From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re:  Science and god:  Are they incompatible?  If so, why?
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:39:15 GMT

In article <1ee85vINNpe3@gap.caltech.edu> lydick@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.175125.12880@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>mss2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) writes: 
>=In article <memo.756718@cix.compulink.co.uk> maryb@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
>=
>=>Current state of the churches - the Catholic church is still (as fas 
>=>I know) saying that you shouldn't use a condom even to stop AIDS. 
>=>This can kill people.

>=	"To be fair, they're hardly saying that people should go
>=around having unprotected sex.  Their line is that the main point of
>=sex is procreation within a monogamous marriage, and that sex which is
>=_not_ directed towards that is sinful.

>StM corrects him, "I'm afraid you're a bit out of date, Michael.  The new
>catechism (released a couple of days ago; so far the only version is in French)
>allows that sex for pleasure within a marriage is not a sin, if done in
>moderation.  At least that's what the newspaper article I read about it says."

	"My impression was that intentionally deriving pleasure from
sex was not a sin according to the new catechism, but for that to be
the sole purpose of even marital sex would be.  However, I'm as
handicapped as you by the filtering through newspaper accounts.  The
newspapers I've seen have emphasized that the reiteration of the
prohibition on contraception is based on the belief that sex is
primarily a procreative act."

>=The participants have,
>=after all, already chosen to engage in something sinful under Catholic
>=doctrine-- and in fact I don't know whether Catholic belief
>=distinguishes _at all_ between fornication using contraception and
>=fornication without.  I'd guess that it's all lumped in, along with
>=masturbation, oral sex, and other nonprocreative or nonmarital
>=instances of sex, as the misuse of sexuality.

>"Non-procreative and non-marital are two entirely different adjectives, and the
>new catechism DOES distinguish between them."

	"Well, that's the question.  Anyone feel like translating the
thing ( :-) ) or have access to a reliable source of information?  If
not, we're both flying blind on this.  Personally, I'd be surprised if
they've changed so thoroughly as that, though.  All of the excerpts
I've seen indicate that nonprocreative sex remains classed as a sin,
whether marital or nonmarital-- and, conversely, nonmarital sex
remains a sin whether procreative or nonprocreative.  Of course
they're two different adjectives, but as far as I know Catholic
doctrine only approves the intersection of marital and [potentially]
procreative sex.  Failing in either condition places an act in the
class of sexual sin, and I don't know if there's any distinction in
the way a transgression in one or the other condition is treated.
(And no, I can't explain Vatican approval of "natural family
planning", though doubtless some cynic will say because it doesn't
work.  In fact, my understanding is that while the traditional
"rhythm" method is only slightly better than the more traditional
religious method ["Oh God, please don't let me get pregnant."], the
basal temperature method is reasonably reliable.  Which only makes it
stranger that the Catholic Church considers it acceptable.)"

Michael
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Indeed I tremble for my country
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 when I reflect that God is just."
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on
mss2@amber.uchicago.edu		    Virginia (1784)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans