How about "outing" gay Catholic Priests?

[Kalhoun]

@saoirse

Right but the analogy for the example would be if they had a retreat, they would not provide you six 1,000-calorie meals.

Thanks. That’s what I was trying to say. Long day.

[BrainGlutton]

@saoirse

I’ll take the chance that you’re serious. Just go easy on me if you’re whooshing me. I hate it when my ears pop.

The Catholic Church does not believe that individuals should interfere with fertility. Not by using birth control or by having fertility treatments. Is it a good idea? No. But it is a consistent approach.

No whoosh. I guess it makes a certain kind of twisted, tortured sense that the Church would oppose fertility drugs, but I never heard it before. I mean, they’re clean against the idea (held by some denominations) that any medical intervention other than prayer is interference in God’s will. Why should treating an infertility problem be any different from a blood transfusion to save an accident victim?

[Kalhoun]

@BrainGlutton

Why should treating an infertility problem be any different from a blood transfusion to save an accident victim?

Why? Because the silliness never ends…that’s why.

[Polycarp]

@BrainGlutton

No whoosh. I guess it makes a certain kind of twisted, tortured sense that the Church would oppose fertility drugs, but I never heard it before. I mean, they’re clean against the idea (held by some denominations) that any medical intervention other than prayer is interference in God’s will. Why should treating an infertility problem be any different from a blood transfusion to save an accident victim?

Something like: it takes three people to make a baby: a father, a mother, and God, to provide the soul. His rule is, you can choose whether or not to have sex (and if you intend to, you should marry first), but if you do, you shouldn’t interfere with His prerogative of deciding when to entrust you with a baby or not. That means no contraception other than in timing (“natural family planning”), no fertility drugs and other treatments, the whole schmear. It’s up to Him, not you, to choose whether this episode of sex leads to conception or not.

I am not endorsing this bit of marital ethics, far from it. But I can see where it makes sense, from their perspective that the “unitive” and “procreative” aspects of marital sex are intimately bound and should not be unbound.

[Kalhoun]

@Polycarp

Something like: it takes three people to make a baby: a father, a mother, and God, to provide the soul. His rule is, you can choose whether or not to have sex (and if you intend to, you should marry first), but if you do, you shouldn’t interfere with His prerogative of deciding when to entrust you with a baby or not. That means no contraception other than in timing (“natural family planning”), no fertility drugs and other treatments, the whole schmear. It’s up to Him, not you, to choose whether this episode of sex leads to conception or not.

I am not endorsing this bit of marital ethics, far from it. But I can see where it makes sense, from their perspective that the “unitive” and “procreative” aspects of marital sex are intimately bound and should not be unbound.

Feel the love. :rolleyes: Their perspective is cruel. I’m glad you don’t buy into it.

[BrainGlutton]

@Polycarp

Something like: it takes three people to make a baby: a father, a mother, and God, to provide the soul. His rule is, you can choose whether or not to have sex (and if you intend to, you should marry first), but if you do, you shouldn’t interfere with His prerogative of deciding when to entrust you with a baby or not. That means no contraception other than in timing (“natural family planning”), no fertility drugs and other treatments, the whole schmear. It’s up to Him, not you, to choose whether this episode of sex leads to conception or not.

I am not endorsing this bit of marital ethics, far from it. But I can see where it makes sense, from their perspective that the “unitive” and “procreative” aspects of marital sex are intimately bound and should not be unbound.

Gee, for celibates, these guys sure seem to spend a lot of time thinking about sex!

[Sarahfeena]

@Polycarp

Something like: it takes three people to make a baby: a father, a mother, and God, to provide the soul. His rule is, you can choose whether or not to have sex (and if you intend to, you should marry first), but if you do, you shouldn’t interfere with His prerogative of deciding when to entrust you with a baby or not. That means no contraception other than in timing (“natural family planning”), no fertility drugs and other treatments, the whole schmear. It’s up to Him, not you, to choose whether this episode of sex leads to conception or not.

