Pharyngula

Posted by: Zzarchov | August 11, 2010 11:46 AM

What if that wealthy institution is a government by means of a prison. Using its wealth to shelter these rapists from the retribution of the justifiably angry mob?

Posted by: Robert H | August 11, 2010 11:48 AM

I thought you were treating the papacy with the respect it deserves, if not treating it with some undeserved deference.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | August 11, 2010 11:55 AM

Exploiting or harming another human being for personal gain is wrong.

Posted by: Zzarchov | August 11, 2010 11:58 AM

*Posted by: vanharris | August 11, 2010 11:48 AM

Moral relativism is wrong?

Then what about denying condoms as prophylactics to sexually active people in Africa? Is that an example of objective morality that they think is right? What are these deluded eejits on?

*

This position bugs me beyond merit due to the massive borderline racist insult it delivers to the mental faculty of Africans.

So the logic is: African's will blindly follow the Pope about not using condoms, but are too stupid to also follow his advice about only having sex with your spouse post marriage.

They likewise, if choosing to have sex with multiple partners are too stupid to ALSO disregard his position on condoms.

How about we stop with the racism and admit the ramblings of an old geezer don't impact this as much as the same bullshit reason we have here "C'mon baby..don't make me shower with a raincoat on..it doesn't FEEEL as good".

African's are not fundementally different than North Americans.

Posted by: Volant Proboscidian | August 11, 2010 12:01 PM

So it sounds like her point is, "I want a preconceived morality to be spoon-fed to us. If it increases suffering and inequality, and is an obstacle to general the betterment of the human condition, then so be it - anything to excuse me from thinking for my fucking self."

Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief | August 11, 2010 12:02 PM

In other words, she wants us to treat him with respect because he opposes us, how we live, and a lot of what we believe in.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | August 11, 2010 12:06 PM

And of course it's not like we don't have Catholics HERE who ignore the 'no sex thing' but still embrace the 'condoms are bad thing'. Or ignore the no divorce thing, etc. People will latch onto the no condoms so that "I may be a lustfull wretch...but I get points from Jesus for not using a godless condom!"

Posted by: Susan | August 11, 2010 12:10 PM

See? No relativism at all.

Makes perfect sense to me. They're monsters.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | August 11, 2010 12:12 PM

And give them full lobotomies, that way they can be the inert baby factories under male authority that god intended?

Piers Anthony wrote a disturbing short story for the Dangerous Visions anthology. I believe it was called In The Barn. The barn was full of breeding men and women, each raised without stimulation until they were of a breeding age.

It was disturbing not so much for the content (which was ludicrous) but because of the window it provided into Piers Anthony's misogynistic brain.

Posted by: EB | August 11, 2010 12:14 PM

"I missed the last time uneducated superstitious disenfranchised people in the US cut up and ate an Albino. Could you direct me to that?"

Well they weren't disenfranchised and they didn't practice canibalism but these people didn't act much better:

http://kathmanduk2.wordpress.com/2008/12/24/center-for-civil-and-human-rights-lynching-postcards-of-inhumanity-exhibit-january-2011/

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | August 11, 2010 12:18 PM

It was disturbing not so much for the content (which was ludicrous) but because of the window it provided into Piers Anthony's misogynistic brain."

The same can be said of ANY of PA's books. The running theme in all is how males are barely controlled rape bombs.

Posted by: Danu | August 11, 2010 12:24 PM

"...he's a delusional old man who uses fear to demand obedience to archaic dogmas."

And that's his GOOD points.

Posted by: Zeno | August 11, 2010 12:26 PM

John Paul's film-star charisma [Wait, what?]

One has to be old enough to remember back that far, but yes: JP II had charisma to burn at the beginning of his papacy. He was the youngest pope in over a hundred years -- a skier and hiker -- and the contrast with his recently deceased predecessor (skipping over the one-month papacy of the short-lived JP I) was striking, since Paul VI was a dried up and defeated shell of a man by the time he died. Yeah, there was charisma. But it bled away drop by drop over the decades till he was even more of a caricature than Paul VI.

Posted by: Danu | August 11, 2010 12:29 PM

And Scote @ #14 wins an internet.

Posted by: Eamon Knight | August 11, 2010 12:31 PM

The "relativism" argument seems to go:

Post-modernist liberalism (which is presumed to dominate European society) has no basis to critique the moral excesses of Islam, being forced by its own assumptions to accept it all as "just their culture", and to condemn or discourage practices like FGM, compulsory veiling, anti-gay rhetoric would be cultural imperialism. Therefore we will let the immigration-driven Islamicization of the West proceed, until we all wake up one day living under Sharia and wonder how the hell that happened. The only alternative to this sorry fate is to impose (some constructed notion of) traditional Christian hegemony on our society -- to oppose one absolutism with another. But that's OK 'cuz like, Christianity was the cradle of human liberty, don'tcha know? We're a kinder, gentler sort of theocrat.

I'll accept for the sake of argument that these po-mo liberal wimps exist, though I can't say I've ever met one myself (I lead a sheltered existence in some ways). But against the Muslim Threat (which I accept is to some extent real, though not to the level touted by the alarmists) I would deploy an unbending secularism, in which no one's religion or "cultural practises" -- not even a watered-down lowest-common-denominator theism -- gets preferential treatment or dominance or a free pass to abuse others. And I would also deploy the big gun of evidence-based rationality, or as it's better known: "calling bullshit on claims you can't back up". And fuck 'em if they can't take criticism.

But of course that particular gun points at Christianity just as much as at Islam, doesn't it?

Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory | August 11, 2010 12:34 PM

Posted by: Scote | August 11, 2010 12:09 PM

You just gotta love Christians getting all high and mighty as they decry the horrors of moral relativism. Christianity is **founded** on moral relativism, where the morals of one time, place and people (as found in the Old Testament) are rejected in favor of morals for a new time and people (the New Testament). So, Christianity isn't the answer to moral relativity, it is one of the prime sources.

Not only that, but I think a form of moral relativism is at the heart of the Catholic Church's messed-up response to the various sex abuse scandles (and to sex in general).

As I see it, they view all sex (other than a married couple procreating) as sinful, and take little notice of the details.

