Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Pope Thread (merged)

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

Postby Ebyss » Sun 03 Apr 2005, 19:49:03

Cardinal Georges Cottier seems to have a different opinion about the use of condoms. Apparantly they are ok if you already have AIDS and intend to be sexually active. Imagine those people had used Condoms? They wouldn't have caught AIDS.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'V')atican, Feb. 01 (CWNews.com) - Cardinal Georges Cottier, the theologian to the pontifical household, has said that condoms can be used in the battle against AIDS-- but only under highly limited circumstances.



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he cardinal said that condom use is legitimate when it is a means of avoiding the transfer of the HIV virus during sexual intercourse. He observed that "along with life, there is the risk of also transmitting death" when one sexual partner is HIV-positive. In those circumstances, he said, "one must respect the defense of life," and heed the command, "Thou shalt not kill."



http://www.oremus.com/aboutoremus.htm

Catholics with AIDS.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')f course, but that was not the topic of discussion. Or are you suggesting that we use condoms and put them over our needles? Please stick to the topic at hand.


You maintain that Catholics do not have AIDS due to abstinence. A complete fallacy. As AIDS can be contracted in other ways, abstinence is not going to control it if you catch it from a different source. I think that is massively pertinent to the argument at hand. You can't ignore it simply because it doesn't fit in with your argument.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think I just showed you the contrary.



I think you didn't.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hen we can expand: when more Africans are Catholics - that is: fewer people with AIDS - their societies will not collapse, which leads to less people starving.


Please show me facts that support this argument. I have showed you that Catholics can have AIDS. Please show evidence that they do not.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')atholicism does even more: it prevents STDs from spreading in society in the first place.


Again, I would ask for evidence that STD's do not exist among Catholics. Condoms have proven to be at least 95% effective in preventing STD's and unwanted pregnancies. Please show evidence that Catholicism has the same success rate.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')The more Christian children the better


That contributes directly to overpopulation, which leads to starvation and suffering in many instances.

I speak from personal experience when I say that Catholics can have unwanted pregnancies. My own grandmother, a staunch Catholic, was pregnant with her first child age 17. She was unmarried.

May I ask, what is your opinion on divorce?
We've tried nothin' and we're all out of ideas.

I am only one. I can only do what one can do. But what one can do, I will do. -- John Seymour.
User avatar
Ebyss
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 834
Joined: Sun 20 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Ireland
Top

Postby lorenzo » Sun 03 Apr 2005, 19:55:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ebyss', 'C')ardinal Georges Cottier seems to have a different opinion about the use of condoms. Apparantly they are ok if you already have AIDS and intend to be sexually active. Imagine those people had used Condoms? They wouldn't have caught AIDS.


Of course, but that's logical, because if you have AIDS and you go and have sex with someone, unprotected, you are committing the gravest sin imaginable: murder.

Adultery is a grave sin too, but murder is far worse. And since Catholicism condemns all sins, but is not a fundamentalist form of Christianity (unlike many protestant sects), there can be debate, and a rational, ethico-theological, sociological and moral discussion about such topics.

Cardinal Danneels has said the same thing as Cottier. But that doesn't change the point: condoms should not be the way to stop the spread of AIDS, there are far better ways, like abstinence.
The Beginning is Near!
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Postby Ebyss » Sun 03 Apr 2005, 19:57:56

I see your point Geology_Guy, but I find the differences just too great. Many civilisations have risen to the greatest heights, and fallen to the lowest depths. The Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Aztecs, the Incas and of course the Romans all fit into this category. They existed in greatness without the Catholic Church, they fell without it. Rome and Egypt were on their way out when Catholicism was on it's way in. It doesn't necessarily imply any causality (although, I know, the history of Rome and Catholicism are intertwined.. it's just, Rome and Egypt had started to delcine before Catholicism was even invented).

By your argument, perhaps we should look to civilisations that have existed and prospered longer than the Catholic Church. May I suggest Buddism? It has existed longer than Catholicism, and prospers in any countries around the world.

(and no, I am not a Buddhist. I belong to no religion)
We've tried nothin' and we're all out of ideas.

I am only one. I can only do what one can do. But what one can do, I will do. -- John Seymour.
User avatar
Ebyss
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 834
Joined: Sun 20 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Ireland
Top

Postby Ebyss » Sun 03 Apr 2005, 20:04:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')f course, but that's logical, because if you have AIDS and you go and have sex with someone, unprotected, you are committing the gravest sin imaginable: murder.

