The Pope opened his mouth...

[Haunted]

If the couple knew and deliberately engaged in a sexual act which had no chance in procreation that is immoral

Such as the catholic rhythm method.

[macgamer]

If the couple knew and deliberately engaged in a sexual act which had no chance in procreation that is immoral

Such as the catholic rhythm method.

NFP exploits, for want of a better term, the intrinsic (or natural) phases of infertility during the menstrual cycle. Contraception alters fertility, whereas NFP clearly does not.

The Church while endorsing the use of NFP, does so with a caveat that the couple must be generous in their openness to life i.e. that they should have, at the discretion of their consciences, as many children they feel they can afford (economically, psychologically or considering the health of the mother).

When I said a sexual act which had no chance of procreation I meant non-vaginal intercourse and contraceptive sex.

[Haunted]

NFP exploits, for want of a better term, the intrinsic (or natural) phases of infertility during the menstrual cycle. Contraception alters fertility, whereas NFP clearly does not.

And condoms exploit, for want of a better term, the intrinsic nature of the ejaculation process. The fertility isn't altered.

When I said a sexual act which had no chance of procreation I meant non-vaginal intercourse and contraceptive sex.

Why not just say then, "non-vaginal intercourse, or contraceptives". It would be much more accurate since there are indeed church approved methods of having sex without the intent to procreate.
Better yet, why not just say "Only the church has the authority to dictate which sexual practices are moral and which aren't". Saves the trouble of having to constantly redefine things and add in clauses.

[RedCelt69]

The Vatican's chief exorcist is a chief liar.

Or he was at a Millwall FC game.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 060354.ece

Ah. Thanks for clarifying that, macgamer. Chief liar, it is, then.

Some particularly amusing bits...

"the work of Satan, who had even “infiltrated the Vatican corridors”.

You would think that the HQ of the Holy See would be a tad more invulnerable to demonic intervention. I shall never watch The Omen again with the same degree of plausability wrt Damien's reaction upon approaching a mere church.

"Satan sets out to damage the leadership of the Church — and of politics, industry and sport, for that matter.”

So those athletes (often American) who win a race and thank God... they're the beloved of God. 2nd, 3rd and every other place... they're Satan's little bum-puppets. That might make the London Olympics more entertaining. Perhaps the commentators can mention the demonic intervention of a spectator who drops a place mid-event. "And Mtzembabi from Uganda has fallen into last place... Just look at the spiked tail sprouting from his shorts!"

"at one stage spreading his arms wide to show me the length of one particular demon”.

Demons have lengths now? Is that a material length or an immaterial length?

"What about those who believe in neither God nor Satan? “The Devil is only too happy to take advantage of those who do not believe in his existence. It means he can operate with complete freedom, even inside the Church. He exploits lust and power.” "

The Devil likes people not believing in him. And what about God? A sketchy appearance from his son 2000 years ago isn't exactly a great PR system if he so badly wants to be believed in.

I'll skip the rest of his deluded fantasy and close with this ball-breakingly funny comment:-
""He does not believe in ghosts, which are “an invention of the human mind”. "

Couldn't have that, could we, Mr Chief Exorcist? Inventing things with our mind...

But I was talking about the number of exorcisms, not the number of people exorcised. You often have to exorcise someone dozens, even hundreds, of times, and an exorcism ritual can take anything from a few minutes to several hours.

Dozens or hundreds of times? That sounds like a very impractical system he's running there. Perhaps he could try... oh, I dunno... science, instead?

[macgamer]

And condoms exploit, for want of a better term, the intrinsic nature of the ejaculation process. The fertility isn't altered.

When I said a sexual act which had no chance of procreation I meant non-vaginal intercourse and contraceptive sex.

