| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Martin Willett" |
| Date: |
07 Apr 2005 05:15:19 AM |
| Object: |
Catholics kill babies |
What is the problem with the Catholic church saying:
1 ] Sex in marriage is wonderful
2 ] Sex outside marriage is always a sin
3 ] The church requires married couples not to use "artificial" birth
control devices.
4 ] Condoms prevent the spread of AIDS
There is no inconsistency at all in those views. Condoms could be used
by married couples who have AIDS. Condoms could be used by "sinners".
In what possible way is wearing a condom more of a sin than prostitution?
The church knows people are sinners and will sin, do sin. So what is so
wrong in allowing those sinners to sin in (comparative) safety and
without putting other people's lives at risk?
Having condoms available makes "the sin of artificial birth control"
more possible, but having kitchen knives makes murder more possible, it
is a rather flabby bit of reasoning. Driving while drunk is a crime and
a sin but the church does not forbid either alcohol or cars. Surely
condoms could be available to those who cannot avoid the sins of
promiscuity without it forcing good Catholics into "the sin of
artificial birth control".
There is no moral excuse for the Catholic Church's open hostility to
condom use by people who are already flouting the Church's teachings.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org
.
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics kill babies |
02 Jun 2005 08:33:48 PM |
|
|
In article <9VNne.4986$hT6.1735@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>,
seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net says...
he said that the
'rhtytyhyhthythm method' was okay because it *wasn't* actually 'use of the
non-fertile period' -- it was, he said, simply 'non-use of the fertile
period'
Actually it is both. They use the non-fertile period intentionally
so that they can experience sexual pleasure with the express
expectation that it will not result in reproduction. This is
precisely what they claim is wrong other contraceptive methods. The
rest of the month they try to make themselves feel "holier than
thou" by suffering and denying themselves this pleasure, as though
this somehow makes up for it. But their self imposed suffering at
one part of the month does not erase their self-indulgence during
the other part of the month.
... and *what could be wrong with that*...?
According to their own standards, it's the intention that counts and
the intention of the "rhythm method" is to have sexual pleasure for
a purpose other than reproduction. Their own theologians have
alleged that holding such intentions, much less engaging in the
actions, is immoral.
How could simply 'not
having sex' part of the time, ever be *wrong*...?
I learned something about priestly mendacity that day, I can tell you!!
Yes. In particular, you likely learned that priests are very bad
liars, despite their constant practice at it.
--
"Faith, indeed, has up to the present not been
able to move real mountains ... But it can put
mountains where there are none." -- Nietzsche
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabby" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics kill babies |
02 Jun 2005 09:21:58 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d09616a97700fa69896a3@news.readfreenews.net...
According to their own standards, it's the intention that counts and
the intention of the "rhythm method" is to have sexual pleasure for
a purpose other than reproduction. Their own theologians have
alleged that holding such intentions, much less engaging in the
actions, is immoral.
That's not what the Church teaches.
2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the
spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of
these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in
joy and gratitude." Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function,
spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit.
Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and
enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same
time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just
moderation.
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on
self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the
objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the
spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an
authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation
of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its
natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render
procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving
of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively
contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the
other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also
to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon
to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both
anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm
of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable
concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.
Gabby
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics kill babies |
02 Jun 2005 11:54:11 PM |
|
|
In article <119vflmko0h9073@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d09616a97700fa69896a3@news.readfreenews.net...
According to their own standards, it's the intention that counts and
the intention of the "rhythm method" is to have sexual pleasure for
a purpose other than reproduction. Their own theologians have
alleged that holding such intentions, much less engaging in the
actions, is immoral.
That's not what the Church teaches.
Many in the church have taught that reproductive intent should be part
of the sex act, as I've already demonstrated in the previous post, in
the case of Aquinas, Gregory, Origin, Clement, et al. Some have tried
to backpedal by postulating the so-called, "unitive" purpose of sex, but
even those teachings still maintain that both unitive and procreative
intent must be present in the sex act. It doesn't teach that one can
intentionally side-step one of those. It merely invents a new demand
while keeping the old one.
2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the
spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of
these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in
joy and gratitude." Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
That doesn't really address the issue of whether these "intimate and
[oxymoronically] chaste union" must be for the purpose of procreation or
not.
The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function,
spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit.
Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and
enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same
time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just
moderation.
This still seems to affirm that the act is intended to be "generative",
pleasure is a side effect. They can seek the pleasurable side effect,
so long as it's still generative. Eminent (and infamous) church fathers
like John Chrysostum argued that, "marriage is not a remedy for
concupiscence". In fact, it's often depicted as a solemn duty that one
must trudge through as part of ones marital duty to ones spouse.
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving
of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively
contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the
other.
So why does intentionally avoiding pregnancy through monitoring fertile
periods also not qualify as "giving oneself totally to the other"?
This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life
It's apparently supposed to be far more "open to life" to intentionally
copulate when one believes that one cannot get pregnant.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics kill babies |
04 Jun 2005 06:22:16 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 23:21:58 -0300, "Gabby" <Lavolanges@msn.com> wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d09616a97700fa69896a3@news.readfreenews.net...
According to their own standards, it's the intention that counts and
the intention of the "rhythm method" is to have sexual pleasure for
a purpose other than reproduction. Their own theologians have
alleged that holding such intentions, much less engaging in the
actions, is immoral.
That's not what the Church teaches.
Yes it is, as the numerous quotes posted demonstrated quite clearly.
It's only recently that cultists have decided that they want to be
able to justify contraception so that they don't have to feel guilty
about not having babies. The Catholic cult is already guilty of the
'moral relativism' that the current Pope supposedly abhors. The
opinions of the church have changed a lot over time and will continue
to do so, as they need to tweak their beliefs to ensure that they
don't become irrelevant to people and die out.
2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the
spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of
these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in
joy and gratitude." Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function,
spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit.
Note the bit about 'in the generative function'...
Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and
enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same
time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just
moderation.
You're dodging the point. The Church teaches that it is OK to have sex
to make babies. As you say, the 'generative function'. The rhythm
method is a form of contraception designed specifically to avoid the
'generative function' and is therefore contrary to the teachings of
the church.
All you're doing is desperately trying to twist the words of the
church to justify your own behaviour and the behaviour of your fellow
cultists. It's hypocrisy.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabby" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics kill babies |
04 Jun 2005 06:38:28 AM |
|
|
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:ul33a11e54ilqv7l0er394jti7qtmi321f@4ax.com...
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 23:21:58 -0300, "Gabby" <Lavolanges@msn.com> wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d09616a97700fa69896a3@news.readfreenews.net...
According to their own standards, it's the intention that counts and
the intention of the "rhythm method" is to have sexual pleasure for
a purpose other than reproduction. Their own theologians have
alleged that holding such intentions, much less engaging in the
actions, is immoral.
That's not what the Church teaches.
Yes it is, as the numerous quotes posted demonstrated quite clearly.
It's only recently that cultists have decided that they want to be
able to justify contraception so that they don't have to feel guilty
about not having babies. The Catholic cult is already guilty of the
'moral relativism' that the current Pope supposedly abhors. The
opinions of the church have changed a lot over time and will continue
to do so, as they need to tweak their beliefs to ensure that they
don't become irrelevant to people and die out.
2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the
spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance
of
these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses
in
joy and gratitude." Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function,
spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit.
Note the bit about 'in the generative function'...
Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and
enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the
same
time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of
just
moderation.
You're dodging the point. The Church teaches that it is OK to have sex
to make babies. As you say, the 'generative function'. The rhythm
method is a form of contraception designed specifically to avoid the
'generative function' and is therefore contrary to the teachings of
the church.
All you're doing is desperately trying to twist the words of the
church to justify your own behaviour and the behaviour of your fellow
cultists. It's hypocrisy.
Those were direct quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not my
interpretation or my words.
Gabby
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics kill babies |
04 Jun 2005 08:05:33 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 08:38:28 -0300, "Gabby" <Lavolanges@msn.com> wrote:
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:ul33a11e54ilqv7l0er394jti7qtmi321f@4ax.com...
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 23:21:58 -0300, "Gabby" <Lavolanges@msn.com> wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d09616a97700fa69896a3@news.readfreenews.net...
According to their own standards, it's the intention that counts and
the intention of the "rhythm method" is to have sexual pleasure for
a purpose other than reproduction. Their own theologians have
alleged that holding such intentions, much less engaging in the
actions, is immoral.
That's not what the Church teaches.
Yes it is, as the numerous quotes posted demonstrated quite clearly.
It's only recently that cultists have decided that they want to be
able to justify contraception so that they don't have to feel guilty
about not having babies. The Catholic cult is already guilty of the
'moral relativism' that the current Pope supposedly abhors. The
opinions of the church have changed a lot over time and will continue
to do so, as they need to tweak their beliefs to ensure that they
don't become irrelevant to people and die out.
2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the
spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance
of
these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses
in
joy and gratitude." Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function,
spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit.
Note the bit about 'in the generative function'...
Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and
enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the
same
time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of
just
moderation.
You're dodging the point. The Church teaches that it is OK to have sex
to make babies. As you say, the 'generative function'. The rhythm
method is a form of contraception designed specifically to avoid the
'generative function' and is therefore contrary to the teachings of
the church.
All you're doing is desperately trying to twist the words of the
church to justify your own behaviour and the behaviour of your fellow
cultists. It's hypocrisy.
Those were direct quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not my
interpretation or my words.
Your quotes talk about sex in the context of the 'generative
function'. They do not support your argument that some forms of
contraception are OK, thus you are re-interpreting and altering them
to support your argument.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabby" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics kill babies |
04 Jun 2005 12:48:00 PM |
|
|
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:md93a1lhisubiainiaft1q5626ulu805ft@4ax.com...
On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 08:38:28 -0300, "Gabby" <Lavolanges@msn.com> wrote:
Those were direct quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not my
interpretation or my words.
Your quotes talk about sex in the context of the 'generative
function'. They do not support your argument that some forms of
contraception are OK, thus you are re-interpreting and altering them
to support your argument.
But you left out the other article that said:
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on
self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the
objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the
spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an
authentic freedom.
Those are the teachings of the Church, not my interpretation of them.
Gabby
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Ferris" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics kill babies |
04 Jun 2005 04:38:18 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 14:48:00 -0300, "Gabby" <Lavolanges@msn.com> wrote:
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:md93a1lhisubiainiaft1q5626ulu805ft@4ax.com...
On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 08:38:28 -0300, "Gabby" <Lavolanges@msn.com> wrote:
Those were direct quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not my
interpretation or my words.
Your quotes talk about sex in the context of the 'generative
function'. They do not support your argument that some forms of
contraception are OK, thus you are re-interpreting and altering them
to support your argument.
But you left out the other article that said:
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on
self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the
objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the
spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an
authentic freedom.
Those are the teachings of the Church, not my interpretation of them.
Indeed they are the contradictory utterances of men who supposedly
have never had a relationship with a woman, but somehow are free to
lie about condoms and latex.
You will understand then why many in the Church ignore the utterances.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics kill babies |
04 Jun 2005 03:43:33 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 14:48:00 -0300, "Gabby" <Lavolanges@msn.com> wrote:
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:md93a1lhisubiainiaft1q5626ulu805ft@4ax.com...