Adultery is a grave sin too, but murder is far worse. And since Catholicism condemns all sins, but is not a fundamentalist form of Christianity (unlike many protestant sects), there can be debate, and a rational, ethico-theological, sociological and moral discussion about such topics.

Cardinal Danneels has said the same thing as Cottier. But that doesn't change the point: condoms should not be the way to stop the spread of AIDS, there are far better ways, like abstinence.



Yes, but I think you're missing the point. We know Condoms are effective for those who do not choose abstinence (and these people clearly did not). Now which is the greater evil, sex or AIDS? The Cardinal says that if people with AIDS wish to continue to have sex (which he obviously sees as a possible choice), then for the greater good, they should use condoms. Apply the same logic to "sinners" who have sex out of wedlock (and believe me, there are many Catholics who fit into this category) before they catch AIDS, should they not use condoms to prevent the spread of STD's and unwanted pregnancies? The Cardinal clearly believes that the use of Condoms prevents the spread of disease, why not support the use of condoms as a counter measure should people not be able to resist temptation (clearly there are many of them).
We've tried nothin' and we're all out of ideas.

I am only one. I can only do what one can do. But what one can do, I will do. -- John Seymour.
User avatar
Ebyss
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 834
Joined: Sun 20 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Ireland
Top

Postby lorenzo » Sun 03 Apr 2005, 20:09:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ebyss', '
')You maintain that Catholics do not have AIDS due to abstinence.


I did not say that no Catholic has AIDS. I said that if you apply the rules of the Catholic Church to your lifestyle, you won't get AIDS because of your own behavior.

Again, you should not confuse the principle (of Catholic values) with the reality (the fact that there may exceptionally be pious Catholics who have AIDS.)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ebyss', '
')As AIDS can be contracted in other ways, abstinence is not going to control it if you catch it from a different source.


But I repeat: abstinence has nothing to do with dirty needles.

Let's look at a hypothetical situation: if ALL people were Catholics, and ALL people were GOOD Catholics, AIDS would not spread in the first place (and there would be no "other ways to contract it"). So the principle remains robust, hypothetically.

Now I understand your concern with the reality on the ground: that even a Catholic can get infected through, say, a blood transfusion. But then that is called an accident, and not a sin on his part. That's a crucial difference, don't you think?

Again, keep the distinction between the moral law, and the reality.

The fact is that the overwhelming majority of infections happens through adulterous sex.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hen we can expand: when more Africans are Catholics - that is: fewer people with AIDS - their societies will not collapse, which leads to less people starving.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ebyss', '
')Please show me facts that support this argument. I have showed you that Catholics can have AIDS. Please show evidence that they do not.



I think the facts speak for themselves: if you are a loyal Catholic married couple, this implies you are not adulturous and so you won't get AIDS. It's as simple as that. If you do get AIDS, then this means you're not a Catholic, or that you have gravely sinned, or that you have contracted the disease in an accident.
It's quite simple really.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ebyss', 'A')gain, I would ask for evidence that STD's do not exist among Catholics.

Same line of argument as the above one.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ebyss', ' ')Condoms have proven to be at least 95% effective in preventing STD's and unwanted pregnancies. Please show evidence that Catholicism has the same success rate.

Catholicism has a 100% success rate + all kinds of beneficial socio-economic effects which lead to healthier people (this is a well known medical fact, at least for Europe and America: Catholic Americans live longer than Protestant Americans, and both live longer than Atheists).


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ebyss', 'T')hat contributes directly to overpopulation, which leads to starvation and suffering in many instances.

Not at all. Modernity leads to overpopulation. Catholicism has always honored the "go and make children" message; for over 2000 years now.

Overpopulation has only started since modernity and industrialization.

Catholicism has no responsability whatsoever here. Please keep the discussion serious.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ebyss', 'M')ay I ask, what is your opinion on divorce?

Divorce is a grave sin and a weakness that can be combatted by combatting modern liberalism which leads to shallow consumer-marriages.
Last edited by lorenzo on Sun 03 Apr 2005, 20:24:52, edited 1 time in total.
The Beginning is Near!
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Postby lorenzo » Sun 03 Apr 2005, 20:19:42

Your argumentation is too circular. You say:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ebyss', 'W')e know Condoms are effective for those who do not choose abstinence (and these people clearly did not).