I am not endorsing this bit of marital ethics, far from it. But I can see where it makes sense, from their perspective that the “unitive” and “procreative” aspects of marital sex are intimately bound and should not be unbound.

I think that fertility drugs are ok, it’s artificial insemination/IVF that they oppose. Your theology is right-on, for the most part, but I think that the Church does allow infertility to be treated in certain manners (as any health issue would be). The reason IVF is not allowed is because they believe that the “marital act” is the only way that children should be conceived, and also because IVF almost invariably creates embryos that end up being destroyed.

A quote from the US Council of Catholic Bishops’ web site :

The rule of thumb is:
Any procedure which assists marital intercourse in reaching its procreative potential is moral

Procedures which add a “third party” into the act of conception, or which substitute a laboratory procedure for intercourse, are not acceptable.

[Kalhoun]

@BrainGlutton

Gee, for celibates, these guys sure seem to spend a lot of time thinking about sex!

I think it would fall into the “lust” category!

[Kalhoun]

@Sarahfeena

I think that fertility drugs are ok, it’s artificial insemination/IVF that they oppose. Your theology is right-on, for the most part, but I think that the Church does allow infertility to be treated in certain manners (as any health issue would be). The reason IVF is not allowed is because they believe that the “marital act” is the only way that children should be conceived, and also because IVF almost invariably creates embryos that end up being destroyed.

A quote from the US Council of Catholic Bishops’ web site :

I can’t tell by your post if you defend this policy or not, but to deny a couple a child of their own for no other reason than that it wasn’t conceived through the “marital act” is despicable and unforgiveable.

[Kalhoun]

I’m also amused at #4, which in essence forbids masturbation *even for the purpose of obtaining a semen sample for fertility diagnosis. *

[Malacandra]

@Kalhoun

I think it would fall into the “lust” category!

Get a room, you two. :rolleyes:

[kanicbird]

@Valteron

All I am doing is warning you that I will not accept as valid the old argument used by pseudo-liberal Catholics: “Hey you have it all wrong. The Catholic Church has nothing against you. Just against homosexual practices. If you are attracted to your own sex that is 100% OK with the Pope and everyone else as long as you tie a knot in your dick and spend the rest of your life taking cold showers and saying your rosary. So you see, they are not anti-gay at all.”

I am saying that that argument is as sophistic as my saying I am not against Catholics per se, only the practice of their religion.

Your anology only holds if you accept homosexuality from your side. If you accept homosexuality as a harmful mental disorder, supporting this disorder would be crule, so you could condem the practice w/o the person.

[saoirse]

@Polycarp

His rule is, you can choose whether or not to have sex (and if you intend to, you should marry first), but if you do, you shouldn’t interfere with His prerogative of deciding when to entrust you with a baby or not. That means no contraception other than in timing (“natural family planning”), no fertility drugs and other treatments, the whole schmear. It’s up to Him, not you, to choose whether this episode of sex leads to conception or not.

[anti-Catholic rant]
Though you would think that if the Lord could part the Red freakin Sea, he could handle a couple millimeters of latex. [/anti-Catholic rant]

@Kalhoun

I can’t tell by your post if you defend this policy or not, but to deny a couple a child of their own for no other reason than that it wasn’t conceived through the “marital act” is despicable and unforgiveable.

This is the policy I have the least problem with. I think there is something really creepy about the procedure, and I don’t believe in personhood from conception.

[Sunrazor]

@Polycarp

Something like: it takes three people to make a baby: a father, a mother, and God, to provide the soul. His rule is, you can choose whether or not to have sex (and if you intend to, you should marry first), but if you do, you shouldn’t interfere with His prerogative of deciding when to entrust you with a baby or not. That means no contraception other than in timing (“natural family planning”), no fertility drugs and other treatments, the whole schmear. It’s up to Him, not you, to choose whether this episode of sex leads to conception or not.