*FACEPALMS

If sex always occurs using a contraceptive device then effective fertility as observed by the number of pregnancies would be close to zero factoring in the the rate of contraceptive failure. These devices have been employed deliberately by the couple to circumvent their intrinsic fertility. The NFP method means that a couple who would prefer not to have another child or their first can reduce their likelihood of doing so by restricting intercourse to the infertile phase of the women's menstrual cycle. This infertile phase is pre-existing and is not brought about by their intervention.

[RedCelt69]

The Church while endorsing the use of NFP, does so with a caveat that the couple must be generous in their openness to life i.e. that they should have, at the discretion of their consciences, as many children they feel they can afford (economically, psychologically or considering the health of the mother).

And why? Because childbirth is the greatest recruitment tool the RCC has had or ever will have.

Imagine a political party making the same statement to their members, ensuring that all of their children are raised to worship the party policy as an absolute, ineffable truth... and that to eschew the party policy they risk being rejected by their parents and/or the rest of their committed family.

They'd do particularly well at the general election a generation (and two... and three... ad infinitum) later. Wouldn't they, macgamer?

[RedCelt69]

This infertile phase is pre-existing and is not brought about by their intervention.

So is her anus.

Just... an idea.

[macgamer]

This infertile phase is pre-existing and is not brought about by their intervention.

So is her anus.

Just... an idea.

I think Mel Gibson had a rather crude retort for that one, which succinctly sums up the point.

[RedCelt69]

I think Mel Gibson had a rather crude retort for that one, which succinctly sums up the point.

Perhaps you could enlighten us all as to what that might be. I'm not in the habit of keeping up with the sermons of Jew-hating Catholic actors.

Because I just know that Googling "Mel Gibson anus" is going to deliver a whole lot more than the reference you're referring to.

[macgamer]

Perhaps you could enlighten us all as to what that might be. I'm not in the habit of keeping up with the sermons of Jew-hating Catholic actors.

Because I just know that Googling "Mel Gibson anus" is going to deliver a whole lot more than the reference you're referring to.

You could use the safe search operator

Suffice to say that he said the anus has a specific and distinct function which does not include sex.

If you add the verb form of two swear words you should be able to piece it together. I avoid this form of disputation because more often than not is taken for hate.

Am I sensing some hate from you RedCelt?

[Haunted]

And condoms exploit, for want of a better term, the intrinsic nature of the ejaculation process. The fertility isn't altered.

When I said a sexual act which had no chance of procreation I meant non-vaginal intercourse and contraceptive sex.

*FACEPALMS

This was me pointing out you saying one thing and meaning another.

These devices have been employed deliberately by the couple to circumvent their intrinsic fertility.

Just as a calender is employed to do the same thing

The NFP method means that a couple who would prefer not to have another child or their first can reduce their likelihood of doing so by restricting intercourse to the infertile phase of the women's menstrual cycle. This infertile phase is pre-existing and is not brought about by their intervention.

The condom method means that a couple who would prefer not to have another child or their first can reduce their likelihood of doing so by restricting the ejaculate to a small container refined from natural occuring molecules.
Anyway just to summarise your position (which is presumably the same one the church has told you to take), couples can indeed have sex without the intention to concieve. In fact they can have sex with the deliberate attempt to avoid conception at all. As long as it doesn't involve a piece of latex, or the ingestion of a naturally occuring chemical.

Serious question. Pulling out, is that ok?

[macgamer]

These devices have been employed deliberately by the couple to circumvent their intrinsic fertility.

Just as a calender is employed to do the same thing

No. NFP, which by the way is not the same as, but includes aspects of the calendar method, does not deliberate circumvent their intrinsic fertility. The woman's intrinsic fertility is negligible for a number of days out of the month.

The NFP method means that a couple who would prefer not to have another child or their first can reduce their likelihood of doing so by restricting intercourse to the infertile phase of the women's menstrual cycle. This infertile phase is pre-existing and is not brought about by their intervention.