You use these exceptional and wrong circumstances, to legitimize the use of condoms as a general method for the prevention of the spread of AIDS.

So I have to repeat: if people choose abstinence and loyalty in marriage, they won't get AIDS, and they won't need condoms in the first place.


You should not use the symptoms to fight the disease. You have to fight the disease at its root. And that root is a lack of abstinence, adultery, modernity, and spiritual shallowness leading to consumer-sex.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ebyss', 'T')he Cardinal says that if people with AIDS wish to continue to have sex (which he obviously sees as a possible choice), then for the greater good, they should use condoms.


Of course, and that can be normal Catholic doctrine without any problem: use one sin to combat a far worse sin.

Many great Catholics have sinned in order to preserve life, or for the greater good. And these sins will be forgiven.

But these exceptional circumstances are no ground to change the basic rule. I don't understand why you don't see the logic in this.

So again: these exceptional and contradictory situations do not at all change the basic ethical stance of the Pope, namely that abstinence and loyal marriage are the best way to stop the spread of AIDS.
Last edited by lorenzo on Sun 03 Apr 2005, 20:26:43, edited 1 time in total.
The Beginning is Near!
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Postby Ebyss » Sun 03 Apr 2005, 20:26:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut I repeat: abstinence has nothing to do with dirty needles.

Let's look at a hypothetical situation: if ALL people were Catholics, and ALL people were GOOD Catholics, AIDS would not spread in the first place (and there would be no "other ways to contract it"). So the principle remains robust, hypothetically.

Now I understand your concern with the reality on the ground: that even a Catholic can get infected through, say, a blood transfusion. But then that is called an accident, and not a sin on his part. That's a crucial difference, don't you think?


Your hypothetical situation is absolutely correct. Unfortunately, it does not tally with reality. The reality is that abstinence is not upheld amoung Catholics, and members of other religions. The reality is that not all Catholics are good Catholics (indeed, you may be the only one). Using your own line "The difference between principle and reality", tell me what is the reality of the situation? And what is more likely to help prevent the spread of AIDS? Catholicism? Condoms? Sex Education? A combined effort? Should not the emphasis be on eliminating the disease using whatever manner possible? Or do you condemn those "sinners", who do not abstain, with AIDS simply because you say it is wrong to use condoms?

The reality of the situation dictates that principle is irrelevent. Get rid of AIDS however possible.
We've tried nothin' and we're all out of ideas.

I am only one. I can only do what one can do. But what one can do, I will do. -- John Seymour.
User avatar
Ebyss
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 834
Joined: Sun 20 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Ireland
Top

Postby lorenzo » Sun 03 Apr 2005, 20:29:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ebyss', 'T')he reality is that abstinence is not upheld amoung Catholics, and members of other religions.


Then they are not Catholics. If you are a Catholic, you abstain from adulterous and sinful sex.

Again: you want to use sins as a ground to base a positive Catholic rule on. That's simply impossible. Catholic ethics is not built on sins.

And after you've used sins as a pseudo-ground for a rule, you want to use this new rule to legitimize more sins. Ad infinitum, no doubt. You see that this boat won't float.
The Beginning is Near!
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Postby Ebyss » Sun 03 Apr 2005, 20:35:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')gain: you want to use sins as a ground to base a positive Catholic rule on. That's simply impossible. Catholic ethics is not built on sins.


Again: You want to fight principle with reality. What you say is true, Catholics who do not follow the rules are not Catholics, that's the principle. The reality is somewhat different. Catholics are, by their very existence, sinners... to be born is a sin, to have sex is a sin, to reproduce is a sin, and yet you must "go forth and multiply". There is no logic there. The reality is that 91% of my people declare themselves Catholic, and yet over 50% voted for divorce. 91% declare themselves Catholic, and yet we have more unmarried mothers than ever. The principle of Catholicism works, the reality does not.
We've tried nothin' and we're all out of ideas.

I am only one. I can only do what one can do. But what one can do, I will do. -- John Seymour.
User avatar
Ebyss
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 834
Joined: Sun 20 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Ireland
Top

Postby lorenzo » Sun 03 Apr 2005, 20:37:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ebyss', 'S')hould not the emphasis be on eliminating the disease using whatever manner possible?


Absolutely not! :) The idea is to get rid of AIDS by eliminating the causes of AIDS (adulturous, promiscuous sex, decay of ethical norms, etc...).