On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 08:38:28 -0300, "Gabby" <Lavolanges@msn.com> wrote:
Those were direct quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not my
interpretation or my words.
Your quotes talk about sex in the context of the 'generative
function'. They do not support your argument that some forms of
contraception are OK, thus you are re-interpreting and altering them
to support your argument.
But you left out the other article that said:
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on
self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the
objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the
spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an
authentic freedom.
Those are the teachings of the Church, not my interpretation of them.
You ignored all of the stuff about the 'generative function'. You
ignored the other quotes which clearly show catholic opposition to sex
for enjoyment. You alter meanings (as with the generative function
quote) and you selectively quote to support your own view. You ignore
church teachings that contradict your view.
There are other teachings of the church that state very clearly that
sex for any purpose other than procreation is a sin. Some of these
have been pointed out for you. A sin is a sin - it does not change
over time. The church changes its view all the time, hence my
accusation of the moral relativism that the current pope is supposed
to be opposed to.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics kill babies |
04 Jun 2005 05:27:33 PM |
|
|
In article <ul33a11e54ilqv7l0er394jti7qtmi321f@4ax.com>,
mephisto@go.away says...
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 23:21:58 -0300, "Gabby" <Lavolanges@msn.com> wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d09616a97700fa69896a3@news.readfreenews.net...
According to their own standards, it's the intention that counts and
the intention of the "rhythm method" is to have sexual pleasure for
a purpose other than reproduction. Their own theologians have
alleged that holding such intentions, much less engaging in the
actions, is immoral.
That's not what the Church teaches.
Yes it is, as the numerous quotes posted demonstrated quite clearly.
It's only recently that cultists have decided that they want to be
able to justify contraception so that they don't have to feel guilty
about not having babies.
Right. Catholic families of 13 or 14 kids are quite rare these days.
Are we to believe that Catholics today are just super-abstinent,
compared to previous generations? It's estimated that as many as 80% of
catholics use artificial means of birth control to keep their families
manageable. They aren't willing to let their religion cause them to be
poor gutter trash like it used to with huge family sizes.
The Catholic cult is already guilty of the
'moral relativism' that the current Pope supposedly abhors.
The Golden Rule is relative morality too. It varies depending upon the
values and goals of the person attempting to apply it. Maybe Ratfuck
Reichzinger should condemn Jesus for mouthing that little piece of
"relative morality".
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics kill babies |
05 Jun 2005 11:35:58 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 16:27:33 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <ul33a11e54ilqv7l0er394jti7qtmi321f@4ax.com>,
mephisto@go.away says...
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 23:21:58 -0300, "Gabby" <Lavolanges@msn.com> wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d09616a97700fa69896a3@news.readfreenews.net...
According to their own standards, it's the intention that counts and
the intention of the "rhythm method" is to have sexual pleasure for
a purpose other than reproduction. Their own theologians have
alleged that holding such intentions, much less engaging in the
actions, is immoral.
That's not what the Church teaches.
Yes it is, as the numerous quotes posted demonstrated quite clearly.
It's only recently that cultists have decided that they want to be
able to justify contraception so that they don't have to feel guilty
about not having babies.
Right. Catholic families of 13 or 14 kids are quite rare these days.
Are we to believe that Catholics today are just super-abstinent,
compared to previous generations? It's estimated that as many as 80% of
catholics use artificial means of birth control to keep their families
manageable. They aren't willing to let their religion cause them to be
poor gutter trash like it used to with huge family sizes.
The Catholic cult is already guilty of the
'moral relativism' that the current Pope supposedly abhors.
The Golden Rule is relative morality too. It varies depending upon the
values and goals of the person attempting to apply it. Maybe Ratfuck
Reichzinger should condemn Jesus for mouthing that little piece of
"relative morality".
The Jesus character was quite the sinning hypocrite, a liar, a Sabbath
breaker, a thief, didn't honour his mother, Prideful, and quite the
sociopath and psychopath. What a 'lovely' example to emulate.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "• R. L. Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics kill babies |
03 Jun 2005 05:13:30 AM |
|
|
In article <9VNne.4986$hT6.1735@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>, "Katt"
<seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote:
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d096ff9f975c992989aaa@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <d33d3s$gj4$1@news3.bu.edu>, RS said...
Wearing a condom is being closed to the gift of life.
How amazing that the almighty master of the cosmos can be foiled
in his gift-giving by a few microns of latex. :)
Even more amazing is the way 'He' appears to be fooled by the so-called
'rhtythym method' beloved by the Catholic Church!
• He is not fooled because He knows that, thanks to the fact that He gave
female homo sapiens two ovaries, and that He designed them to ovulate on
any day of their cycle if they have an orgasm, they can conceive on any
day of the month. If NFP really worked, it would reduce the supply of
cute altar-boys, and NFP would be a terrible mortal sin for damn sure.
I stress I am not making
anything up when I say that I heard a 'distinguished' Catholic theologian on
TV, about 20 years ago, passionately insisting that 'medical contraception
was wrong' whereas 'natural contraception, in the form of the so-called
rthtythytmm method' was right.
• - "I can not believe that salvation is based on contraception by
temperature and damnation is based on rubber". - Dr. André Hellegers.
RE: Clergy passion:
- - "All absolute power demoralizes its possessor. To that all history
bears witness. And if it be a spiritual power which rules menąs
consciences, the danger is only so much greater, for the possession of
such a power exercises a specially treacherous fascination, while it is
peculiarly conducive to self-deceit, because the lust of dominion, when it
has become a passion, is only too easily in this case excused under the
plea of zeal for the salvation of others."