The condom method means that a couple who would prefer not to have another child or their first can reduce their likelihood of doing so by restricting the ejaculate to a small container refined from natural occuring molecules.
Anyway just to summarise your position (which is presumably the same one the church has told you to take), couples can indeed have sex without the intention to concieve. In fact they can have sex with the deliberate attempt to avoid conception at all. As long as it doesn't involve a piece of latex, or the ingestion of a naturally occuring chemical. [/quote]

The Church opposes contraception. Barrier, chemical or surgical contraception prevent conception occurring. NFP does not prevent anything. It is a mere fact that there are a certain number of days after menstruation during which it is not possible for a woman to conceive. Sex during this phase is very unlikely to result in conception*. Nothing is being prevented here, conception just cannot* take place.

[* Sperm can survive for a number of days after sex so NFP takes this into account.]

Contraception prevents a number or a combination of events taking place. Barrier contraceptive, prevent sperm meeting an ovum. Chemical contraceptive prevents ovulation, the sperm's passing the cervix (mucus density - NFP relies on this natural variation in fact) and the implantation of any embryos which may have formed. Surgical methods are again preventing the sperm entering the fallopian tubes.

Serious question. Pulling out, is that ok?

coitus interruptus is not permitted in much the same way that masturbation or other sexual acts would be forbidden.

[RedCelt69]

You could use the safe search operator

What's one of those?

I have a safe search operator. It's called my brain. It can perfectly handle scenes and text which some people refer to as "un-safe"... and either enjoy them, or move onwards.

Suffice to say that he said the anus has a specific and distinct function which does not include sex.

If you add the verb form of two swear words you should be able to piece it together. I avoid this form of disputation because more often than not is taken for hate.

Why didn't you just type the actual words? They're in your head. You're aware of them. Is it less-Godly to actually type the words out? If so, why so? Please include a reference from the New Testament if those reasons transpire from Christianity.

To my knowledge, the Bible makes references to words which are profane. By "profane" they mean that they should reside outside of churches and temples. Because that's all that the word means. There's nothing about profanity being verbotten outside of a church or temple. There's references to swearing being wrong, but only in the context of making pledges - which is a completely different type of swearing.

You can say "fuck" and still be a Christian. Just don't do it in your church. Honest.

Why do people need their own rule-book explained to them? Jesus said nothing whatsoever about people not being allowed to be gay - or use "naughty" words. He really didn't. Not once. You can look it up in your rule-book.

Am I sensing some hate from you RedCelt?

You're going to have to be a whole lot more specific if you want a straight answer to that little question.

[jollytiddlywink]

The Church does not propose an reason why people are afflicted with same sex attraction (SSA), it leaves this to medical researchers and psychologists.

And leaving this to medical researchers and psychologists, and indeed any and all other scientists who study the matter (without a pre-determined and religiously-conservatively motivated opinion), produces the conclusion that homosexuality is not an "affliction" but rather a perfectly normal part of human existence, like green eyes.

Obviously infertile couples are a potential problem, however their infertility is intrinsic to either one or both of them and not a deliberate choice. They are still a family and can be open to life through seeking licit methods of overcoming low fertility (e.g. NFP methods can improve chances of conception) or through adoption.

Infertility, as you have earlier argued, is intrinsic to homosexual couples. You have also said that homosexuality is not a choice. Given your statement that the infertility of infertile couples is not a choice (just as with homosexual couples), I ask this: If infertile couples are permitted to adopt, why are not homosexual couples? The only difference is the sexuality of the couple.

The Church's moral teaching is informed by scripture, tradition (interpretation of scripture passed down from Church fathers) and reason.

For the third time, I would like to refer you to my earlier points, and perhaps even receive a response, regarding the weakness of the bible as a basis for homophobia within the church. Cite any passage you like: it will be part of the ongoing, unsettled, dispute over the correct translation of passages into modern English. If you reject out of hand the disputed translation and insist on accepting whatever version you have in front of you, there are further objections to the bigoted stance the church takes, at least on the basis that it claims to be taking that stance with biblical backing.
Again, I challenge you to produce a logical deduction, a priori, as you insisted upon, to prove the immortality of homosexuality.
In the absence of those two, we are left with church tradition, and the argument that the church is homophobic for religious reasons because it has always been homophobic for religious reasons cuts no ice whatsoever.