In their view an unmarried couple = a priest having a secret relationship with a woman = a priest having a secret affair with a married woman = a priest having a consentual gay relationship with another man = a priest raping a choirboy.

All are equally sinful, but at the same time, all are equally forgivable as long as you confess and promise not to do it again, so there's no need to involve the police, just hush the whole thing up and move the priest on somewhere else.

Indeed, this could go for all of the more extreme versions of Christianity:

The whole doctrine of "any sin you commit is enough to damn you, but anyone who truely repents and accepts Jesus will go to heaven" is arguably the ultimate in moral relativism.

Posted by: Conan the Librarian | August 11, 2010 12:37 PM

His latest breath-taking move is to refuse to accept the resignations of two Irish Bishops who were involved in the abuse cover-up.

linky to BBC News site

Correct me if I am wrong, but by refusing to accept those resignations, is he not sending the message that the Bishops need not be sanctioned in any way?

Posted by: Loreo | August 11, 2010 12:39 PM

How can an institution which values one holy book as the inerrant truth of God while other holy books are fictions, based only on the assertions within their own book, do anything about moral relativism?

I grew up as an absolute believer in that church and freed myself through a long process of searching for logical consistency. Clear and objective truths are anathema to religion.

Posted by: KG | August 11, 2010 12:48 PM

So the logic is: African's will blindly follow the Pope about not using condoms, but are too stupid to also follow his advice about only having sex with your spouse post marriage.

Look, you scumbag, the RCC forbids the use of condoms even between married couples of whom one is HIV+ and the other HIV-. Hard to think of anything more straightforwardly evil than that. Moreover, the condemnation of condoms undoubtedly makes it much harder for those who want them to obtain them, and for women to insist on their use - for many men, any excuse not to wear one will do, and that pussbucket misogynist swine Ratfinger provides one.

Posted by: KG | August 11, 2010 12:51 PM

Sorry, "pussbucket" should of course be "pusbucket".

Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief | August 11, 2010 12:53 PM

OK, calmly as I can. Zzarchov, here is a way in which Africans are just like Americans: they cannot use condoms if they have no access to condoms.

Posted by: KG | August 11, 2010 12:57 PM

Powell's article is deeply dishonest, as one would expect of an apologist for evil. Here she is on the child rape cover-up:
"But it is important to remember that this is a problem the Pope has been working to resolve for at least a decade."
Well I suppose it's true in a way: he's been trying to shut it down by silencing the victims for much longer than that. Powell does not even mention the lies about condoms letting HIV through, or the foaming-at-the-mouth homophobia. What a truly disgusting woman.

Posted by: Ian | August 11, 2010 1:01 PM

While I was never a fan of John Paul II, I can find some positive things to say about him (at least in a relative sense). And certainly his whole role in anti-Communism and in changing the church makes him and notable and interesting figure. And yes, he was once quite charismatic, at least in a relative sense, as as popes go. Benedict, on the other hand, just isn't interesting. If you aren't making fun of him, you can pretty much forget he exists...

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | August 11, 2010 1:06 PM

Posted by: Vicki| August 11, 2010 12:53 PM

OK, calmly as I can. Zzarchov, here is a way in which Africans are just like Americans: they cannot use condoms if they have no access to condoms.

At least in South Africa, there is a difficulty in obtaining condoms. A friend of mine ran a sex education agency and went to a conference in South Africa. While there, she had many people from South Africa asking her to help provide them with condoms.

She was doing all she could to keep her agency afloat but she was overwhelmed with the need she saw there. And the fucking Pope is not doing a damned thing to make the situation better. My friend has done more good then the Pope ever could.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 11, 2010 1:19 PM

Oh, Pope Palaptine is waving his red lightsaber around again? (wait, actually I think I should probably rescind the usage of that image. Phallic imagry in the context of Catholic priests makes me queasy...)

Someone has to say it...

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes. I will do what I must..."

Posted by: Zzarchov | August 11, 2010 1:21 PM

Posted by: KG | August 11, 2010 12:48 PM

So the logic is: African's will blindly follow the Pope about not using condoms, but are too stupid to also follow his advice about only having sex with your spouse post marriage.
- Zzarchov
Look, you scumbag, the RCC forbids the use of condoms even between married couples of whom one is HIV+ and the other HIV-. Hard to think of anything more straightforwardly evil than that. Moreover, the condemnation of condoms undoubtedly makes it much harder for those who want them to obtain them, and for women to insist on their use - for many men, any excuse not to wear one will do, and that pussbucket misogynist swine Ratfinger provides one.

*

ANd there you go calling them stupid again.

So the pope says no sex for anything but babies, so no need for condoms.

Now you again assume they are too stupid to ignore the part about no condoms, when they ignore the part about no sex.

If a married couple want to have sex TO HAVE CHILDREN, they can't use a condom.

Whether or not that is a logical conclusion or not is another matter. The pope does not send death squads to kill people and force obedience.

People CHOOSE to follow the popes views, and if that is why they aren't using condoms they won't be in any danger, assuming they CHOOSE to follow all of his statements. And if they just follows the ones that suit them, that isn't religions fault.

If a religion, political party, book club or corporation says its ok to soak yourself in gasoline and not ok to ever go near flame or anything hot enough to ignite gasoline..well, its not the religions/organizations fault if you soak yourself in gasoline and light up a cigarette.

If you follow ALL of the catholic advice about sex while in Africa your safer than if you follow none. Now whether or not that would be a life worth living is another matter.

I am an athiest, but that means I use logic to guide me. The pope says don't use a condom, because you should only have sex when trying to create a baby with a single partner in your entire life. If everyone followed that advice it WOULD cut down on aids drastically (ignore morality, its drastically cutting down on sex to stop an STD that works). I realise no one WILL follow it, but if they don't follow it..then you can't blame them for people picking and choosing bits of it to use.

If someone has sex with only their spouse and uses condoms do you praise the pope because they followed HALF of his advice? OF course not, his advice is irrelevant to their actions.

So why would you blame him if they sleep around and don't use condoms? Still only following half of his advice.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 11, 2010 1:31 PM

JamesR - What, no more stoning?!
That's it, I'm not joining the damned church.

