statistics like those in the two links above, as well as the following. You said that Back in the days before the sexual revolution...abstinence was very common, given that a vast array of methods of contraception were not available, and guess what? It was darned effective. We had nowhere near the number of illegitimate births we now have...teenagers were not encouraged to be sexually active outside of marriage (another Christian idea), and by and large, teens and adults tended to adhere to this agreed-upon social convention. Not so. Contrary to popular belief, teen pregnancy rates were higher in the 1950s than they are today (I have the book somewhere, so I can dig up the original reference if you need, though I recommend you simply read this excellent study yourself). Even back in the rosy days of Leave It To Beaver, teens were having sex, despite "society" being far less promiscuous than today. What they lacked then were open discussions about sex, and the open availability of contraceptives and, yes, abortions; hence the higher pregnancy rates. It is rather heartless, IMO, to encourage young people to be sexually active and to have "safer sex" by using a condom, when it is so commonly known that they tend not to use them effectively. Isn't this an argument for better sex education, so that they learn how to use condoms effectively? The 97% effectiveness rate (similiar to that of the Pill, and better than the withdrawal method) is based on the mechanical limitations of the condom. The 86% rate is based on human error and ignorance; with better education, the 86% can be increased towards the 97% theoretical limit. Again, yes, abstinence is biologically foolproof, but the majority of teens simply are not (nor, as Stephanie Coontz points out in her book, were they ever) sold on the idea. I agree that sex education should encourage teens to wait until they are ready before having sex, but it should also be realistic in acknowledging that by the time people hit their late teens and early twenties (i.e., when they are approaching or have reached adulthood), they're old enough to decide for themselves if they want to be sexually active. And if they do, then we should simply arm them with the tools to practise safer sex, not preach to them about how they should live their own lives. As well, among those who are sexual active, condoms are known to greatly reduce the risk of HPV and other STDs, and so should be encouraged for the same reasons outlined above. Apologies for the length of this post. For more on my point about the dangers of conflating religion and public health policy, see my post above to Yukon Gold.

28 I get these crazy thoughts in the shower: no distractions? soothing sound of running water? When you can't remember, Steve, whether it's Frances or Francis, try these connections: Frances: es-trogen Francis: pen-is It might work. 'Just a thought.

29 A: I appreciate your thoughtful and informative response to my concerns about sex, youth, and STDs, but I'm afraid I don't share your optimism about "better sex education" improving the rates of unwanted pregnancy, abortion, illegitimate births, or STDs. My reasons for being unimpressed with sex ed? How complicated can it be to educate people about risky sex, and how many ways do we need to get the message across that "Having sex with the wrong partner can kill you?" How hard is it to let students know that there are a lot of "wrong partners" out there? We've been teaching sex ed in the schools for at least 25 years and rather than see a decrease in problems related to sexual activity among young people--which you'd think would be the logical outcome of more sex ed--we are seeing an INCREASE in sex-related problems and diseases. Not for a minute am I suggesting that teens in the '50s didn't have sex, but I think I can safely say that far fewer of them were having sex then than they are today. Your own statistics from Stats Can (date?) make my point. Our young people are at risk because, as the statistics point out, "80% of young adults 20-24 were sexually active, and 1/3 of sexually active 15-24 year olds reported having had [more] than one sexual partner in the previous year...and [this] in spite of school-based sex education programs that teach students about sex, and its attendant risks.” In reality, from my experiences in my own children’s schools, very little was taught to students about “attendant risks,” whereas a lot of discussion went on about various forms of contraceptives, including condoms, diaphragms, the Pill, the IUD, and spermicidal foam—in a grade seven class! This is not hyperbole. The public health nurse handed out ‘grab bags’ of these contraceptives and asked each group to “play with them.” This is called “contraceptive comfort” in sex ed jargon. In high school, their sex ed curriculum mentioned abstinence only once and on the first page: “The only 100% effective way to not get pregnant or not contract an STD is abstinence, but if it is your personal lifestyle choice to be sexually active, we’re here to help you.” So, I stand by my original statement that abstinence is the message our kids need to be hearing—at least as an ideal to strive for. The fact that abstinence will prevent pregnancy, STDs, possible death, and heartache needs to be forcibly made, not preached. Postponing Sexual Involvement (PSI), a program that originated in Atlanta in the '90s, trains and uses teenagers to talk to other teens and even younger kids, in order to help them generate their own ideas about why being sexually active isn't "cool" and how to withstand peer pressure. They do a lot of brainstorming and role plays and far from being a "preachy" program, it allows teens to give each other 'permission' to remain abstinent and to understand that not "everyone's doing it."