- J. H. "Janus" von Döllinger
When he was challenged by the programme's
presenter to explain *why* a 'deliberate attempt to prevent conception by
the use of a drug to greatly extend the non-fertile period' was *wrong* when
the 'deliberate, exclusive use, without drugs, of the naturally non-fertile
period' was *right*, his explanation was as follows: he said that the
'rhtytyhyhthythm method' was okay because it *wasn't* actually 'use of the
non-fertile period' -- it was, he said, simply 'non-use of the fertile
period' ... and *what could be wrong with that*...? How could simply 'not
having sex' part of the time, ever be *wrong*...?
I learned something about priestly mendacity that day, I can tell you!!
• In my experiences, priests tend to let the church do their thinking for
them.
"In matters of faith never trust your own judgment, but always humbly
submit to the decisions of the Holy Church."
-- Fr. Joseph De Harbe, S.J. - page 77, "A Full Catechism of the
Catholic Religion"
cheers, Katt.
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics kill babies |
02 Jun 2005 11:26:56 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:56:37 GMT, "Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net>
wrote:
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d096ff9f975c992989aaa@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <d33d3s$gj4$1@news3.bu.edu>, RS said...
Wearing a condom is being closed to the gift of life.
How amazing that the almighty master of the cosmos can be foiled
in his gift-giving by a few microns of latex. :)
Even more amazing is the way 'He' appears to be fooled by the so-called
'rhtythym method' beloved by the Catholic Church! I stress I am not making
anything up when I say that I heard a 'distinguished' Catholic theologian on
TV, about 20 years ago, passionately insisting that 'medical contraception
was wrong' whereas 'natural contraception, in the form of the so-called
rthtythytmm method' was right. When he was challenged by the programme's
presenter to explain *why* a 'deliberate attempt to prevent conception by
the use of a drug to greatly extend the non-fertile period' was *wrong* when
the 'deliberate, exclusive use, without drugs, of the naturally non-fertile
period' was *right*, his explanation was as follows: he said that the
'rhtytyhyhthythm method' was okay because it *wasn't* actually 'use of the
non-fertile period' -- it was, he said, simply 'non-use of the fertile
period' ... and *what could be wrong with that*...? How could simply 'not
having sex' part of the time, ever be *wrong*...?
I learned something about priestly mendacity that day, I can tell you!!
There's a word for women who practice the rhythm method of birth
control: "mother".
An oldie but goodie, and all too true. ;-)
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
.
|
|
|
| User: "• R. L. Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics kill babies |
03 Jun 2005 05:21:25 AM |
|
|
In article <5umv9153mr9vafqir549091p26q75o7frh@4ax.com>, Uncle Buck
<UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:56:37 GMT, "Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net>
wrote:
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d096ff9f975c992989aaa@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <d33d3s$gj4$1@news3.bu.edu>, RS said...
Wearing a condom is being closed to the gift of life.
How amazing that the almighty master of the cosmos can be foiled
in his gift-giving by a few microns of latex. :)
Even more amazing is the way 'He' appears to be fooled by the so-called
'rhtythym method' beloved by the Catholic Church! I stress I am not making
anything up when I say that I heard a 'distinguished' Catholic theologian on
TV, about 20 years ago, passionately insisting that 'medical contraception
was wrong' whereas 'natural contraception, in the form of the so-called
rthtythytmm method' was right. When he was challenged by the programme's
presenter to explain *why* a 'deliberate attempt to prevent conception by
the use of a drug to greatly extend the non-fertile period' was *wrong* when
the 'deliberate, exclusive use, without drugs, of the naturally non-fertile
period' was *right*, his explanation was as follows: he said that the
'rhtytyhyhthythm method' was okay because it *wasn't* actually 'use of the
non-fertile period' -- it was, he said, simply 'non-use of the fertile
period' ... and *what could be wrong with that*...? How could simply 'not
having sex' part of the time, ever be *wrong*...?
I learned something about priestly mendacity that day, I can tell you!!
There's a word for women who practice the rhythm method of birth
control: "mother".
An oldie but goodie, and all too true. ;-)
--
** Indeed, Buck, and it seems quite unlikely that God's Holy Church is
unaware of this fact of life.
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
.
|
|
|
| User: "Natalie Clifford Barney" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics kill babies |
03 Jun 2005 06:56:55 AM |
|
|
"• R. L. Measures" wrote:
In article <5umv9153mr9vafqir549091p26q75o7frh@4ax.com>, Uncle Buck
<UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:56:37 GMT, "Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net>
wrote:
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d096ff9f975c992989aaa@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <d33d3s$gj4$1@news3.bu.edu>, RS said...
Wearing a condom is being closed to the gift of life.
How amazing that the almighty master of the cosmos can be foiled
in his gift-giving by a few microns of latex. :)
Even more amazing is the way 'He' appears to be fooled by the so-called
'rhtythym method' beloved by the Catholic Church! I stress I am not making
anything up when I say that I heard a 'distinguished' Catholic theologian on
TV, about 20 years ago, passionately insisting that 'medical contraception
was wrong' whereas 'natural contraception, in the form of the so-called
rthtythytmm method' was right. When he was challenged by the programme's
presenter to explain *why* a 'deliberate attempt to prevent conception by
the use of a drug to greatly extend the non-fertile period' was *wrong* when
the 'deliberate, exclusive use, without drugs, of the naturally non-fertile
period' was *right*, his explanation was as follows: he said that the
'rhtytyhyhthythm method' was okay because it *wasn't* actually 'use of the
non-fertile period' -- it was, he said, simply 'non-use of the fertile
period' ... and *what could be wrong with that*...? How could simply 'not
having sex' part of the time, ever be *wrong*...?