Jehovah, Jehovah, JEHOVAH!

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmHY7l1XtsCPYtmxv5_56TMw65C25_timA | August 11, 2010 1:42 PM

At least in South Africa, there is a difficulty in obtaining condoms. A friend of mine ran a sex education agency and went to a conference in South Africa. While there, she had many people from South Africa asking her to help provide them with condoms.

Complete and utter bullshit! I'm South African and I promise you condoms are readily available for free. You can get them from any clinic, municipality, public bathroom or workplace bathroom. These places all have containers full of free condoms to take as many as you want. Hell, they even hand them out at schools! The Minister, however, drew the line at handing them out at primary (grade) schools.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | August 11, 2010 1:46 PM

Googlemess, I am sorry if I had the and gave wrong impression.

Posted by: Nicol | August 11, 2010 1:50 PM

I would argue that moral relativism came OUT of the democratic movement, actually. What's more relative than saying, "I dunno, let's see what everyone else thinks about it." You're not going to be terribly democratic if you are absolutely sure your actions and beliefs are correct. In fact, I think that might be what the kids these days call tyranny.

Posted by: --PatF in Madison | August 11, 2010 2:16 PM

Since we are on the topic of Catholic morality, you guys might like this article from the Wisconsin State Journal.

Madison Diocese offers birth control insurance, but warns employees not to use it

Briefly, the idea is that St. Mary's Hospital in Madison has to offer birth control as part of its health insurance according to Wisconsin state law. However, if you use that part of the insurance, you can be fired. This seems to go for non-Catholics, too, since they sign a morals agreement when they are hired by the hospital.

The Catholic Church - grasping for power over its members (and everybody else) for almost 2000 years. Gotta love 'em.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 11, 2010 2:34 PM

Zzarchov @ 51;

If a married couple want to have sex TO HAVE CHILDREN, they can't use a condom.

What would your attitude be in a situation where you have a pre-existing cultural imperative against the use of condoms, and attempts to introduce their use to curb the spread of STDs is undermined by Pope Palpatines injunction against condom use? As vanharris says, in many cases any excuse not to use a condom will be seized upon by people brought up to believe that condoms somehow undermine masculinity.

You are also assuming a parity of agency between the two partners. More often than not, the woman's choice in relation to whether or not to have children is far from free. Any excuse to avoid condom use makes it that much harder to establish the idea that a woman has any right to bodily autonomy in relation to her reproductive capacity.

Whether or not that is a logical conclusion or not is another matter. The pope does not send death squads to kill people and force obedience.

He hardly needs to. His audience are devout catholics. They honestly believe that the Pope speaks for the sky fairy, and if they defy his injunctions then they can expect an extended stay in the Fire and Brimstone Hilton post-mortem. In any case, religiously motivated violence against dissenters from the 'party line' is hardly unheard of, even if it is not ordered by the Holy See.

People CHOOSE to follow the popes views, and if that is why they aren't using condoms they won't be in any danger, assuming they CHOOSE to follow all of his statements. And if they just follows the ones that suit them, that isn't religions fault.

Absolute celibacy outside sex for procreation is so unrealistic in the context of a real society that even Pope Palpatine should be aware of the fact. The lies about condoms he spreads contribute to deaths and suffering caused by STDs. Even if we accept that people would be safer if they also practiced sexual abstinence as instructed, the lie remains, and it still causes social harm.

The reality of religious observance has always been that people pick and choose. This is no less true of the Church itself. If not, then the church would still be demanding that fabrics not be mixed and that adulterers be stoned. Just recently the Church cast aside the long-standing doctrine of Limbo becuase it was politically expedient to do so.

If the church picks and chooses its doctorines according to convenience, it is no surprise that its followers also do so. Unless, of course, you are willing to assert that such partial observence is a unique attribute of African catholics, and this is why the deserve whatever happens to them? I will assume not, becuase that really would be racist...

If a religion, political party, book club or corporation says its ok to soak yourself in gasoline and not ok to ever go near flame or anything hot enough to ignite gasoline..well, its not the religions/organizations fault if you soak yourself in gasoline and light up a cigarette.

Soaking oneself in petrol is not one of the most universal of all human experiences, unlike sex. The restriction of sexuality has a centuries-long history as a methodology of control in many religions, with Catholicism as a prime example.

If the Catholic church had the sagacity to realise that the reality of sexuality cannot be neatly contained within marriage and sex for procreation, (any more than the celibacy doctorine of the priesthood is practical), and if the ludicrous prohibition on condoms were lifted, then a great many lives could be saved. The church's refusal to do so makes it clear that they privilege their archaic dogma over the lives of actual people.

If you follow ALL of the catholic advice about sex while in Africa your safer than if you follow none. Now whether or not that would be a life worth living is another matter.

Only the most cynical of people would seek to seperate the maintainace of life from the quality of life. Living in a maximum security facility with no contact with the outside world may be safer than a normal life, but it is hardly desireable. Giving people a choice between death and a low quality of life when a cheap, readily available and highly effective alternative is available is morally repugnant.

If everyone followed that advice it WOULD cut down on aids drastically (ignore morality, its drastically cutting down on sex to stop an STD that works). I realise no one WILL follow it, but if they don't follow it..then you can't blame them for people picking and choosing bits of it to use.

OK, lets take a silly hypothetical. A terrorist group tells everyone that if they go about wearing nothing but gun boots, then they will not harm them. If they wear anything else, they will kill them. If someone chooses to go out wearing normal clothing, or even goes out wearing gun boots and a bathing suit to preserve their dignity, would it be the victims fault if they were killed? Afterall, they would have been safer if they had just done what the terrorists said, leaving aside their quality of life, of course...

You cannot simply ignore morality in relation to a policy that effects the lives of millions of people. It should be an essential part of the calculus for anyone who is not a sociopath. Seeking to prevent STD transmission without any thought to the moral and sociological impacts of your actions would not only be ineffectual, it would also be highly unethical. Hardly appropriate behaviour for a man like the Pope, who claims to be the ultimate moral authority.

Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief | August 11, 2010 2:34 PM

Declining to use condoms because you believe in monogamy is saying that you're willing to catch a fatal disease if your partner is cheating on you, or if zie was infected before you met, or if zie acquired the disease non-sexually (e.g. by sharing needles).

Yes, in a better world nobody would promise monogamy and then cheat. In a better world, nobody would be sharing needles.

In that better world, we would not have a huge world-wide AIDS epidemic and this discussion would be much less urgent. If I were writing fiction, I would have a much easier time inventing a world with no HIV than one with no rape or infidelity. There are plenty of people alive today who can describe the former. Yes, we should work for a world without rape, and a world in which people do not lie to their sex partners about important things. We're not there yet, and we're not going to be there next month or next year.

I'm more concerned with appropriate ethical behavior in our universe than in fictional ones.

Posted by: ambulocetacean | August 11, 2010 2:40 PM

Zzarchov,

You're being naive at best. The Vatican has been long and assiduously spreading lies and more lies to scare Africans away from using condoms.

Catholic groups buy billboards like this one too.

The Catholic Church insists that Africans die because a bunch of geriatric virgins knows what invisible and conspicuously absent supernatural being feels about latex.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 11, 2010 3:05 PM

Ing @ 8;

You have the makings of a sci-fi story about a dystopic theocratic society right there. It could be a post-apocalyptic religious society that belives that women are the root of all evil and moral degeneration, and yet need to repopulate, and so create those nightmarish warehouses.

You could go on to have a resistence movement consisting of the remaining free women and those men who defy the patriarchy along with intersex people, transgendered people and homosexuals, bisexuals and lesbians. If the women are caught, they suffer the above horrifying fate. The LGBT people and the men are either executed, or suffer some kind of Orwellian 're-education'.

The resistence continues the fight, of course. Ultimately, the corrupt theocracy falls, and a brighter future begins...

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 11, 2010 3:24 PM

Tulse @ 70;

That's not too far off from Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale.

Really? I will have to make a point of reading that...

It has also occurrerd to me that you could have a real moral quandry at the end of the stroy. There are so few women who have not been mutilated left that it may be difficult to maintain a viable genepool. Should the survivors continue to make use of the warehouses until the human population is stable? Even though they are an abomination? What other alternative might there be?

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | August 11, 2010 3:32 PM

Moral relativism makes you steal plot ideas, Tulse.

Posted by: K. E. Decilon | August 11, 2010 3:38 PM

Zeno @ #25

One has to be old enough to remember back that far, but yes: JP II had charisma to burn at the beginning of his papacy. He was the youngest pope in over a hundred years -- a skier and hiker -- and the contrast with his recently deceased predecessor (skipping over the one-month papacy of the short-lived JP I) was striking, since Paul VI was a dried up and defeated shell of a man by the time he died. Yeah, there was charisma. But it bled away drop by drop over the decades till he was even more of a caricature than Paul VI.

Well, I am old enough to remember that after Pius VI popped his clogs, John XXIII was pope from 1958 until 1963. Maybe we shouldn't skip over that.

I kinda remember, I was a catholic (converted to get married) at that time. John 23 was responsible for throwing out the Latin Mass, along with several other small steps away from the 16th century. Seems Pope Benny the Umpteenth has never forgiven him for that.

I got over being a catholic (and the marriage) not long after that.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 11, 2010 3:52 PM

Well, I am old enough to remember that after Pius VI popped his clogs, John XXIII was pope from 1958 until 1963. Maybe we shouldn't skip over that.

You remember back to Pius VI? He was pope from 1775 to 1799.

The popes from 1939 on, with the dates of their popicity, were:

● Pius XII (1939 - 1958)
● John XXIII (1958 - 1963)
● Paul VI (1963 - 1978)
● John Paul I (26 August 1978 - 28 September 1978)
● John Paul II (1978 - 2005)
● Benedict XVI aka Benny Ratzi (2005 - present)

Posted by: KG | August 11, 2010 3:58 PM

Zzarchov,
You're a fucking moron. AS I already noted, the Pope's commands affect even those who do not want to obey them, and who may in fact not be believers: women who would like their partners to wear one; teenagers who would like to get hold of them, but can't because of RCC influence locally. This is entirely predictable. It is also entirely predictable that people who intended not to have sex will in fact do so - but to have been carrying condoms - that would mean you intended to, rather than just getting carried away - much more sinful. Hence the Pope is responsible in significant part for the spread of AIDS.

Moreover, you are clearly ignorant about Catholic doctrine, which is not that you should only have sex if you want a baby. If that were so, he would forbid sex to post-menopausal women, wouldn't he? And he doesn't, does he? The doctrine is that you should not put any obstacles in the way of conception - even if it's not physically possible the woman will conceive. So he most definitely does not say that couples who don't want children should not have sex. For crying out loud, have you never heard of Vatican roulette?

For the record, I don't believe for a moment you are an atheist.

Posted by: K. E. Decilon | August 11, 2010 4:11 PM

You remember back to Pius VI? He was pope from 1775 to 1799.

Ummmm, nope. I can't even read what Zeno wrote.

Paul VI, not Pius VI.

First mistake I made today.

I'm going back to the shadows again.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 11, 2010 4:19 PM

K. E. Decilon,

In your post #75 you were referring to Pius XII, not Paul VI.

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | August 11, 2010 4:53 PM

He was the late pontiff's closest friend, his intellectual soulmate and loyal colleague.

Nope he was a scheming, sneaky. manipulator that lusted for top dog spot for over 50 years.
He plotted well and diligently.
He was a signatory on the Second Vatican Council.
Ratzinger was no ally of JP2, in fact denigrated JP2's papal record after his demise against all previous protocol, for allowing liberalism to enter catolik dogma, the common language masses and maintaining a ban on selling 'indulgences'
Ratty wanted the Inquisition back in charge, Ratty got his wishes, Ratty got top doggy spot, Ratty is not called a 'Rottweiler' for nothing!

Other Cardinals are very aware of his power before he even became pope, they crossed to the other side of the road when he sauntered up.
They are and still are terrified of the old bogie man.

He reversed several of his 'closest friends' papal decrees if not indeed in actuality then in spirit, he backed off from Evolutionary theory and started to flirt with ID, setting Cardinal Schönborn to savage Darwin.
Fired anyone who openly disagreed with him and gave others lateral promotions out the Vatican.

