Replies

I conclude that it is your belief that any sexual intercourse that is not engaged in solely for the purpose of procreation is sinful and comparable to sodomy and other vile sins?

No, that was the Puritan (protestant, mind you) position.

I have just proved to you, irrefutably, that the Catholic position on contraception is the continual Christian position.

Yet you continue these juvenile antics, and refuse to admit this obvious truth. It casts long shadows on the rest of your personal interpretation of scripture, and it shows your intellectual dishonesty and spiritual immaturity.

I have just proved to you, irrefutably, that the Catholic position on contraception is the continual Christian position.

You've proved nothing of the sort.

Your pope can't even convince his own flock. And I'm not too convinced his efforts are actually sincere.

And yet, here you are, trying to convince the very latex-peddling Pr-r-r-r-rotestants who have caused the whole situation that they are in the wrong?

What precisely do you hope to accomplish with non-RCs when RCs themselves don't actually accept this teaching?

I notice that you dodged my question about whether sex is sinful except when engaged in purely for procreation. I think you're aware that some of those ancient Christians you quoted did mean exactly that. Some of them believed it was best for a husband and wife to refrain completely from sex except for the purposes of procreation. And the notion of sexual pleasure as, for instance, limned in the Song of Solomon was somewhat foreign to their ideals of married Christian life.

And I do not consider their views on these subjects absolutely binding or authoritative. We really do not know their actual practices and the doctrine (if any) of all of the ancient churches in these matters. However, we do know that to a man, they chose torture and death rather than repudiate Christ by bowing to the emperor's idol or making a token sacrifice. But you want us to obey your pope who kisses Korans.