There is at least one poster on this board (can't remember who now) who is in a marriage where it is known that they cannot conceive. They are an exception to your rule about at least trying to procreate -- they know they cannot. So I ask again, are they sinning if they engage in marital sex that cannot possibly result in procreation? Is a hetero, married couple that knows for a fact they cannot conceive committing an "unnatural act" when they have sex?
How do they know positively that they cannot? Did she have her tubes tied or have a hysterectomy? There's a difference in well here's how Pope Paul VI said it, which is infinitely better than how I ever could: As Pope Paul VI taught clearly in Humanae Vitae, the sin of contraception (which is in and of itself a grave, objective moral evil about which there can be no lightness of matter) takes place between a husband and wife when they seek to frustrate the procreativity of the marital act by artificial means for the purpose of not having children and thereby excluding one of the ends of marital sexuality: the procreation and education of children. link: http://www.dwc.org/questions/the_pill.shtml If they are not actively trying to stop the procreation process then it is not a sin. By the way, thanks for asking all these questions because it really makes me have to research my faith more and have answers to all these difficult questions.
I'm not sure if this is the case with the poster I referenced, but let's imagine that the husband or wife (or both) has been told by several doctors that they cannot conceive. That the man is sterile or the woman is barren or both. Does the church allow for a loophole there? Or, if they know for a fact that they cannot conceive, ought they not to make love? There was one poster here (also don't remember who and it might be the same one I referenced before) that said his wife's health situation was such that if she became pregnant, she would almost certainly die. As a result they use contraception in their marriage. Am I right to believe that this is classified as sinful behavior? My friend here in town was a Catholic priest in the 60's. He heard a confession from a woman who had nine children. She said the family was not making ends meet, that the husband had two full time jobs, was never home and that the money was still not enough for them to get by. She said she knew that if they had another child they would not be able to survive. My friend asked if there was any way for the husband to get another or a better job. She said he'd tried everything and he was doing everything he could. Her question was whether they needed to stop having sex, since she knew the use of contraception was sinful. He told her she was absolved of that sin and that she should go ahead and use contraception. Soon after, a man came in and confessed that he was in love with another man and wanted to express that love sexually. He said he knew it was sinful and so he wasn't doing it. That he hated himself and had thought of suicide, that he felt disgusting. My friend asked him if he had tried to love a woman and he said he'd been trying all his life but he just couldn't and that he was deeply in love with a man. My friend told him that that was not sinful. He realized (as I'm sure you do) that he had taken it on himself to run his own church rather than following the teachings of the Catholic church, but he could not believe that a compassionate god would disagree with his advice to the parishioners. He got out of the church soon thereafter because, for all his devotion to God and all his years of serving the Catholic church, he could not abide the rules of living. No question there (there is one at the top of the post). Just sharing.
Well I think the main thing to think about is actively doing anything to stop the process. Being Catholic, they should believe in miracles, that maybe they would be able to concieve by the grace of God (I mean look at Mary, she didn't even have sex and became pregnant!) If by some random biological process both are sterile, that is not something actively going against their nature. As far as the getting pregnant and dying thing, I don't know what the church would say about that, I'd have to do more research to feel confident in giving you an answer. But there are natural ways which have actually been proven to be 99% effective (the pill is 98% effective). Learning natural family planning is a way of working with the body's nature in such a way that you know when the female isEDIT FERTILE NOT PREGNANT pregnant and when she is not. There is debate in the church as of now that discusses if NFP is just another form of birth control or if it is ok. I know the Theology department at my school is ok with it, because it is how our bodies were made, and even wierder is the fact that government will not allow this European fertility detector to be soldd inside the US because it is too accurate and would ultimately be stiff competition for the pill. This is all crap I gotta start studying now seeing that I'm getting married in June and don't have a real job yet.
Why would that be, is it dumber than the sentence: "CAt Ospicout Jam, : ; Jaded decadent nihilist macDonAld's Douglas.?" ?
Nah, he just sounds like my mother. I am too good/kind/loving/giving of a person to not be Christian/religious. I just don't know it yet. 77 (happy now?), Quit your b****ing about school. If you can't handle it, then you don't belong, anyway. Boo hoo. Besides, none of those programs in your area are any good. Or were you just trying to name drop? I am not a Christian,
I wouldn't put it that way, JayZ750. I would call it arrogant and condescending, although I'm sure twhy doesn't see his statement as being arrogant and condescending at all. Keep D&D Civil!!
Even if you don't believe in any of the "religion-defined" gods, you should at least believe in an infinite thing that all things are derived from, either directly or indirectly. Whether that thing is this universe, or a multiverse, or the thing that created the universe, it is logical to believe that everything finite, everything visible must have come from that infinite thing. There is no evidence to believe otherwise, else science is a farce. There is a cause for every effect, except the first cause.
Myth 1 a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon 2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism -- Orde Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion 3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
Prejudice 1 a preconceived judgement or opinion 2 an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge 3 an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
i think townes van zandt sums this all up nicely: No deal by Townes Van Zandt Now this man down at the used car lot tried to sell me four wheels and a trunk. I said, "Man, there is no engine!", he said, "The engine's just a bunch of junk. You don't need no engine to go downhill and I could plainly see, that that's the direction you're headed in", and he handed me the keys. (I said) No deal; you can't sell this stuff to me No deal, I'm going back to Tennesee Well, I went to a doctor of the highest order, he said I couldn't have a drink for a year. One glass of wine on my birthday if my birthday wasn't too very near. Lord, he must have put me in a state of shock 'cause I made it for about two weeks; then he sent me a bill that knocked me flat off the wagon and back down on my feet. When true love knocked upon my door she'd just barely turned fifteen and I was a little bit nervous if you know just what I mean. But I've heard somewhere that true love conquers all and I figured that was that then I started having dreams 'bout being chased out of town wearing nothing but my cowboy hat. Well, I come through this life a stumbler, my friends I expect to die that way it could be twenty years from now it could be most any day. But if there is no whiskey and women, Lord, behind them heavenly doors I'm gonna take my chances down below, and of that you can be sure.
Yeah I whine a lot about school. Maybe I don't belong, but I'm liking it. My program is pretty kick arse. Great books/IPS program at the University of Dallas. Small Catholic school. All I want to do is be a high school teacher so its teaching me how to read a source text. We don't mess around to much with postmodernity besides studying it but most of the professors here are classicists, Thomists, and Straussians. You'd hate the names I drop or not recognize them bt whatever.
1. If you have no preconceived judgements wouldn't that make you agnostic? I mean no one really knows the truth about their religious beliefs until afer they die...or never. 2. My opinion about religion is not adverse where it provides comfort and hope to the individual. Any aversion I have is toward religious intitutions that promote ignorance, intolerance, moral certainty and infalibility, and that is based on thousands of years of history. 3. Well talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
I didn't know you were in Dallas. Wouldn't have changed my post, but I didn't know it. I do know UofD, though. IPS = Institute of Philosphic(al) Studies? That would be similar to an MLA (aka MALS) program, right? Teach highschool? *shudder* I am not a postmodernist, by the way. Just because I have had a ridiculous amount of postgraduate study in PoMo critical theory doesn't mean I ascribe. Winckelmann was the best gay classicist ever!
Not it couldn't. Gays don't accuse straights of practicing unnatural behavior. That particular prejudice only runs one way. Also, I don't think No Worries is gay.