He was no friend or colleague of JP2 he was a ambitious and bitter vicious thug with an eye on the prize, as exemplified by his Hitler youth work, he was not coerced into it, it fitted his world view.
That is why Bishop Williamson was allowed back into the fold so easily.
A Bishop that JP2 excommunicated in '88'
No fraternal respect for his old friends wishes there then has Benny baby.

Benny baby will preside over a sinking and vacuous cult, mainly because he wants to shift the dogma back into the 16th century, in common with Bishop Williamson, and it is not really working.
And Benny thinks all is roses!
Benny baby is a fucking moron but alas is not stupid with it just blinded by delusions of grandeur.
He is also fucking old, and nearer to meeting his sky fairy then is probably comfortable.
The RCC hierarchy are praying for divine intervention methinks before the ark well and truly becomes a submarine.

Posted by: christophe-thill.myopenid.com | August 11, 2010 5:11 PM

That's right! Let's fight the dictatorship of relativism! And when we're done, we can take on the tyranny of freedom.

Posted by: Mrs Tilton | August 11, 2010 5:28 PM

Ambulocetacean @67:

The Catholic Church insists that Africans die because a bunch of geriatric virgins knows what invisible and conspicuously absent supernatural being feels about latex [Emph. supplied]

You are being altogether too charitable in your assumptions. Unless, of course, Roman moral theology teaches that virginity is lost only through consensual sex with adults.

Posted by: Andyo | August 11, 2010 5:34 PM

Zzarchov #51:

I am an athiest, but that means I use logic to guide me.

You had me at "athiest". How old are you, btw?

Posted by: hznfrst | August 11, 2010 5:35 PM

My instant impression of this picture was of three vultures: birds of a feather flocking together.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 11, 2010 6:06 PM

According to Wikipedia, Margaret Atwood once said on BBC1 Breakfast News that science fiction, as opposed to what she writes, is characterized by "talking squids in outer space."

I would just like to point out that a greater concentration of talking squid in sci-fi would be a huge improvement to the genre. If nothing else, it would prepare mankind for the imminent coming of our cephalopod overlords...

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 11, 2010 6:22 PM

"Moral Relativism is wrong."

Hmm, let me look that up in the dictionary to see what that means in English.

Ah.

Of course:

"It doesn't matter if you're wrong as long as you're confident about it."

It doesn't matter what nonsense or cruel unethical viewpoints of other people's humanity or reality you possess as long as you are obstinate about the inane blather you internalized at a young age and refuse to listen to any information that demonstrates it untrue.

To these people its more important to be consistently wrong than it is to be accurate or human.

In short, they are revealing the source of their hostility to reality and reality-based approaches to understanding the world.

To them, if reality and their beliefs clash, it's reality who has to change to avoid becoming one of those god-awful "moral relativists" who didn't have God-granted clarity at the time of their last conversion to the True Church TM.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | August 11, 2010 7:20 PM

"the dictatorship of relativism"

I'm sorry, but where is this wide spread moral relativism I keep hearing Christians go on about? I haven't really seen it anywhere, least of all by atheists. I know of moral systems the Catholic Church would disagree with (where people believe in such horribly immoral ideas like women are the equals of men or homosexual should be free to marry), but that's not the same as moral relativism.

Posted by: ian.monroe | August 11, 2010 7:40 PM

@99 western doctors proposing 'genital nicks' as an alternative to genital mutilation for African immigrants is a recent example of pernicious moral relativism.

On the whole though, the last 10 years has had less relativism. So I wonder what the pope means by it really.

Posted by: eccles | August 11, 2010 7:59 PM

I am a bedraggled refugee from the "Holy" Heretical Roman Catholic Church, now a PROUD ATHEIST.

We can't stop being hostile to the Pope because the CCL (Catholic Church Ltd. ) does not have a CEO (Pope).The CCL became a heretical church as a result of Vatican II. I certainly do not rcognize the legitimacy of Herr Joseph "Ratslinger" as Pope. I do not recognize the legitmacy of any CCL Clergy ordained and consecrated sine Vatican II. I do not recognize the legitimacy of the Ordo Novus Missae.

I had the great pleasure of meetig the great PZ in Melbourne, Australia last March at the Global Atheist Convention

Posted by: fcaccin | August 11, 2010 8:04 PM

Benedict is a man with a message

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYLLFoosEMk,

Posted by: Kirk | August 11, 2010 8:49 PM

@Nick #106

The cynic in me would almost wonder if the reason that the RCC is so active in charity work in Africa is because it allows them to maintain their traditional control over peoples lives, something they have somewhat lost in the West.

Yep. Just start it with "[T]he reason that the RCC ..." and leave off the cynic part.

It's not cynicism. More like, an assessment of the current situation.

Posted by: Robbie | August 11, 2010 9:35 PM

Don't you just love it when the cathologically challenged refer to their current and previous poops as "intellectual"? Has a person or persons who really believe in a sky fairy despot, talking snakes, virgin births, life after death, burning bushes etc ever been accepted as an intellectual? Perhaps at a church run "educational" institution, but nowhere else. Referring to anyone in a religious organisation, that actually subscribes to the doctrinal nonsense on offer cannot and should not be called an "intellectual".

Posted by: Commissar Claw | August 11, 2010 9:51 PM

So was the catholic church a friend of democracy when it supported Francisco Franco and Augusto Pinochet?

Posted by: Doug | August 11, 2010 10:22 PM

I get so tired of the constantly repeated myth that the pope brought down the USSR. The Soviet Union died at the hands of a bunch of moslem guerrillas in Afghanistan, a less that seems to be completely lost on the current and past adminstrations of our own country.

Posted by: Kamaka | August 11, 2010 10:54 PM

Robbie @ 109

Don't you just love it when the cathologically challenged refer to their current and previous poops as "intellectual"? Has a person or persons who really believe in a sky fairy despot, talking snakes, virgin births, life after death, burning bushes etc ever been accepted as an intellectual?

Ratzy and his minions don't believe any of that shit. It is obviously a bunch of made up crap, and they know it.