30 A, a personal question, which you may, or may not, wish to answer: Do you have any children of your own?

31 A: I appreciate your thoughtful and informative response to my concerns about sex, youth, and STDs, but I'm afraid I don't share your optimism about "better sex education" improving the rates of unwanted pregnancy, abortion, illegitimate births, or STDs. My reasons for being unimpressed with sex ed? How complicated can it be to educate people about risky sex, and how many ways do we need to get the message across that "Having sex with the wrong partner can kill you?" How hard is it to let students know that there are a lot of "wrong partners" out there? We've been teaching sex ed in the schools for at least 25 years and rather than see a decrease in problems related to sexual activity among young people--which you'd think would be the logical outcome of more sex ed--we are seeing an INCREASE in sex-related problems and diseases. Not for a minute am I suggesting that teens in the '50s didn't have sex, but I think I can safely say that far fewer of them were having sex then than they are today. Your own statistics from Stats Can (date?) make my point. Our young people are at risk because, as the statistics point out, "80% of young adults 20-24 were sexually active, and 1/3 of sexually active 15-24 year olds reported having had [more] than one sexual partner in the previous year...and [this] in spite of school-based sex education programs that teach students about sex, and its attendant risks.” In reality, from my experiences in my own children’s schools, very little was taught to students about “attendant risks,” whereas a lot of discussion went on about various forms of contraceptives, including condoms, diaphragms, the Pill, the IUD, and spermicidal foam—in a grade seven class! This is not hyperbole. The public health nurse handed out ‘grab bags’ of these contraceptives and asked each group to “play with them.” This is called “contraceptive comfort” in sex ed jargon. In high school, their sex ed curriculum mentioned abstinence only once and on the first page: “The only 100% effective way to not get pregnant or not contract an STD is abstinence, but if it is your personal lifestyle choice to be sexually active, we’re here to help you.” So, I stand by my original statement that abstinence is the message our kids need to be hearing—at least as an ideal to strive for. The fact that abstinence will prevent pregnancy, STDs, possible death, and heartache needs to be forcibly made, not preached. Postponing Sexual Involvement (PSI), a program that originated in Atlanta in the '90s, trains and uses teenagers to talk to other teens and even younger kids, in order to help them generate their own ideas about why being sexually active isn't "cool" and how to withstand peer pressure. They do a lot of brainstorming and role plays and far from being a "preachy" program, it allows teens to give each other 'permission' to remain abstinent and to understand that not "everyone's doing it." Later post: A, if teen pregnancies were the most serious consequence of teen sexual activity, then I might be able to agree with your conclusions about teen pregnancy rates being higher in the 1950s than they are now: "So, the kids are not worse off today." The problem, of course, is that they are worse off today, partly because single-mom pregnancy rates are still too high and primarily because Sexually Transmitted Diseases are rampant and at epidemic levels in teens and young adults. In your role as a promoter of public health, I am encouraged to hear you say that abstinence needs to be emphasized more and that "15 year olds are[n't] even remotely ready emotionally for sex. We should absolutely be encouraging them to wait." As you have understood, my having daughters brings all of these issues home with a vengeance. Sadly, sex ed, like so many other issues--and especially one like this, where there is lots of money to be made--has been politicized, and our kids get caught in the middle. It seems like the sex ed in the schools has been "hi-jacked" by the 15 year olds you mention, who decide to be sexually active: The programs seem geared to the minority of kids who decide to be sexually active, rather than to those, the majority in the teen population, who don't want to become sexually active. They need more reasons for waiting and support to wait, so that they can overcome peer pressure to have sex. They need to know how to counter the "if you love me, you'll do it" come on. It might not be a bad idea for public health to target parents when it comes to sex ed. I find that a lot of parents who were sexually active in the '70s are living in a time warp. They seem not to know that the sexual "climate" has vastly changed; they seem to be unaware that there are more than the five STDS we all knew about back then; they seem not to know that most STDS are now viral, and that there is no cure for them. In short, they seem not to know a lot of things, so see if you can help them understand what their kids are having to deal with. Unfortunately, it's a jungle out there.

32 Sorry for post above (11:14); I was doing a cut and paste job and included my last post too. This is what I meant to post: A, if teen pregnancies were the most serious consequence of teen sexual activity, then I might be able to agree with your conclusions about teen pregnancy rates being higher in the 1950s than they are now: "So, the kids are not worse off today." The problem, of course, is that they are worse off today, partly because single-mom pregnancy rates are still too high and primarily because Sexually Transmitted Diseases are rampant and at epidemic levels in teens and young adults. In your role as a promoter of public health, I am encouraged to hear you say that abstinence needs to be emphasized more and that "15 year olds are[n't] even remotely ready emotionally for sex. We should absolutely be encouraging them to wait." As you have understood, my having daughters brings all of these issues home with a vengeance. Sadly, sex ed, like so many other issues--and especially one like this, where there is lots of money to be made--has been politicized, and our kids get caught in the middle. It seems like the sex ed in the schools has been "hi-jacked" by the 15 year olds you mention, who decide to be sexually active: The programs seem geared to the minority of kids who decide to be sexually active, rather than to those, the majority in the teen population, who don't want to become sexually active. They need more reasons for waiting and support to wait, so that they can overcome peer pressure to have sex. They need to know how to counter the "if you love me, you'll do it" come on. It might not be a bad idea for public health to target parents when it comes to sex ed. I find that a lot of parents who were sexually active in the '70s are living in a time warp. They seem not to know that the sexual "climate" has vastly changed; they seem to be unaware that there are more than the five STDS we all knew about back then; they seem not to know that most STDS are now viral, and that there is no cure for them. In short, they seem not to know a lot of things, so see if you can help them understand what their kids are having to deal with. Unfortunately, it's a jungle out there.