Vatican plan to block gay priests

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

The Catholic church does not require it's members to be celibate.

---

l didn't say it did, but don't let that stop you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

In successive encyclicals and other statements, culminating in the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, the church has taken a consistently intransigent stand against all manifestations of permissiveness. Chastity is a requirement for all Catholics, whether married or single. The Church explicitly forbids, under pain of mortal sin, all forms of premarital or extramarital sex, masturbation, oral or anal sex, contraception and abortion, coitus interruptus and homosexual acts.


.. and this from somewhere else ...

These beliefs are grounded in their concept of natural law. The church once taught that the sole purpose of sex -- and marriage -- was procreation. They have modified this stance in recent decades by admitting that also has a unitive function; it bonds married couples closer together and strengthens their relationship. But, since the Church still regards the main purpose of sex to be procreation, they insist that any ethical sexual act must be open to conception. On this basis, they forbid the use of artificial methods of birth control, and consider any sexual behavior other than intercourse between a husband and wife to be a grave moral sin. Forbidden practices include masturbation, pre-marital sex, post-marital sex, extra-marital sex and all same-sex behaviors.

It says here that the church once taught it, and no longer do, however, they have never officially stated that fact.

---

Post all the crap you wish to "google" for. You're still wrong.

The Catholic church does not require it's members to be celibate.

---

Exactly....what will the church do....kick every member out. :dry:

Awww SillyHillBilly what name will you come back as next time...

UKResident, RioDeLeo, whypikonme, ?????????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

In some places, I'd imagine that consensual sex os ok at 15.

---

Only if it's a blood relative and your name be BillyBob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

In some places, I'd imagine that consensual sex os ok at 15.

---

Only if it's a blood relative and your name be BillyBob.

---

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Exactly....what will the church do....kick every member out.

---

But, since the Church still regards the main purpose of sex to be procreation, they insist that any ethical sexual act must be open to conception.

So, sex only between married couples in the act of conception.

You really should do something about that thar red neck BusyPerson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

In some places, I'd imagine that consensual sex os ok at 15.

---

In Iowa and South Carolina it's 14 , so l take it that's redneck country?

In some places, like Chile, Malta, The Philipines, among others, it's 12.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Exactly....what will the church do....kick every member out.

---

But, since the Church still regards the main purpose of sex to be procreation, they insist that any ethical sexual act must be open to conception.

So, sex only between married couples in the act of conception.

You really should do something about that thar red neck BusyPerson.

---

FFS you even mis-quote your own quote. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

FFS you even mis-quote your own quote. :lol:

---

Really? How did that happen when l cut and pasted it? You must be confused. :lol:

But keep going, l'm sure you can find a grammatical error somewhere if you really try, it beats coming up with intelligent answers. :angel1:

" .... they insist that any ethical sexual act must be open to conception."

is not the same as

"So, sex only between married couples in the act of conception."

See it's in the words "open to" is not the same as "in the act of".

The Catholic Church does not teach that it's members must be celibate other than to procreate.

Is http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rom.htm an official Catholic doctrine website, I only wonder as you appear to have used it a a source for the Catholic Church's teachings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Exactly....what will the church do....kick every member out.

---

But, since the Church still regards the main purpose of sex to be procreation, they insist that any ethical sexual act must be open to conception.

So, sex only between married couples in the act of conception.

You really should do something about that thar red neck BusyPerson.

---

Wtf?!! :blink:

So I take it that there is no sin by members of the Catholic Church. What's the point of church then? :dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

But, since the Church still regards the main purpose of sex to be procreation, they insist that any ethical sexual act must be open to conception.

---

Since there isn't a 100% method of contraception, I'm presuming that you're talking pish.

A combination pill is something like 98% so technically a sexual act while using this form of contraception is still open to conception, albeit to a lesser degree - yet I'm sure that the Catholic church doesn't advocate this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

But, since the Church still regards the main purpose of sex to be procreation, they insist that any ethical sexual act must be open to conception.

---

Since there isn't a 100% method of contraception, I'm presuming that you're talking pish.

A combination pill is something like 98% so technically a sexual act while using this form of contraception is still open to conception, albeit to a lesser degree - yet I'm sure that the Catholic church doesn't advocate this.

---

Oh FFS stop thinking, "google" stuff from the interweb then put your own spin on it. That's the ticket.

what's with the anti google sentiment? :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

what's with the anti google sentiment? :(

---

Googling for statistics or something, is fine.

