Got a cite for that?
Thomas Aquinas said that masturbation is more disordered than rape because rape is using sexuality as it was intended and masturbation is the greater abuse in the natural purpose of sexuality.
Yeah, but I don’t think that applies to butt-rape.
I could accept that if they also treated child rape as a somewhat serious offense. Instead, they sheltered, protected and hid priests while at the same time blamed the victims. Then when they get rightly criticized they cry that they are being picked on by big mean secularists and atheists.
So, yeah, “murder” is bad, but child rape…no big deal.
This is untrue.
Where do you get idiotic garbage like that? And what makes you decide to actually type it onto a message board?
I see.
And now, please, your citation showing that Thomas Aquinas is the Catholic Church?
Good grief.
You misunderstand Aquinas in any event - not a shocking revelation.
Aquinas was not speaking of seriousness of sin, but of how sexually disordered a particular act was. For example, Aquinas would have said that pouring gasoline on bare flesh and igniting it, killing people by burning them alive, was not an example of sexual disorder at all – but was an extremely serious, mortal, evil sin.
Off course, you’re right that he’s wrong about that, but Aquinas lived in an age that wasn’t exactly sensitive to women’s issues. He didn’t favor equal voting rights for women, he didn’t favor paid maternity leave, and his record on basic voting rights for women is spotty at best.
In fact, as surprising as you might find it, I can’t really find any commentators from the thirteenth century who supported strong sexual harassment workplace protections.
So, to review: Thomas Aquinas is not the Catholic Church. His opinions have been influential but not binding. And he was speaking of how sexually disordered particular acts were, not about how serious a sin they were.
On the plus side, you managed to frame your completely wrong statements in a sentence that was grammatically correct, so there’s something.
Can’t argue with that, except I’m not sure I’ve seen evidence of the last sentence in your first paragraph. But yeah, the RCC’s reaction to child rape by priests has been deplorable.
Well, damn! I already bought my ticket on the Hellbound Train before I was even sixteen?
Catholic officials think I’m a murderer who ought not to be around my own children. I think they’re a group of profoundly stupid, sex obsessed, Nazi abeting, pedophile shielding, sexist, irrational, raving lunatics who would view a living Jesus with utter contempt if they ever met him. One of us is right. I am profoundly glad I live in a country where they are not in charge.
Oh come on! You can both be right!
Well I am one of the perfidious Jews the Catholic church used to pray for so what the hell do I know?
In a sense they’re right. IVF should be discussed in a rational manner. On some level I think it should be illegal to transfer more than two embryos as all that does is up the chances of multiples rather than up the chances of success. But to call it a morally evil procedure is batshit crazy. It’s hard enough coping with an emotionally difficult medical condition. It makes me want to scream that a group of celibate men dare add to that pain by implying that undergoing one of the treatments for it makes someone a fundamentally awful person.
To me, that’s prime material for a medical, not legal, decision.
You’re probably right. But I think part of the problem right now is that too often procedures like IVF are not regulated enough in America right now. So you get disasters like Octomom. My concern is what is best for fertility patients and their understandable desire to treat a medical condition and have families. All too often they get triplets the woman can’t carry safely or very premature infants with all kinds of complications that might have been preventable had they been counseled more effectively.
But that’s another thread.