I learned something about priestly mendacity that day, I can tell you!!
There's a word for women who practice the rhythm method of birth
control: "mother".
An oldie but goodie, and all too true. ;-)
--
** Indeed, Buck, and it seems quite unlikely that God's Holy Church is
unaware of this fact of life.
"If men could get pregnant, birth control would be a sacrament"
Lady Margaret McMahon, aged 70 spoken in1976
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
--
Bethany: You have issues with Catholicism, I take it?
Serendipity: I have issues with anyone who treats God like a burden instead of a
blessing like some Catholics. You people don't celebrate your faith . . . you mourn
it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JimR" |
|
| Title: In all fairness . . . |
08 Jun 2005 01:17:59 PM |
|
|
"Natalie Clifford Barney" <SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote in message
news:42A04584.82D59B43@20RueJacob.fr...
"If men could get pregnant, birth control would be a sacrament"
Lady Margaret McMahon, aged 70 spoken in1976
This topic would have been moot up to about a century ago. Thomas Edison,
that great American inventor, discovered how to make latex, after having
conducted over 15,000 experiments. Prior to that, "French Letters," as they
were sometimes called, were made of lambskin, and were less-than-perfect
forms of contraception. Even those couples that were dedicated to limiting
their families had inadequate tools with which to do so.
The Church really turned the heat up on birth control with the advent of The
Pill. As I recall, The Pill was initially offered only to married women. I
don't know when that changed, but it must have gone on for at least a few
years.
It was Humanae Vitae that threw down the gauntlet against contraception.
The Pill was big news back then, and Humanae Vitae dovetailed right onto the
Pill's notoriety. That would have been around '67 or '68, right?
I remember hearing 30 years ago that Philadelphia's John Cardinal Krol had
given instructions to priests that all discussion about birth control was to
take place only within the confessional, and not from the pulpit. Some
might have interpreted this as an effort to shield children from an adult
topic, and that might have played some role, but I believe that it really
was because Catholic women were ignoring the Vatican's teachings on the
subject and were following the lead of their Mainline Protestant
counterparts who were embracing The Pill.
There was a surge of ecumenism back then, and Catholics were opening up to
dialogue with other Christians as never before. The Tridentine Mass was set
aside and Catholic services took on more of a Protestant face, with far less
emphasis on ritual. It comes as no surprise that Catholics tended to lock
arms with their Protestant counterparts when it came to limiting family
size.
The newly-emerging cozying-up with Protestants had yet another
effect--Catholics were made aware that there were differing views regarding
the morality of contraception. Other sincere Christians were taking to The
Pill and other new forms of contraception, and they were losing no sleep
over it. And here were the Catholics, all charged up after Vatican II to be
more welcoming of their fellow non-Catholic Christian brethren, at the same
time having to be "different" on a fundamental issue such as spacing out
their offspring.
And there was the influence of television and the movies, bringing further
pressure to bear upon Catholic women to turn their backs on the teachings of
their Church--something their mothers would not have even thought of doing.
No, Cardinal Krol knew that this was an uphill battle when he limited
discussion on it to the confessional. And if a priest were to dare to give
a homily today, teaching that contraception was a mortal sin, I wonder if
some percentage of the congregation would just walk out on him?
I believe that the ban on artificial birth control is going to be seen in
future as THE issue that drove a wedge between the Church hierarchy and the
Faithful. More than any other controversy, it has been the most divisive
issue that has split the Church in modern times.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Karen" |
|
| Title: Re: In all fairness . . . |
08 Jun 2005 02:11:12 PM |
|
|
"JimR" or another member of the consortium <nobody@nowhere.net>
wanked...
This topic would have been moot up to about a century ago. Thomas Edison,
that great American inventor, discovered how to make latex,
http://www.versteegde.nl/Bambustic/RubberBands/
"The ancient Mayan People used latex to make rubber balls, hollow
human figures, and as bindings used to secure axe heads to there
handles and other functions. Latex is the sap of various plants, most
notably the rubber tree. When it is exposed to the air it hardens into
a springy mass. The Mayans learned to mix the rubber sap with the
juice from morning glory vines so that it became more durable and
elastic, and didn't get quite as brittle. Both the rubber tree and the
morning glory were important plants to the Mayan people - the latter
being a hallucinogen as well as a healing herb. They two plants tended
to grow close together. Combining their juices, a black substance
about the texture of a gum-type pencil eraser was formed. Native
peoples in the region still make rubber in the same way."
http://www.littleexplorers.com/inventors/brit.shtml
"Latex (a natural, stretchy substance from which rubber is made) is
extracted from rubber trees. Rubber trees are large trees (belonging
to the spurge family, family Euphorbiaceae) that live in tropical
(warm) areas. These trees are tapped for their latex, which is
produced in their bark layers (latex is not the sap). The Pará rubber
tree (Hevea brasiliensis) is native to South American rain forests,
and grows to be over 100 ft (30 m) tall. In 1876, Henry Wickham
brought seeds from the Para rubber tree (taken from the lower Amazon
area of Brazil) to London, England. Seedlings were grown in London,
and later sent to Ceylon and Singapore. The technique of tapping
rubber trees for their latex was developed in southeast Asia (before
that, the trees were cut down to extract the rubber). Commercial
rubber production now takes place in Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia,
and Sri Lanka (but not significantly in South America)."
http://www.avert.org/condoms.htm
"In 1919, Frederick Killian initiated hand-dipping from natural rubber
latex in Ohio. The latex condoms had the advantage of ageing less
quickly and being thinner and odourless. These new type of condoms
enjoyed a great expansion of sales. By the mid-1930s, the fifteen
largest makers in the U.S. were producing 1.5 million condoms a day."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Darklady" |
|
| Title: Re: In all fairness . . . |
08 Jun 2005 02:59:28 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 18:17:59 GMT, "JimR" <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote:
"Natalie Clifford Barney" <SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote in message
news:42A04584.82D59B43@20RueJacob.fr...