They sell this bullshit (to themselves and everyone else) because they think 1) it is good for people to believe in something greater than themselves 2) it is the best meal-ticket evah.

Posted by: timrowledge, Ersatz Haderach | August 12, 2010 1:03 AM

According to Wikipedia, Margaret Atwood once said on BBC1 Breakfast News that science fiction, as opposed to what she writes, is characterized by "talking squids in outer space."

Posted by: llewelly | August 12, 2010 2:30 AM

eccles | August 11, 2010 7:59 PM:

The CCL became a heretical church as a result of Vatican II. I certainly do not rcognize the legitimacy of Herr Joseph "Ratslinger" as Pope. I do not recognize the legitmacy of any CCL Clergy ordained and consecrated sine Vatican II. I do not recognize the legitimacy of the Ordo Novus Missae.

Posted by: Iqhira | August 12, 2010 4:33 AM

@ Janine in #82
The South African Govt does in fact supply free condoms to anyone who wants them, so the sex education groups should have no problems accessing a supply of condoms even if they have no financial support.

Posted by: Q.E.D | August 12, 2010 5:45 AM

Ms. Powell, let me translate how your article comes accross to reasonably informed people who are not blind apologists for the catholic church:

"I understand that everyone is upset because Mr. Peter's son, Paedophile Paul, has been raping children in the neighborhood. Mr. Peters has files on every parents' complaints against Paedophile Paul. Despite all the evidence he has accumulated that Paedophile Paul is a danger to children and continues to commit heinous crimes, Mr. Peters has not turned his son over to the police. Mr. Peters hasn't even kicked Paedophile Paul out of the house. Mr. Peter's has actualy moved Paedophile Paul from neighborhood to neighborhood giving him the opportunity to continue raping children and he's always welcome back home. Mr. Peter's influential friends have sworn parents of victimized children and the victims themselves to secercy. Paedophile Paul continues to be a danger to children.

It is important to remember that this is an issue that Mr. Peters has known about and has been trying to resolve for a decade. Grave as this scandal is, it should not be allowed to obscure the fact that Mr. Peters is an 83 year old retired university professor who goes to church very regulalrly and dispenses other people's money to charities that ban condoms as prophylactics against AIDS, lie about the effectiveness of condoms in the AIDS devastated developing world, suppress sex education, preaches that both woman and foetus both die rather than allow a safe termination and have a rabidly bigoted agenda against GLBT people.

Posted by: KG | August 12, 2010 6:34 AM

The Soviet Union died at the hands of a bunch of moslem guerrillas in Afghanistan, a less that seems to be completely lost on the current and past adminstrations of our own country.

Doug, nah, the Soviet Union was undone by the Invisible Hand.

I don't think these are incompatible. The Soviet Union was caught in the classic problem that confronts "great powers": guns or butter, or more ocmprehensively: guns, butter or machine tools. In the contest with the USA, it started at an immense material and strategic disadvantage, and the really extraordinary thing is how long it managed to keep the contest going. Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000 shows how "great powers" systematically bring about their own downfall as such by diverting resources from economic and technological advance to military commitments, thus allowing others to overhaul them: military power grows out of economic power, but maintaining the former then undermines the latter. The USA, which spends as much on its military as the rest of the world combined, is clearly well on its way to losing its economic and technological predominance through this mechanism. Ill-chosen wars (like Afghanistan, but not, from a purely power-political viewpoint, Iraq), speed the process.

Posted by: Q.E.D | August 12, 2010 6:56 AM

I consider Atwood one of the best contemporary novelists, in both her SF (Oryx and Crake, The Handmaid's Tale) - KG

I can't agree with you about the handmaid's tale. I tried to read it in College and had to give up. I found the prose stilted, the writing poor and the plot obvious and derivative.

I think the only reason the book got any attention is that it explored important pre-existing feminist concerns and Handmaid was a timely vehicle du jour. So good for the cause but still a terrible book.

Posted by: John Morales | August 12, 2010 7:41 AM

[meta - OT]

KG, yeah. Pournelle is a full-on Libertarian, tepid evolution sceptic and a strong AGW denialist.

Nonetheless, I still read his blog, and still like his SF.

(I heartily recommend The Mote in God's Eye, BTW. It's set in the CoDominion future history.)

Posted by: John Morales | August 12, 2010 7:56 AM

Atheistoclast, that was feeble.

I give your trolling a 2 out of 10.

(After all, you didn't abuse CAPS or exclamation marks!)

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | August 12, 2010 8:05 AM

Some pissant wrote:

Atheism must be extirpated if humanity is to have a prosperous and peaceful future.

My tirp is very happy where it is thank you very much. You just keep your grubby hands off it.

Posted by: Atheistoclast | August 12, 2010 8:12 AM

Atheism is an idol just like Mammon is an idol.

People think that because there are Christians that there are also believers. This is not so. Many of the wars waged in recent years were by people who called themselves Christian but who were really Atheists who worshipped Mammon and other idols.

These people believe in the gospel of natural selection and that "might is right". Evolution is their god.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 12, 2010 8:17 AM

People think that because there are Christians that there are also believers.

Many of the wars waged in recent years were by people who called themselves Christian but who were really Atheists who worshipped Mammon and other idols.

Posted by: Atheistoclast | August 12, 2010 8:22 AM

Atheism is a denial of life itself. It has no moral compass and no intellectual foundation. It is a religion of hate - hatred for the good and holy.

Posted by: John Morales | August 12, 2010 8:29 AM

Sad troll needs attention.

Like the coprophagic village idiot, it will get some. Others' evulsion fazes it not.

Heehee. I like it.

Sorry, troll, I find it hard to hate the village idiot. Bemused pity, it gets in spades.

Posted by: Atheistoclast | August 12, 2010 8:30 AM

Come on...Atheists hate theists and despise freedom of religion. I hate the sin of atheism, not the misguided and ignorant sinner.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 12, 2010 8:34 AM

Atheists hate theists and despise freedom of religion. I hate the sin of atheism, not the misguided and ignorant sinner.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | August 12, 2010 8:37 AM

Pissant continued:

Come on...Atheists hate theists and despise freedom of religion.