I am not endorsing this bit of marital ethics, far from it. But I can see where it makes sense, from their perspective that the “unitive” and “procreative” aspects of marital sex are intimately bound and should not be unbound.

Can you begin to understand why people like me turn our backs on religion altogether? The rules of the game are confusing and contradictory and rationalized with logic so esoteric the average welder and his family can’t even understand them. One has to always be deciding, as you have, whether one is going to adhere to certain rules. That leads to accusations of “cherry picking,” arguments flare up and the next thing you know somebody’s being beheaded in the Tower of London.

My question is, do you think God even really cares as much as the Romans seem to think he does about how we make our babies or what we do with our genitals in search of mutually agreed pleasure? With bombs falling, children being slaughtered and innocents being forced into slavery, is God really all that concerned about whether I have sex with a man or a woman?

[Der_Trihs]

@kanicbird

If you accept homosexuality as a harmful mental disorder, supporting this disorder would be crule, so you could condem the practice w/o the person.

And if you do that, you are a bigot and your opinion is garbage.

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

Actually homosexuality is less of a potential problem than pederasts. If we think that gays are a danger to the alterboys and children ,we have an obligation to out them. If they are gay with other priests or active in gay nite life ,I dont care. But the church has a long history of protecting aberrant behavior with the flock. If that stance continues, and children are being hurt, outing them would be correct.

[Sarahfeena]

@Kalhoun

I can’t tell by your post if you defend this policy or not, but to deny a couple a child of their own for no other reason than that it wasn’t conceived through the “marital act” is despicable and unforgiveable.

I deliberately didn’t give my opinion because it wasn’t relevant. I was merely trying to clear up a misconception of the Church’s teaching. Polycarp’s point about consistency is really what is relevant here. All of the Church’s policies on sex & reproduction stem from the same place…that sex and procreation are inextricably linked in the eyes of God.

[Kalhoun]

@Sunrazor

Can you begin to understand why people like me turn our backs on religion altogether? The rules of the game are confusing and contradictory and rationalized with logic so esoteric the average welder and his family can’t even understand them. One has to always be deciding, as you have, whether one is going to adhere to certain rules. That leads to accusations of “cherry picking,” arguments flare up and the next thing you know somebody’s being beheaded in the Tower of London.

My question is, do you think God even really cares as much as the Romans seem to think he does about how we make our babies or what we do with our genitals in search of mutually agreed pleasure? With bombs falling, children being slaughtered and innocents being forced into slavery, is God really all that concerned about whether I have sex with a man or a woman?

My feelings exactly. How anyone interprets this crap as “guidance from a loving god” is beyond me. If he can’t allow artificial insemination, can he at least take the time to make people fertile? It’s not the right time? I can’t believe people buy this.

My question is, are catholic men allowed to touch their unit for purposes of aiming at the urinal?

[Miller]

@kanicbird

Your anology only holds if you accept homosexuality from your side. If you accept homosexuality as a harmful mental disorder, supporting this disorder would be crule, so you could condem the practice w/o the person.

If you “accept” homosexuality as a harmful mental disorder, you are almost entirely disconnected from objective reality.

[badchad]

@Polycarp

What I’m talking about is that, ever since the 1976 adoption of the 1979 Prayer Book (don’t ask) and ordination of women, but getting really bad with the consecration of Gene Robinson in 2003, there has been a really strong tendency to snipe at the Episcopal Church on the part of everyone who disagrees with it. And that sniping has increased both in frequency and in nastiness the last few months. (Not so much on this board, but generally, in public.)

How is sniping different from criticizing? Are you implying that Episcopalians are above criticism? The argument that Episcopalians are wishy washy is a sound one. Or are you just implying that snide comments, without a following explicit argument, are wrong?

The latter would be a little hypocritical coming from someone who refers to fundamentalists as neopharisees.