"If men could get pregnant, birth control would be a sacrament"
Lady Margaret McMahon, aged 70 spoken in1976
This topic would have been moot up to about a century ago. Thomas Edison,
that great American inventor, discovered how to make latex, after having
conducted over 15,000 experiments. Prior to that, "French Letters," as they
were sometimes called, were made of lambskin, and were less-than-perfect
forms of contraception. Even those couples that were dedicated to limiting
their families had inadequate tools with which to do so.
The Church really turned the heat up on birth control with the advent of The
Pill. As I recall, The Pill was initially offered only to married women. I
don't know when that changed, but it must have gone on for at least a few
years.
It wasn't so much "only offered to married women," it was
ILLEGAL for non-married women to use it. It wasn't until 1960 that it
became legal for unmarried women to use contraception, I believe. Or
maybe it was 1960 women it became legal to prescribe it to married
women. I just read about this and now I've forgotten the dates...
-- Darklady
http://www.darklady.com
http://www.masturbate-a-thon.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "JimR" |
|
| Title: Re: In all fairness . . . |
08 Jun 2005 03:41:55 PM |
|
|
"Darklady" <darklady@darklady.com> wrote in message
news:gejea1pg2tlosr9fs1ebjt65sh5h6eemv0@4ax.com...
Or maybe it was 1960 women it became legal to prescribe it to married
women. I just read about this and now I've forgotten the dates...
That sounds about right. When did it become legal for unmarried couples to
register in the same hotel room? (Do they still register as "Mr. & Mrs.
John Smith?").
No-fault divorce was introduced about that time, too. "Playboy" magazine
began showing womens' breasts just a couple of years earlier ("It's not a
question of 'Is she doing it,' but "Doing it with whom?'")
The Blue Laws were being challenged too, although New Jersey didn't actually
repeal them until the late 60s.
Lots of radical shifts in attitudes back then, but I was too young to
understand what it was that brought it about. It was before Vietnam
(although the war did serve to turn up the heat on social change).
I didn't know any girls that were on the Pill until I got into college in
1970--and they were being dispensed at the University Health Clinic. I have
no clue when they began doing that.
I still remember Pope Paul visiting the UN in the late 60s. All those
Catholic school girls lining the route, all wearing white gloves. I believe
that was the last time women wore white gloves as part of their wardrobes.
And something called "girdles." What ever happened to those Playtex
girdles? My mother wore them--they were like a tube (as opposed to the
pantygirdle). They went out at about the time that females began wearing
pants, and as far as I know, they never came back.
It seems like it all changed overnight.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Behold Clayton...The Anti-Jeebus!!" |
|
| Title: Re: In all fairness . . . |
08 Jun 2005 06:27:04 PM |
|
|
"JimR" <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:nKIpe.12600$MX2.9583@trndny03...
"Darklady" <darklady@darklady.com> wrote in message
news:gejea1pg2tlosr9fs1ebjt65sh5h6eemv0@4ax.com...
Or maybe it was 1960 women it became legal to prescribe it to married
women. I just read about this and now I've forgotten the dates...
That sounds about right. When did it become legal for unmarried couples
to
register in the same hotel room? (Do they still register as "Mr. & Mrs.
John Smith?").
No-fault divorce was introduced about that time, too. "Playboy" magazine
began showing womens' breasts just a couple of years earlier ("It's not a
question of 'Is she doing it,' but "Doing it with whom?'")
The Blue Laws were being challenged too, although New Jersey didn't
actually
repeal them until the late 60s.
Lots of radical shifts in attitudes back then, but I was too young to
understand what it was that brought it about. It was before Vietnam
(although the war did serve to turn up the heat on social change).
There was a marvelous 8 part TV documentary series called "America in the
50s" that examined all those social changes. If you get a chance, you have
to watch it!
I didn't know any girls that were on the Pill until I got into college in
1970--and they were being dispensed at the University Health Clinic. I
have
no clue when they began doing that.
I still remember Pope Paul visiting the UN in the late 60s. All those
Catholic school girls lining the route, all wearing white gloves. I
believe
that was the last time women wore white gloves as part of their wardrobes.
And something called "girdles." What ever happened to those Playtex
girdles? My mother wore them--they were like a tube (as opposed to the
pantygirdle). They went out at about the time that females began wearing
pants, and as far as I know, they never came back.
It seems like it all changed overnight.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Darklady" |
|
| Title: Re: In all fairness . . . |
12 Jun 2005 06:12:13 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 20:41:55 GMT, "JimR" <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote:
"Darklady" <darklady@darklady.com> wrote in message
news:gejea1pg2tlosr9fs1ebjt65sh5h6eemv0@4ax.com...
<snip>
I still remember Pope Paul visiting the UN in the late 60s. All those
Catholic school girls lining the route, all wearing white gloves. I believe
that was the last time women wore white gloves as part of their wardrobes.
And something called "girdles." What ever happened to those Playtex
girdles? My mother wore them--they were like a tube (as opposed to the
pantygirdle). They went out at about the time that females began wearing
pants, and as far as I know, they never came back.
It seems like it all changed overnight.
But they didn't. They took a long time.
Those girdles are still around. My mom wore one, too. They're
more a fetish item than anything else now since women worry less about
cramming all their body into a foundation garment than they used to...
plus, the foundation garments and body shapers (new word for "girdle")
are made of lighter and more supportive fabric now.