If you fight AIDS by allowing sins, you basically say that sins solve sins; while on the contrary, it's those same sins, that have led to the spread of AIDS in the first place.

You don't have to fight sins with allowing more sins. You have to fight sins with ethics. Put differently: you can never win the fight against AIDS if you don't change people's behavior fundamentally.

You have to change people's views on sexuality, in a positive way. Not just throw them a pack of condoms and then leave.

This principle is super strong, and has a true impact on the lives of those who live by it. On their reality, that is.
The Beginning is Near!
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Postby lorenzo » Sun 03 Apr 2005, 20:41:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ebyss', 'Y')ou want to fight principle with reality.


On the contrary! Catholicism fights a horrible reality with principles!

I understand that you say that this doesn't work. But it does. (I think there should be more scientific studies showing the reality on the ground, then you'll see that pious Catholic couples in Africa suffer less under AIDS than atheist or unconverted couples - but of course, this kind of research would be labelled christocentric or whatever).
The Beginning is Near!
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Postby lorenzo » Sun 03 Apr 2005, 20:44:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ebyss', 't')o have sex is a sin, to reproduce is a sin, and yet you must "go forth and multiply". There is no logic there.


Huh? Catholicism has never said that having sex is a sin. Jamais.

The Catholic Church does say however that having adulturous sex, promiscuous relations outside marriage, is a sin.

Catholics have sex all the time. Just look at how many Catholic children are born every year. Having sex is not a sin at all.

On the contrary, the Catholic Church is a celebration of love and sexuality!
The Beginning is Near!
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Postby Ebyss » Sun 03 Apr 2005, 20:44:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')bsolutely not! The idea is to get rid of AIDS by eliminating the causes of AIDS (adulturous, promiscuous sex, decay of ethical norms, etc...).


Yup, I agree... I never said that these were not problems. The reality is they exist thoroughly in Catholic society. I have given examples of how in my previous posts.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou have to change people's views on sexuality, in a positive way. Not just throw them a pack of condoms and then leave.


I never suggested that. I am all for sex education, something the Catholic Church is not. I suggest using all means at our disposal to get rid of the disease, even for people who refuse to comply with the Catholic doctrine.

Like I said, you are preaching principle. Look at the reality. Not all non-Catholics who have sex have Std's (I'm happy to say I fit into that category, not because I abstain, but because I use my head and have protected sex with my boyfriend of 9 years). Why exclude a prefectly suitable (and proven) means of preventing AIDS just because you don't want to use it?
We've tried nothin' and we're all out of ideas.

I am only one. I can only do what one can do. But what one can do, I will do. -- John Seymour.
User avatar
Ebyss
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 834
Joined: Sun 20 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Ireland
Top

Postby lorenzo » Sun 03 Apr 2005, 20:47:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ebyss', 'I') am all for sex education, something the Catholic Church is not.


You should read the Bible. It is the biggest and most widely read sex education book ever written. Also the one with mose wisdom in it.

The Pope is the greatest sex educator in the history of mankind, reaching more people than any secular sex education initiative or government ever will.

I think you have a strange opinion about what the Catholic Church stands for. :)
The Beginning is Near!
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Postby lorenzo » Sun 03 Apr 2005, 20:52:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ebyss', 'W')hy exclude a prefectly suitable (and proven) means of preventing AIDS just because you don't want to use it?


A word about condoms: condoms only solve a very small part of a very big equation (called life).

But if you promote this narrowminded "solution" as a general means to solve a much bigger problem (growing ignorance about sexuality, promiscuity, etc...), then you worsen the problem as a whole.

Condoms promote the idea that sex should be a value-less, purely hedonistic activity.

The Catholic Church has a more mature view on what sexuality really is. And it has the perfect right to promote this wiser view.
The Beginning is Near!
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Postby Ebyss » Sun 03 Apr 2005, 20:52:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his is another common misunderstanding. Procreation is the primary purpose of sexual intercourse, but not the sole purpose. The Church has always recognized the importance of marital love and the legitimacy of having relations to satisfy physical urges (as the Bible says, "It is better to marry than to burn" -I Corinthians 7:9)


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')uh? Catholicism has never said that having sex is a sin.


Catholicism says it in my country. I can remember priests saying this very thing. They must not have been "true" Catholics. Or perhaps it was a discrepancy in the teaching, after all there are many of those.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Catholic Church does say however that having adulturous sex, promiscuous relations outside marriage, is a sin.


