You shouldn’t run at night, it’s hard for cars to see you. Next time, drive or Uber.
The pope says abortions and guns are bad
- Thread starter BanjoSaysWoof
- Start date
You shouldn’t run at night, it’s hard for cars to see you. Next time, drive or Uber.
Not really . . . it depends on if you love and value that person as a PERSON.
I've been snipped. That doesn't mean that my wife and I are suddenly only sex objects to one another.
Again people becoming sex objects happens because some people got permission to act badly but the people who would listen anyways are not in danger of that. A healthy married couple isn't going to make one another sex objects just because they can now have sex without producing another child.
It's the people who wouldn't listen anyways. . . the ones that will use contraceptives to allow them to have extra-marital relations who are the ones that you need to be concerned about.
I just view it as much like being wealthy. It's not evil in and of itself. But it certainly gives some people permission via reducing the consequences of acting evil. Even without contraceptives if you are wealthy you can treat other people as sex objects because you can simply afford to pay for the kids. The wealthy have done this even in the most religiously pious times. In fact the top nobles of the country where more concerned about a monarch that loved and was devoted to his wife than they where about a monarch that slept with every women he met. Mostly because they didn't want to share any political influence with his wife.
I think you're still using your wife as a sex object, TBH. Since you got snipped, the only purpose of the sex act is the pleasure it produces. So, your wife becomes an object to you, at least some of the time.
No, although I did some bad acts in the past. It was empty, IMO.
I quit dating a few years ago. Dating really sucks, IMO.
Would you say the same thing of a couple who for age or disability of one of the partners can not reproduce? And how does natural family planning make it any different. I mean if you are out there specifically trying to reduce the chances of getting pregnant, isn't it all the same?
I think that's an odd way to look at it. Sex is for the bonding and pleasure of the married couple as well. Sex is a good thing between married couples. Yes it's for pleasure but it also bonds two people via the production of oxytocin and other hormones.
No because age or natural family planning are natural processes.
Artifical birth control isn't, especially vasectomy, which is permanent.
So, your wife is an object of lust.
No, although I did some bad acts in the past. It was empty, IMO.
I quit dating a few years ago. Dating really sucks, IMO.
I don't disagree about dating but I think you should get married first then comment.
I think your previous experience with sex is likely coloring your current views of it. Which is understandable. It's sort of like a person who's parents were alcoholics who likely has trouble understanding how anyone could use alcohol responsibly.
I don't want to get married. I'd go bankrupt in like a month.
I'm going by natural law, which applies even to marriages.
Drunken hookups are obviously much different than a loving marriage, but spouses can still use each other as objects within a marriage by using birth control.
All sex involves lust. The question is if the person you are having sex with is ONLY an object of lust.
All of these are long term questions not short term questions much like love is a long term question not a short term question.
You obviously don't stay married for 12 years and raise 3 children with objects of lust.
And for the record I didn't lust after my wife any more or any less than when we where trying to have children.
I'm actually a convert, though I had attended mass for 20 years or so with my wife, so I suppose something must have stuck. Ultimately, a buddy of mine who had also converted one day just said to me, "c'mon man, what are you waiting for?" and I didn't have a particularly good answer to that. As the old proverb says, the ox is slow, but the earth is patient.
BTW, re: my Pelikan reference, at the beginning of Covid I decided to try to read something that I otherwise wouldn't, and decided on Pelikan's 6-volume The Christian Tradition (a history of Christian doctrine, which is not a Catholic treatise). Truly a magnificent work that helped me think about many bedrock issues we all take for granted, appreciate how people a lot smarter than me thought really long and hard to come up a faith that hung together and made sense, and to understand the harder doctrinal questions and tensions that have divided the Christian faith a little better. If you can possibly manage the time, read it. If you can't, but would like to sample his work, consider Mary Through the Centuries, which is fantastic and remarkably illustrates how every hard doctrinal question of the last 2000 years necessarily entailed a solution that included a Marian component.
Last edited:
I don't want to get married. I'd go bankrupt in like a month.
I'm going by natural law, which applies even to marriages.
Drunken hookups are obviously much different than a loving marriage, but spouses can still use each other as objects within a marriage by using birth control.
But natural law does not change how sex feels with or without birth control. We've kind of done it as both my wife and I and it's not much different. The only difference is what happens 9 months later.
You can never fully objectify someone you've been married to for 12 years.
Excellent.
I always recommend Aquinas, Augustine and Pascal.
One could study them for a lifetime.
apologies. m'bad.
Seriously, i really try hard not to go there, and I crossed a line today. mea culpa.
Re the statement, you'd be surprised at what catholic publications do and don't say with 'authority' from the top man. Cardinal Burke found out out the hard way. And you are certainly right that, sure, gun limitations to address their potential use in killing people is 1000% consistent with church teaching on the 'big issues.'
peace
Last edited:
No
I would be mad about it but I wouldn't leave her because that exception is not listed as a reason for divorce in the bible and it was not in the vows.
I do think her refusal would constitute a sin on her part because of Paul's command for married couples to have sex. But sins on her part do not give reason for me to commit another by divorce or infidelity.
She's still fully objectified during the act, though.
That's why it's immoral, IMO.
You know, I know it’s the guts of things, but I just don’t have the patience for acquinas. Way too much deductive rather than inferential reasoning for what I guess is my too modern mind. Every time I try I can’t stop thinking of the witch scene in holy grail. Now Augustine, that’s another matter …Excellent.
I always recommend Aquinas, Augustine and Pascal.
One could study them for a lifetime.
So he’s managed to piss off everyone
Pro-life is not just opposing abortion, Vatican says after U.S. ruling
Anti-abortion activists should be concerned with other issues that can threaten life, such as easy access to guns, poverty and rising maternity mortality rates, the Vatican's editorial director said on Saturday. In a media editorial on the United States Supreme Court's ruling to end the...www.yahoo.com
For the specific subset that defines itself as pro life conservative Catholic, are you going to now join the Democratic Party to fight against guns since you won the abortion fight?
Not me, I like the Pope. I expect the Pope to be Catholic and pro life. What you can't always count on the Pope for is to care about living conditions of ordinary people, this Pope cares. Good Pope.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Missouri State Transfer WR Raylen Sharpe Visiting Iowa on Tuesday- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