-- Darklady
http://www.darklady.com
http://www.masturbate-a-thon.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Ferris" |
|
| Title: Re: In all fairness . . . |
08 Jun 2005 04:45:33 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 20:41:55 GMT, "JimR" <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote:
That sounds about right. When did it become legal for unmarried couples to
register in the same hotel room? (Do they still register as "Mr. & Mrs.
John Smith?").
Not when I went away with my wife before marriage.
Some family run Hotels still may reject people from booking the same
room, but there are other hotels and people should respect their right
to object.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darklady" |
|
| Title: Re: In all fairness . . . |
12 Jun 2005 06:14:27 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 21:45:33 GMT, Alan Ferris <alan@spamddandd.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 20:41:55 GMT, "JimR" <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote:
That sounds about right. When did it become legal for unmarried couples to
register in the same hotel room? (Do they still register as "Mr. & Mrs.
John Smith?").
Not when I went away with my wife before marriage.
Some family run Hotels still may reject people from booking the same
room, but there are other hotels and people should respect their right
to object.
Before my 2nd ex husband and I got married, we stayed at a bed
and breakfast that was quite explicit about not allowing unmarried
people to stay there. Oddly enough, we were never questioned and
apparently appeared married enough that the owner offered us tickets
to her church's play that night. Instead we stayed in and broke more
of the b&b's rules: we showered in the big shared shower (belonged to
all the rooms on the top floor), drank Black Velvet in bed, and stood
naked on the balcony as we watched the ships come into the river. We
were quiet and didn't bother anyone. No complaints and, in fact, a
warm encouragement to come back. Heh.
-- Darklady
http://www.darklady.com
http://www.masturbate-a-thon.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Ferris" |
|
| Title: Re: In all fairness . . . |
13 Jun 2005 02:17:55 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 16:14:27 -0700, Darklady <darklady@darklady.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 21:45:33 GMT, Alan Ferris <alan@spamddandd.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 20:41:55 GMT, "JimR" <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote:
That sounds about right. When did it become legal for unmarried couples to
register in the same hotel room? (Do they still register as "Mr. & Mrs.
John Smith?").
Not when I went away with my wife before marriage.
Some family run Hotels still may reject people from booking the same
room, but there are other hotels and people should respect their right
to object.
Before my 2nd ex husband and I got married, we stayed at a bed
and breakfast that was quite explicit about not allowing unmarried
people to stay there. Oddly enough, we were never questioned and
apparently appeared married enough that the owner offered us tickets
to her church's play that night. Instead we stayed in and broke more
of the b&b's rules: we showered in the big shared shower (belonged to
all the rooms on the top floor), drank Black Velvet in bed, and stood
naked on the balcony as we watched the ships come into the river. We
were quiet and didn't bother anyone. No complaints and, in fact, a
warm encouragement to come back. Heh.
Exactly the way it normally works.
I have so far never been rejected from a hotel or guest house, but I
have rejected them because of something I disliked. I stayed in one
just one night, my reason for leaving, they were not willing to remove
the crucifix from my room, so I left and found a hotel without one.
These days I can simply ignore them, back then I was a bit more touchy
about such things.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Pease" |
|
| Title: Re: In all fairness . . . |
13 Jun 2005 02:23:48 PM |
|
|
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:n2nra1duu4o8h1pj3k3te1me4l28t6ep3j@4ax.com...
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 16:14:27 -0700, Darklady <darklady@darklady.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 21:45:33 GMT, Alan Ferris <alan@spamddandd.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 20:41:55 GMT, "JimR" <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote:
That sounds about right. When did it become legal for unmarried
couples to
register in the same hotel room? (Do they still register as "Mr. &
Mrs.
John Smith?").
Not when I went away with my wife before marriage.
Some family run Hotels still may reject people from booking the same
room, but there are other hotels and people should respect their right
to object.
Before my 2nd ex husband and I got married, we stayed at a bed
and breakfast that was quite explicit about not allowing unmarried
people to stay there. Oddly enough, we were never questioned and
apparently appeared married enough that the owner offered us tickets
to her church's play that night. Instead we stayed in and broke more
of the b&b's rules: we showered in the big shared shower (belonged to
all the rooms on the top floor), drank Black Velvet in bed, and stood
naked on the balcony as we watched the ships come into the river. We
were quiet and didn't bother anyone. No complaints and, in fact, a
warm encouragement to come back. Heh.
Exactly the way it normally works.
I have so far never been rejected from a hotel or guest house, but I
have rejected them because of something I disliked. I stayed in one
just one night, my reason for leaving, they were not willing to remove
the crucifix from my room, so I left and found a hotel without one.
These days I can simply ignore them, back then I was a bit more touchy
about such things.
you can fucking straight believe that they wouldn't have a;;owed a statue of
Krishna..
p
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Ferris" |
|
| Title: Re: In all fairness . . . |
14 Jun 2005 01:36:07 PM |
|
|
On 13 Jun 2005 15:23:48 EDT, "Bob Pease"
<robertjp@popebobby2.youknow.net> wrote:
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:n2nra1duu4o8h1pj3k3te1me4l28t6ep3j@4ax.com...
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 16:14:27 -0700, Darklady <darklady@darklady.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 21:45:33 GMT, Alan Ferris <alan@spamddandd.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 20:41:55 GMT, "JimR" <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote:
That sounds about right. When did it become legal for unmarried
couples to
register in the same hotel room? (Do they still register as "Mr. &
Mrs.
John Smith?").
Not when I went away with my wife before marriage.
Some family run Hotels still may reject people from booking the same
room, but there are other hotels and people should respect their right
to object.