Lastly (as an aside) the article you cited a while ago, by an Oxford theologian, made reference to homosexuals potentially "ignoring Christ's teachings" on the matter. Jesus is not on record in the bible or indeed anywhere else as commenting on homosexuality. This gives me reason to doubt the validity of any other claim he makes, if he is in error on such a central issue.

[macgamer]

And leaving this to medical researchers and psychologists, and indeed any and all other scientists who study the matter (without a pre-determined and religiously-conservatively motivated opinion), produces the conclusion that homosexuality is not an "affliction" but rather a perfectly normal part of human existence, like green eyes.

Again, I challenge you to produce a logical deduction, a priori, as you insisted upon, to prove the immortality of homosexuality.

I reasoned it earlier than the function of human sexuality is procreation. When sexual attraction is directed to the same sex procreation is impossible. SSA attraction is a sexual disorder. SSA attraction is not like having green eyes, people with green eyes can still see, their eyes still effectively carry out their intrinsic function. I have seen no evidence in the literature for homosexuality being genetically linked, but if you want to provide some...

Infertility, as you have earlier argued, is intrinsic to homosexual couples. You have also said that homosexuality is not a choice. Given your statement that the infertility of infertile couples is not a choice (just as with homosexual couples), I ask this: If infertile couples are permitted to adopt, why are not homosexual couples? The only difference is the sexuality of the couple.

Children have a right to a father and mother. While often through marriage breakdown or death they are deprived of either parent, it would be extremely selfish on the part of an adoptive parent or parents to set about deliberately depriving children of the unique care of either sex. I think we are living with the consequences of a lack of positive male role models.

For the third time, I would like to refer you to my earlier points, and perhaps even receive a response, regarding the weakness of the bible as a basis for homophobia within the church. Cite any passage you like: it will be part of the ongoing, unsettled, dispute over the correct translation of passages into modern English. If you reject out of hand the disputed translation and insist on accepting whatever version you have in front of you, there are further objections to the bigoted stance the church takes, at least on the basis that it claims to be taking that stance with biblical backing.

The Church would say that its interpretation of scripture comes from the Church fathers who themselves received it from their antecedents back to the apostles. How various parts of scripture should be interpreted was in this was preserved. It would rest on the references in Leviticus, Genesis then the letters of Paul.

In the absence of those two, we are left with church tradition, and the argument that the church is homophobic for religious reasons because it has always been homophobic for religious reasons cuts no ice whatsoever.

Tradition was meant in the sense of the interpretation of scripture passed down through the Church.

Lastly (as an aside) the article you cited a while ago, by an Oxford theologian, made reference to homosexuals potentially "ignoring Christ's teachings" on the matter. Jesus is not on record in the bible or indeed anywhere else as commenting on homosexuality. This gives me reason to doubt the validity of any other claim he makes, if he is in error on such a central issue.

What he does say is that he did not come to abolish the old law but to complete it.

[Haunted]

Relevant
"Cardinal Brady will not resign over abuse 'cover-up' "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8567144.stm

A great moral example to us all

[Haunted]

No. NFP, which by the way is not the same as, but includes aspects of the calendar method, does not deliberate circumvent their intrinsic fertility. The woman's intrinsic fertility is negligible for a number of days out of the month.

I'll give you another chance to clarify this once and for all. You are saying that birth control is perfectly ok and not a sin. Provided that only church approved methods of birth control are used.
By using a calender to work out when a female is infertile you are controlling birth.

The Church opposes contraception.

Contraception
–noun
the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation by any of various drugs, techniques, or devices; birth control.

Using a calender to control birth falls perfectly into this definition. You will have to redefine these terms to suit your agenda it would seem.

