• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where Is The Praise?

No because it is. You are exhibiting your usual understanding and knowledge about things you argue, which is nil to none.
What is surprising is that by now one would have thought that you will attempt to seek out some of the talked about points and inform yourself before making a fool of yourself.

perhaps you should read some of them instead of looking at them.



Humana Vitae.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

But to be fair, sexual activity is permitted but it is very difficult if not impossible to draw the line between desire and that is why one would have sex outside procreation and some other reason.


Ok the first one is talking about the points of marriage NOT sex.
The second, yeah youve got to make life in marriage, yeah yeah, but it never says that you have to stop having sex when you are no longer able.
The third again says that you should have sex to make babies but doesnt condone you for having sex when you are not able.

Also I might out the humana vitae is just a writing by a pope and not even included in catholic doctrine. Also it was written for the purpose of stopping contraceptives, thats it.

The last one from the catachism is just saying dont have sex for only lust, which I said was wrong before.

You are however right that it can be really hard to figure this all out
 
Ok the first one is talking about the points of marriage NOT sex.
The second, yeah youve got to make life in marriage, yeah yeah, but it never says that you have to stop having sex when you are no longer able.
The third again says that you should have sex to make babies but doesnt condone you for having sex when you are not able.

Also I might out the humana vitae is just a writing by a pope and not even included in catholic doctrine. Also it was written for the purpose of stopping contraceptives, thats it.

The last one from the catachism is just saying dont have sex for only lust, which I said was wrong before.

You are however right that it can be really hard to figure this all out
Thanks for the frank reply.
 
Ok the first one is talking about the points of marriage NOT sex.
The second, yeah youve got to make life in marriage, yeah yeah, but it never says that you have to stop having sex when you are no longer able.
The third again says that you should have sex to make babies but doesnt condone you for having sex when you are not able.

Also I might out the humana vitae is just a writing by a pope and not even included in catholic doctrine. Also it was written for the purpose of stopping contraceptives, thats it.

The last one from the catachism is just saying dont have sex for only lust, which I said was wrong before.

You are however right that it can be really hard to figure this all out

To make a point, I wouldn't call sexual attraction, lust.
 
No because it is. You are exhibiting your usual understanding and knowledge about things you argue, which is nil to none.
What is surprising is that by now one would have thought that you will attempt to seek out some of the talked about points and inform yourself before making a fool of yourself.

If it is...show it. :shrug: s-u-b-s-t-a-n-t-i-a-t-e.

perhaps you should read some of them instead of looking at them.

not enough pictures...why don't you...explain it to me?

Humana Vitae.

"Finally, this love is fecund. It is not confined wholly to the loving interchange of husband and wife; it also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents' welfare."

"The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.'' It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life."

"Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one's partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. "Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact," Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. "From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God."

"Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong."


I think I've covered all your cherry-picking....

Catechism of the Catholic Church

But to be fair, sexual activity is permitted but it is very difficult if not impossible to draw the line between desire and that is why one would have sex outside procreation and some other reason.

You've not shown where sex outside procreation is prohibited by the Catholic Church....despite all your cherry-picking...
 
I did not expect you to fully grasp all of it, but I do appreciate the irony of your cherry picking while ignoring the later part of the paragraph you chose.

The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.
 
I did not expect you to fully grasp all of it, but I do appreciate the irony of your cherry picking while ignoring the later part of the paragraph you chose.

So, only sex is a marital act?
 
Unless you can take you pinky and stick it in someone's ass and create life, sex is the only aspect of marital life that leads to procreation.

It does not say it must result in procreation, it says it must maintain it's relationship....that means no birth control. That's all.

Pick away, Cherry man.
 
It does not say it must result in procreation, it says it must maintain it's relationship....that means no birth control. That's all.

Pick away, Cherry man.
You really have no ability to follow along a discussion do you? Why not just stay out of it if you are unable to participate with anything relevant or intelligent? In the least you should have the basic decency no to misrepresent Church doctrine.
Let me help your pathetic floundering here. The issue arose about whether sex was OK if the couple knew that conceiving is not possible. Now go and have that explained to you along with why ****ing while fully knowing that conception is not possible is in fact NOT meeting the requirement that: "each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life."
 
So, an omnipotent God -who can facilitate the Immaculate Conception (according to Catholics anyway) and the Virgin Birth-this all powerful being is going to let a thin piece of latex stop conception from happening?

I find that hard to believe.
 
So, an omnipotent God -who can facilitate the Immaculate Conception (according to Catholics anyway) and the Virgin Birth-this all powerful being is going to let a thin piece of latex stop conception from happening?

I find that hard to believe.
I have to agree. If there is a God, I'm willing to bet he could point at someone with a finger gun and yell bang and they'd be pregnant.
 
You really have no ability to follow along a discussion do you? Why not just stay out of it if you are unable to participate with anything relevant or intelligent? In the least you should have the basic decency no to misrepresent Church doctrine.
Let me help your pathetic floundering here. The issue arose about whether sex was OK if the couple knew that conceiving is not possible. Now go and have that explained to you along with why ****ing while fully knowing that conception is not possible is in fact NOT meeting the requirement that: "each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life."