Before my 2nd ex husband and I got married, we stayed at a bed
and breakfast that was quite explicit about not allowing unmarried
people to stay there. Oddly enough, we were never questioned and
apparently appeared married enough that the owner offered us tickets
to her church's play that night. Instead we stayed in and broke more
of the b&b's rules: we showered in the big shared shower (belonged to
all the rooms on the top floor), drank Black Velvet in bed, and stood
naked on the balcony as we watched the ships come into the river. We
were quiet and didn't bother anyone. No complaints and, in fact, a
warm encouragement to come back. Heh.
Exactly the way it normally works.
I have so far never been rejected from a hotel or guest house, but I
have rejected them because of something I disliked. I stayed in one
just one night, my reason for leaving, they were not willing to remove
the crucifix from my room, so I left and found a hotel without one.
These days I can simply ignore them, back then I was a bit more touchy
about such things.
you can fucking straight believe that they wouldn't have a;;owed a statue of
Krishna..
I might just buy one to take with me :)
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie B." |
|
| Title: Re: In all fairness . . . |
08 Jun 2005 05:56:18 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 21:45:33 GMT, Alan Ferris <alan@spamddandd.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 20:41:55 GMT, "JimR" <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote:
That sounds about right. When did it become legal for unmarried couples to
register in the same hotel room? (Do they still register as "Mr. & Mrs.
John Smith?").
Not when I went away with my wife before marriage.
Some family run Hotels still may reject people from booking the same
room, but there are other hotels and people should respect their right
to object.
Just as those hotels should respect my right to e-mail, phone, and fax
everyone I've ever met about the bases for their establishment's
acceptance of bookings. <smirk>
Hugs,
Bonnie *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Ferris" |
|
| Title: Re: In all fairness . . . |
09 Jun 2005 01:01:22 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:56:18 -0700, Bonnie B. <456eerts@emas.org>
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 21:45:33 GMT, Alan Ferris <alan@spamddandd.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 20:41:55 GMT, "JimR" <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote:
That sounds about right. When did it become legal for unmarried couples to
register in the same hotel room? (Do they still register as "Mr. & Mrs.
John Smith?").
Not when I went away with my wife before marriage.
Some family run Hotels still may reject people from booking the same
room, but there are other hotels and people should respect their right
to object.
Just as those hotels should respect my right to e-mail, phone, and fax
everyone I've ever met about the bases for their establishment's
acceptance of bookings. <smirk>
In this country it is part of their advertisement. Saves people being
disappointed. They will normally even supply details of local hotels
what will cater to your needs.
This is standard in the UK. I always like Guest Houses that do not
accept children, simply because when I am away for a dirty weekend I
like the peace and quiet away from the children :)
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie B." |
|
| Title: Re: In all fairness . . . |
09 Jun 2005 04:15:32 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 18:01:22 GMT, Alan Ferris <alan@spamddandd.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:56:18 -0700, Bonnie B. <456eerts@emas.org>
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 21:45:33 GMT, Alan Ferris <alan@spamddandd.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 20:41:55 GMT, "JimR" <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote:
That sounds about right. When did it become legal for unmarried couples to
register in the same hotel room? (Do they still register as "Mr. & Mrs.
John Smith?").
Not when I went away with my wife before marriage.
Some family run Hotels still may reject people from booking the same
room, but there are other hotels and people should respect their right
to object.
Just as those hotels should respect my right to e-mail, phone, and fax
everyone I've ever met about the bases for their establishment's
acceptance of bookings. <smirk>
In this country it is part of their advertisement. Saves people being
disappointed. They will normally even supply details of local hotels
what will cater to your needs.
I guess I've been here in the US way too long.
We don't have things like that. It's even difficult to find a hotel
that will accept overnight guests with a dog.
This is standard in the UK. I always like Guest Houses that do not
accept children, simply because when I am away for a dirty weekend I
like the peace and quiet away from the children :)
Al, you rascal!
Hugs,
Bonnie *****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Catholics kill babies |
05 Jun 2005 11:41:13 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 11:56:55 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
<SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
"• R. L. Measures" wrote:
In article <5umv9153mr9vafqir549091p26q75o7frh@4ax.com>, Uncle Buck
<UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:56:37 GMT, "Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net>
wrote:
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d096ff9f975c992989aaa@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <d33d3s$gj4$1@news3.bu.edu>, RS said...
Wearing a condom is being closed to the gift of life.
How amazing that the almighty master of the cosmos can be foiled
in his gift-giving by a few microns of latex. :)
Even more amazing is the way 'He' appears to be fooled by the so-called
'rhtythym method' beloved by the Catholic Church! I stress I am not making
anything up when I say that I heard a 'distinguished' Catholic theologian on
TV, about 20 years ago, passionately insisting that 'medical contraception
was wrong' whereas 'natural contraception, in the form of the so-called
rthtythytmm method' was right. When he was challenged by the programme's
presenter to explain *why* a 'deliberate attempt to prevent conception by
the use of a drug to greatly extend the non-fertile period' was *wrong* when
the 'deliberate, exclusive use, without drugs, of the naturally non-fertile
period' was *right*, his explanation was as follows: he said that the
'rhtytyhyhthythm method' was okay because it *wasn't* actually 'use of the
non-fertile period' -- it was, he said, simply 'non-use of the fertile
period' ... and *what could be wrong with that*...? How could simply 'not
having sex' part of the time, ever be *wrong*...?
I learned something about priestly mendacity that day, I can tell you!!
There's a word for women who practice the rhythm method of birth
control: "mother".
An oldie but goodie, and all too true. ;-)
--
** Indeed, Buck, and it seems quite unlikely that God's Holy Church is
unaware of this fact of life.
"If men could get pregnant, birth control would be a sacrament"
Lady Margaret McMahon, aged 70 spoken in 1976
That's a fact.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