Were Adam and Eve married? I think not. Were their children, born out of wedlock, not "sinners" and thus every child from those two people would be "sinners". (Jeez, talk about your inbreeding, I thought that was a sin aswell.. obviously not)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')atholics have sex all the time. Just look at how many Catholic children are born every year. Having sex is not a sin at all.


You don't need to tell me. My country is full of them.
We've tried nothin' and we're all out of ideas.

I am only one. I can only do what one can do. But what one can do, I will do. -- John Seymour.
User avatar
Ebyss
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 834
Joined: Sun 20 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Ireland
Top

Postby lorenzo » Sun 03 Apr 2005, 20:56:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ebyss', 'n')ot because I abstain, but because I use my head and have protected sex with my boyfriend of 9 years


May I ask you why you are having sex when you are not married? Is it just a physical urge? :wink:

And why don't you marry? If you really love your boyfriend you should marry and make children. You should not just have a job, make love, and watch TV. That's not good. You should celebrate and consecrate your love by marrying. Then you can have sex to make babies. :)
Last edited by lorenzo on Sun 03 Apr 2005, 20:57:23, edited 1 time in total.
The Beginning is Near!
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Postby Ebyss » Sun 03 Apr 2005, 20:57:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou should read the Bible. It is the biggest and most widely read sex education book ever written. Also the one with mose wisdom in it.

The Pope is the greatest sex educator in the history of mankind, reaching more people than any secular sex education initiative or government ever will.


That is really just opinion, it has no basis in fact. Medical fact that is.. I suggest medical books if people want to learn about sex... the Bible preaches according to a set of beliefs, it's not appropriate as a sex education tool to those outside the religion.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think you have a strange opinion about what the Catholic Church stands for.



Living in a country dominated by Catholics, I know pretty well what it stands for in reality. Greed. I've had Catholicism shoved down my throat at every available opportunity (I still get the envelope for the "Easter Dues" every year, despite the fact that I have never set foot in that particular church. I owe them nothing. :roll: )
We've tried nothin' and we're all out of ideas.

I am only one. I can only do what one can do. But what one can do, I will do. -- John Seymour.
User avatar
Ebyss
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 834
Joined: Sun 20 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Ireland
Top

Postby lorenzo » Sun 03 Apr 2005, 21:01:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ebyss', '
')That is really just opinion, it has no basis in fact. Medical fact that is


Well, thinking that the medicalization of life will solve all problems or will make use wiser about sex, is also very much merely opinion.



(By the way, -- this has nothing to do with sexual health per se, but it's a pointer -- there is quite a lot of socio-scientific research showing that Catholics are healthier than Protestants, and far healthier than Atheists - in general.)
The Beginning is Near!
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Postby Ebyss » Sun 03 Apr 2005, 21:05:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ay I ask you why you are having sex when you are not married? Is it just a physical urge?

And why don't you marry? If you really love your boyfriend you should marry and make children. You should not just have a job, make love, and watch TV. That's not good. You should celebrate and consecrate your love by marrying. Then you can have sex to make babies.


May I ask why we should?

I have sex because I enjoy it, when I want to "make babies" I will, but not until then. Love and marriage have little to do with each other. My grandmother married because she was pregnant. She spat out children every year by an abusive husband, and wouldn't even think about "divorce" (it wasn't even legal then, so it wasn't an option). So she stayed while he beat the shit out of her.
My own parents were not married until a few months ago (I'm 26.. and they married in a registy office), they had two children and we all had a very happy family life. According to the Church we are the ultimate sinners, and yet my parents are the most generous people I know. They have raised two caring and compassionate daughters, who have enough common sense to know what is right and what is wrong without having to have a priest tell them. I have lived in this "sinful" situation all my life, and have seen that it can be as good as any marriage. Thus marriage has no hold over me.

You don't need Catholicism to be a good person. Not all Catholics are good people.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')You should not just have a job, make love, and watch TV.


You assume too much. That's not my life at all.

Note that I would never tell you how you should live, you have no right to tell me how I should live.
We've tried nothin' and we're all out of ideas.

I am only one. I can only do what one can do. But what one can do, I will do. -- John Seymour.
User avatar
Ebyss
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 834
Joined: Sun 20 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Ireland
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests



cron