The passage talks about not using birth control, not about not having sex if you can't conceive.
 
I have to agree. If there is a God, I'm willing to bet he could point at someone with a finger gun and yell bang and they'd be pregnant.

This is my new favorite superpower. I would use it all the time.
 
I did not expect you to fully grasp all of it, but I do appreciate the irony of your cherry picking while ignoring the later part of the paragraph you chose.
I still dont think that means that once you can no longer have kids you can't have sex. Just saying it eventually becomes impossible (or never is possible) to continue focusing on having kids. That doesn't mean suddenly there is a ban on sex or something.
 
You really have no ability to follow along a discussion do you? Why not just stay out of it if you are unable to participate with anything relevant or intelligent? In the least you should have the basic decency no to misrepresent Church doctrine.
Let me help your pathetic floundering here. The issue arose about whether sex was OK if the couple knew that conceiving is not possible. Now go and have that explained to you along with why ****ing while fully knowing that conception is not possible is in fact NOT meeting the requirement that: "each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life."

Again the whole book was written about various types of contraceptives! So mac was right and that was all it was talking about.
 
It needs to be clarified that well over 90% of American support using contraceptions and, overall, the Pope's and management of the Catholic Church are at diametric odds with Catholics on nearly all "sex" and "children" topics.

The result is seen in many ways. From 1965 when Catholics attending services was at about 75%, it now dropped to 3 out of 4 no longer attend. The number of priests and nuns in the USA has fallen to about 1/3rd what is was in 1965 - and half of those are literally over age 70. The USA Catholic "management" is literally dying of old age with no replacements. Many if not most new priests in the USA have to be imported now - and there are not enough of those to even come close to covering all Catholic churches.

Claiming that Catholics oppose contraceptives is totally false. American Catholics overwhelmingly support contraceptives.

Some people, such as myself, claim that want defines a church is the people of it. Others such as Nathan claim it is who holds the land deed to the building.
 
It needs to be clarified that well over 90% of American support using contraceptions and, overall, the Pope's and management of the Catholic Church are at diametric odds with Catholics on nearly all "sex" and "children" topics.

The result is seen in many ways. From 1965 when Catholics attending services was at about 75%, it now dropped to 3 out of 4 no longer attend. The number of priests and nuns in the USA has fallen to about 1/3rd what is was in 1965 - and half of those are literally over age 70. The USA Catholic "management" is literally dying of old age with no replacements. Many if not most new priests in the USA have to be imported now - and there are not enough of those to even come close to covering all Catholic churches.

Claiming that Catholics oppose contraceptives is totally false. American Catholics overwhelmingly support contraceptives.

Some people, such as myself, claim that want defines a church is the people of it. Others such as Nathan claim it is who holds the land deed to the building.

Who cares!
American catholics have, for the large majority, fallen away from the churches teachings. We know! In fact we talked about it extensively like 20 pages back. These people are no more catholic than you are.
Also I would apreciate you back off. I simply know what the church teaches. Its proven fact. Grab a catachism and read it. We catholics have defined set of beliefs that we have written down so that anyone can learn them. Just becuase some catholics dont read said book does not take away from the fact that is what the church teaches.
Besides, you seem to despise the Catholic church so why do you care?
 
Again the whole book was written about various types of contraceptives!
Was it? Where is the reference and even if it was how does that negate the very meaning of the sentence: "each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life." Show me how having sex fully knowing that conception is not possible meets the requirement of that directive.

So mac was right and that was all it was talking about.
He hasn't been right for a very long time.
 
Really? Is that what you understood from it? Which words mention birth control?

That's what the encyclical is about. Discussing birth control was the whole point of the document.
 
Who cares!
American catholics have, for the large majority, fallen away from the churches teachings. We know! In fact we talked about it extensively like 20 pages back. These people are no more catholic than you are.
You know, that is the problem. Far too many proclamation of exclusion and damnation instead of demonstration of love, compassion and forgiveness.

Also I would apreciate you back off. I simply know what the church teaches. Its proven fact. Grab a catachism and read it. We catholics have defined set of beliefs that we have written down so that anyone can learn them.
Yet as you can see here there are interpretations.
 
Who cares!
American catholics have, for the large majority, fallen away from the churches teachings. We know! In fact we talked about it extensively like 20 pages back. These people are no more catholic than you are.
Also I would apreciate you back off. I simply know what the church teaches. Its proven fact. Grab a catachism and read it. We catholics have defined set of beliefs that we have written down so that anyone can learn them. Just becuase some catholics dont read said book does not take away from the fact that is what the church teaches.
Besides, you seem to despise the Catholic church so why do you care?

Hmmm, its just an age-old question about religion - is it the worldly organization or the members of it that defines which is the true "church?"
 
Really? Is that what you understood from it? Which words mention birth control?


Look it up. The book was written about contraceptives. It was the entire point of it.
 
Hmmm, its just an age-old question about religion - is it the worldly organization or the members of it that defines which is the true "church?"
I guess, I cant argue that.
 
Back
Top Bottom