NFP does not prevent anything.

By engaging in sex when you KNOW the female is infertile you are deliberately attempting to prevent conception. That is the definition of contraception (see above).

It is a mere fact that there are a certain number of days after menstruation during which it is not possible for a woman to conceive. Sex during this phase is very unlikely to result in conception*. Nothing is being prevented here, conception just cannot* take place.

It is a mere fact that there placing a latex sheath over the penis will capture the ejaculate without which it is not possible for a woman to conceive. Sex with this technique is very unlikely to result in conception. By doing this you are preventing contact between viable gametes. With the calendar method you are also preventing contact between viable gametes

Contraception prevents a number or a combination of events taking place. Barrier contraceptive, prevent sperm meeting an ovum. Chemical contraceptive prevents ovulation, the sperm's passing the cervix (mucus density - NFP relies on this natural variation in fact) and the implantation of any embryos which may have formed. Surgical methods are again preventing the sperm entering the fallopian tubes.

Once again, the calender method PREVENTS sperm coming into contact with the female gamete

[macgamer]

Relevant
"Cardinal Brady will not resign over abuse 'cover-up' "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8567144.stm

A great moral example to us all

Effective Bishops seem to be few and far between these days.

If I was the Pope I'd be recalling Bishops and handing out excommunications left, right and centre. Thankfully for the Church I am not.

Cardinal Sean Brady has less than five years left, I don't see the Holy Father extending his tenure as Primate of All Ireland.

[macgamer]

I'll give you another chance to clarify this once and for all. You are saying that birth control is perfectly ok and not a sin. Provided that only church approved methods of birth control are used.
By using a calender to work out when a female is infertile you are controlling birth.

As I said earlier the Church leaves it the consciences of the couple as to how many children they choose to have and the number of years between them, but exhorts them to be generous when making that decision. The only method which is acceptable for couples to achieve this is abstinence of one or or other within marriage. NFP requires abstinence from sex. NFP I grant you is a form of controlling the number and frequency of births.

Contraception
–noun
the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation by any of various drugs, techniques, or devices; birth control.

Using a calender to control birth falls perfectly into this definition. You will have to redefine these terms to suit your agenda it would seem.

This is a particular broad definition of contraception. As I argued earlier NFP (which includes the calendar method) neither prevents conception nor alters the natural fertility of the couple in any way.

By engaging in sex when you KNOW the female is infertile you are deliberately attempting to prevent conception. That is the definition of contraception (see above).

NFP is conception avoidance not prevention.
E.g. tax avoidance is legal, and tax evasion is illegal.

It is a mere fact that there placing a latex sheath over the penis will capture the ejaculate without which it is not possible for a woman to conceive. Sex with this technique is very unlikely to result in conception. By doing this you are preventing contact between viable gametes. With the calendar method you are also preventing contact between viable gametes.

NFP restricts sex to times when there are no viable ova present.

Once again, the calender method PREVENTS sperm coming into contact with the female gamete

The sperm are free to proceed to the fallopian tubes unhindered, it is just that there will not not a viable ovum for one of them to fertilise.

NFP is also distinguished from (artificial) contraception by the fact that it can be use to achieve the opposite, i.e. maximising the intrinsic fertility of the couple and increasing their likelihood of conceiving. A condom or the combined oral contraceptive will not achieve that.

[Haunted]

Effective Bishops seem to be few and far between these days.

Effective at what exactly? Hiding the heinous crimes against children committed by catholic pederasts?

If I was the Pope I'd be recalling Bishops and handing out excommunications left, right and centre. Thankfully for the Church I am not.

So it is good that the Church is protecting pedophiles?

Cardinal Sean Brady has less than five years left, I don't see the Holy Father extending his tenure as Primate of All Ireland.

Name a single other organisation where it would be appropriate for a someone who deliberately covered up child rape to protect his position and the position of his organisation in the community? Name one organisation where you would not be downright outraged that someone like that kept his position.