Some atheists no doubt hate some theists - mostly because many of them are annoying evil idiot fucks who lie, cheat, steal and manipulate people and are doing humanity great harm thanks to their delusions. As far as I'm concerned there's nothing wrong with hating evil people; in fact, if you don't hate evil people then there's something wrong with you.

Freedom of religion is fine as long as it involves freedom from religion. Got any evidence of atheists opposing that?

I hate the sin of atheism, not the misguided and ignorant sinner.

Except there's no such thing as sin, and therefore no such things as sinners. Do you haye fairies and minotaurs as well?

Posted by: Dania | August 12, 2010 8:41 AM

Atheists hate theists and despise freedom of religion.

That's right. And don't forget, we also eat puppies and roasted babies for breakfast!

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | August 12, 2010 8:59 AM

So when does Atheistoclast start screaming "EX-TER-MINATE!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL1VPpLquTw

Posted by: Dania | August 12, 2010 9:24 AM

Well, I wouldn't put that past you. Once you embrace sin and denial of your Creator, anything goes.

Because the only thing that keeps you from doing it is fear of being judged and punished by God?

Posted by: ButchKitties | August 12, 2010 9:31 AM

Oh look. Boring troll is boring.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 12, 2010 9:36 AM

When you cut yourself off from divine grace,

Posted by: Q.E.D | August 12, 2010 9:53 AM

I know we all like us some fresh troll meat but I sometimes think it distracts us from intelligent conversation.

Atheism is a denial of life itself. It has no moral compass and no intellectual foundation. It is a religion of hate - hatred for the good and holy. Troll@139

no, no, no atheism means not believing in god(s). You mean "antitheism" which means opposition to religion(s). So I am an atheist and an antitheist but thy are separate ideas and you shouldn't confuse the two.

Oh dear, I didn't make my point about troll distraction very well did I? I guess I just couldn't reist the allure of SIWOTI Troll Stupid.

Posted by: KG | August 12, 2010 9:58 AM

These people believe in the gospel of natural selection and that "might is right". Evolution is their god.

Stupid troll is stupid. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains how modern organisms came into existence. It does not tell us how to behave. Try reading, for example, the last page of Dawkins' The Selfish Gene: it consists mainly of a call for altruism (if you don't know the word, look it up).

Stupid troll is also to ignorant to realise it's shot itself in the foot. It's too ignorant to know that "gospel" means "good news" - so it is saying the theory of natural selection is good news. Stupid troll is also too stupid to realise that if evolution is "atheists' god", then they can't be atheists, as atheist means someone who does not believe in gods.

Conclusion: stupid troll is quite unbelieveably stupid, as well as being a vile, hate-filled, lying pusbucket.

Posted by: KG | August 12, 2010 10:06 AM

Wow...what vitriol is on display here! It only proves my point that atheists are intellectual and moral desperadoes and dead-enders.

Stupid troll is a disgusting hypocrite: it comes in here spewing hatred and lies, and expects to be treated with kid gloves.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | August 12, 2010 10:37 AM

Yes the old "You loose because you got angry because I came in and spat in your face" argument. Ah faux self righteousness.

Posted by: Q.E.D | August 12, 2010 10:43 AM

I'm starting to think that Theist Central Command installs memory chips in Godbots that flash a limited number of well rehearsed, well debunked, same-same, seen it before, content-free, vacuous, no evidence, non-sequitur theist memes.

Think of it, Theist Central Command can then send out its Godbots to spread the meme with no brain or actual thinking required. The AI module on Godbots is freaking expensive and takes a hell of a long time to install. So AI is only worth the investment on top of the line Clergybot models which, as we all know, have that unfortunate unresolved peadophilia bug.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | August 12, 2010 11:06 AM

"HIV isn't being spread because human beings choose to have unprotected sex with multiple partners...no, they are innocent victims who flutter about on rainbows carried by a cloud of butterflies. Its the Popes fault.

Bollocks."

Then let them die and reduce the surplus population!

Posted by: Aratina Cage | August 12, 2010 11:14 AM

That religion is corrosive is true, to claim every evil is the fault of religion is false. It is also a nice handwaive of personal responsiblity. HIV isn't being spread because human beings choose to have unprotected sex with multiple partners...no, they are innocent victims who flutter about on rainbows carried by a cloud of butterflies. Its the Popes fault.
-Zzarchov #168

The pope is complicit in the spread of HIV by misusing his authority as a religious leader to morally prohibit followers from using prophylactics. It is the opposite of education and is carried on the back of an unrealistic expectation that people will have only one sex partner.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | August 12, 2010 11:19 AM

remenbur their iz on shuch theyeng az kewrect spellwing adn khandoms ownlee mayache teh prowblem rors!

Posted by: Q.E.D | August 12, 2010 11:31 AM

HIV isn't being spread because human beings choose to have unprotected sex with multiple partners...no, they are innocent victims [snip] Its [sic]the Popes [sic] fault

Zzacharov, you are assuming a free actor with the knowledge and tools to make informed decisions.

the Vatican targets the developing world because people live in poverty and lack education and resources. These people also tend to suffer from other societal and structural problems: tribalism, patriarchy, lack of infrastructure, corruption and war. All of the above can conspire to deprive people of the ability to make autonomous informed decisions and make the developing world the biggest growth market for catholicism (with competition from Islam and various charismatic christian cults).

As an example, people in countries like Uganda and Ghana need education to understand that washing your hands prevents disease. In this environment, an authoritarian religion with food, medicine, and education to offer has all the leverage it needs to inculcate people into believing lies about condoms and get them to accept that it is evil to use them.

So the Vatican attracts new converts with aid and then does its best to deny them protection against AIDS. The Vatican prefers its dogma to the lives of its followers.

See how that's evil and the Pope actually is knee deep in the blood of the people in the developing world?

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | August 12, 2010 12:03 PM

Sorry about my comment on #176. I just found out that the person is a banned morphing troll.

Posted by: Laschesis | August 12, 2010 12:28 PM

Sorry about Atheistoclast - he seems to have escaped his padded cell at TalkRational. Obviously he's decided to fail here instead.

Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief | August 12, 2010 1:38 PM

Zzarchov:

Americans (or at least some Americans) can comprehend that condoms are not a complete protection against transmitting HPV. Is it that implausible that some people would also be willing to believe that condoms don't protect against HIV?

Africans aren't the only people who are willing to believe that condoms don't protect against AIDS. That other people are lying to non-Africans about this does not justify what the Pope is doing and telling other priests to do. Many child-rapists are not priests; that doesn't justify the Pope shielding those who are.

If your point is that there are better uses for time and energy than condemning the pope, you may be right, but if so, you're on the wrong thread. This is "why not to let the pope off the hook," not "what is the best way to improve other people's lives?" or even "what is the best way to improve the world by posting to the internet?"

Posted by: Eamon Knight | August 12, 2010 3:07 PM

Leigh Williams @16: Thank you. On the internet, citation is the sincerest form of flattery -- so quote away!

Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief | August 12, 2010 3:53 PM

Zzarchov--

By your own reporting, you are not following the pope's advice: while he is sending people out to lie about condoms, he is also telling his followers not to use any form of birth control.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | August 12, 2010 5:38 PM

"But its 100% effective, unless one of us disobeys Joey Ratz. But then if we disobey him to commit adultery, we'd disobey him to use a condom..and if we didn't its not his fault..its because we'd be a total douchebag who endangers others."

Awids patents shld than nvr hv sx wit they're spoose? Wy two bee Kompassionate dewshbag! Poop ez twellin evon des marweyed pepil kondoms mke awides RORSE!

Posted by: Zzarchov | August 12, 2010 9:34 PM

Well quite frankly how did one spouse get aids and not the other?

If one spouse has aids and the other does not, then you aren't getting married to have children (or you are a sick #$@#@ who deserves what they get for bringing children into this world with aids just so you can have a status symbol).

And if you aren't getting married just to propagate and have dominion over the earth: Well then you are starting off ignoring Joey Ratz and you may as well use Condoms. Any excuse not to use condoms has nothing to do with Catholicism or the popes message, it has to do with you being an irresponsible douchebags.

If you are catholic, a sin is a sin. If you are doing the down and dirty for *gasp* carnal pleasure alone, or to have a sin by attempting murder (knowingly infecting a spouse), then also using condoms doesn't count as a "double dog sin".

You are just an apologist for people knowingly endangering others, allowing them to pawn blame off to someone else for their own misdeeds.

As for no spelling, that is correct: though the letters are Latin and still have some guidelines for pronunciation. Don't fail on that one.

If you really don't grasp there is no official spelling I suggest you start doing some reading on pluricentric languages.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | August 12, 2010 10:34 PM

"If you really don't grasp there is no official spelling I suggest you start doing some reading on pluricentric languages."

If you don't fucking grasp that there is a standardized dictionary and spelling in the US and would rather insist no need to give a shit, then fuck off. Seriously, rather than admit to a fucking typo you insist there is NEVER any correct spelling? What did you come from Consarvapedia? Grow up. You may think there's no real correct spelling but here in the real world there's a de-facto reality. Conform to it or look like an idiot. Try your 'not misspellings' on a job application or academic paper and see how far you're argument gets.

Posted by: John Morales | August 13, 2010 7:33 AM

Zzarchov:

So, I am really not that concern [sic] with what the faithful, or random internet egomaniacs think.

As your numerous, passionate posts clearly indicate.

:)

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | August 13, 2010 7:59 AM

No I'm latching on to you insisting that there's no such thing as misspelling. Despite the difference between American and UK spelling, both are internal standardized.

Ebonics is NOT professionally recognized spelling or language appropriate for professional or academic writing.

Your argument is invalid because you're a callous racist git who doesn't care that a white man is lying to uneducated black people preventing them informing themselves. Not are you unable to see that lying about a disease may, SHOCK cause people to make bad decisions about their treatment, you basically seem to think that people who have AIDS had it coming for not being abstinent.

"And again, You are latching on to an argument made that a typo in spelling invalidates an argument. Furthering that such a belief 'makes you look like an idiot' if you don't conform."

Oh yes compare apples to pancakes, great logic strategy.

"Noting that Ebonics is also a correct spelling, as is in the other direction: Scots (though its debatable if thats another language)."

See, not only have you used a misspelling (it's THAT'S as in THAT -IS) AND used a : instead of a simple "," you've used such horrible grammar I'm not sure what you're saying. What the fuck does that mean? "Ebonics is also a correct spelling system, as is it's polar extreme, Scot"? I'm loose about grammar on the net, as long as people can understand you it's fine. But you keep harping on this delusion that grammar and spelling isn't important to get people to understand you and see you as valid. My SO works with unprivileged or uneducated helping them with their resumes. Their first draft in broken English, or in slang or Ebonics is NOT going to get them a job. Don't try to tell me it's unimportant and doesn't exist, you lack the expertise in that field. I'm done arguing with you until you start taking some fucking consideration for those who'll read your posts and use the two calories of effort it'd take to use your damn spell check.

Posted by: Zzarchov | August 13, 2010 12:28 PM

So your logic is that this discussion requires perfect spelling and grammar by (American? British? Scots?) standard, as it is utterly requiring the highest degrees of professionalism.

And on that note you respond with:
"start taking some fucking consideration for those who'll read your posts and use the two calories of effort it'd take to use your damn spell check. "

Right, so when you are helping people with their resumes you ensure that their vulgarities are spelled correctly?

So far your argument boils down to "The pope is lying because even though his method would work as a scientific fact, no ones going to do it and they are too dumb to think for themselves if the pope doesn't tell them what to do.".

Cutting down on sex cuts down on STD's. End stop, that is irrefutable in the same way that keeping people isolated will cut down on communicable disease. It is the entire notion of a quarantine.

Your whole argument boils down to the belief that Africans cannot figure out how to use a condom unless an old white guy tells them to wear a condom FOR JESUS.

How about crediting them with two brain cells, the pope does not have this vicious stranglehold on all communication and knowledge you believe he has. People ignore him all the time and have extra-marital sex, they can ignore him and use a condom too. They are available, people don't use them because of the two same reasons they don't here: Tactile pleasure, and physical evidence that you are cheating on your spouse when you are caught with them.