From: jpalmer@onetouch.COM (John Palmer)
Subject: Re: Science and god: Are they incompatible? If so, why?
Organization: MCS/OneTouch, Inc.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 18:30:14 GMT

mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) writes:

>>=	"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StM corrects him, "I'm afraid you're a bit out of date, Michael.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."

     This is correct; any act of sex must allow the possibility of conception,
under catholic doctrine.  Making an intentional and 'sure' barrier to that is
considered wrong. . . thus any form of birth control that attempts artificially
to prevent birth is wrong.  Rhythm is allowable because it does not
specifically prevent conception; it is only taking advantage of the fact that
conception will not take place.  (in theory, at least.)

    Ol' JP II might not like me for saying this but the Catholic Church is
worse than a bunch of lawyers in some ways.


>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

    Again, since the possibility of conception is not being artificially over
ridden, non procreative sex is okay. . . 
  
     (Exceedingly cynical mode on)
     I guess God's powerful enough to over-ride infertility, menopause, and
so forth, but not powerful enough to break a condom or put a miscolored sugar
pill into the wrong slot.
     (exceedingly cynical mode off. . . I really DO understand their viewpoint,
but the Catholic Church claims it is a sin not to beleive in God's power, then
makes up all these rules that you MUST ABSOLUTELY FOLLOW to leave youself open
to God's will. . . and I think that they're missing the boat in this respect.
Sorry to any Catholics who're offended by these statements.)


                                               John/The Crazyman

-- 
John Palmer					jpalmer@onetouch.COM
Columbus, OH					...!uunet!onetouch!jpalmer