Googling for an opinion because you lack one yourself is teh suck.

That's the way I see it :lookaroun

The truth is out there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

But, since the Church still regards the main purpose of sex to be procreation, they insist that any ethical sexual act must be open to conception.

---

Since there isn't a 100% method of contraception, I'm presuming that you're talking pish.

A combination pill is something like 98% so technically a sexual act while using this form of contraception is still open to conception, albeit to a lesser degree - yet I'm sure that the Catholic church doesn't advocate this.

---

l take it you're referring to the owner of those words when you make that remark Manky, you wouldn't just be looking for another excuse to insult someone, would you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

So I take it that there is no sin by members of the Catholic Church. What's the point of church then? :dry:

---

Members of the Catholic church are allowed to sin all they want Busy, as long as they confess, this was why so many converted when the Romans made the religion up. So in a way you're right, there is no sin Catholics cannot commit without being forgiven by the church. In a way, it's a bit like Devil worship, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Since there isn't a 100% method of contraception, I'm presuming that you're talking pish.

A combination pill is something like 98% so technically a sexual act while using this form of contraception is still open to conception, albeit to a lesser degree - yet I'm sure that the Catholic church doesn't advocate this.

---

l take it you're referring to the owner of those words when you make that remark Manky, you wouldn't just be looking for another excuse to insult someone, would you?

---

I don't need an excuse but posting someone else's pish normally does it for me. Thanks for that.

Taking the time to google and copy/paste drivel is just as reprehensible as making it up and posting it yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Taking the time to google and copy/paste drivel is just as reprehensible as making it up and posting it yourself.

---

So why do you do it then?

You should stick to your grammar-nazi persona, at least we know where we stand then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Taking the time to google and copy/paste drivel is just as reprehensible as making it up and posting it yourself.

---

So why do you do it then?

You should stick to your grammar-nazi persona, at least we know where we stand then.

---

You posted drivel, so I pointed out that it was drivel.

Remember:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

But, since the Church still regards the main purpose of sex to be procreation, they insist that any ethical sexual act must be open to conception.

---

Since there isn't a 100% method of contraception, I'm presuming that you're talking pish.

A combination pill is something like 98% so technically a sexual act while using this form of contraception is still open to conception, albeit to a lesser degree - yet I'm sure that the Catholic church doesn't advocate this.

---

Please, feel free to do the same, should I ever post drivel akin to that.

I wouldn't expect any less and certainly wouldn't try to skirt around the point - as you appear to be doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

You posted drivel, so I pointed out that it was drivel.

---

No, you did what you always do, you read the post, then decided what nasty remark you could make. That's all you do, it's all you've ever done, you're a nasty, vindictive piece of work. But that's OK, every forum needs someone like you, you perform a duty, we should all be grateful you grace us with your presence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

You posted drivel, so I pointed out that it was drivel.

---

No, you did what you always do, you read the post, then decided what nasty remark you could make. That's all you do, it's all you've ever done, you're a nasty, vindictive piece of work. But that's OK, every forum needs someone like you, you perform a duty, we should all be grateful you grace us with your presence.

---

Dry your eyes, mate.

You posted drivel and I deigned to let you know. I didn't have to but thought it wise to enlighten you to your folly lest you repeat this drivel elsewhere - like on a Big Brother forum that you admin, or something.

Now pick your toys back up and put them back in the pram, there's a good lad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

You posted drivel and I deigned to let you know.

---

You keep telling yourself that, everyone on this forum knows the truth about you, you fool no-one. When someone posts drivel, as you put it, it's usual to come up with a counter argument, which you fail to do, ever. You nit-pick and insult, nothing more.

To be fair, I didn't think my initial post was insulting nor nit picking.

Also, I posted a watertight counter-argument, which you will absolutely not address. Preferring instead to revel in precisely what you chastise me for - flinging insults. Do I really have to use the hypocrite word again.

Ah, too late.

I am going to presume this is because you now realise that you've posted pish, or drivel, if you prefer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

But, since the Church still regards the main purpose of sex to be procreation, they insist that any ethical sexual act must be open to conception.

---

Since there isn't a 100% method of contraception, I'm presuming that you're talking pish.

A combination pill is something like 98% so technically a sexual act while using this form of contraception is still open to conception, albeit to a lesser degree - yet I'm sure that the Catholic church doesn't advocate this.

---

So, refute what I've written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

So, refute what I've written.

---

Why should l? You refuted someone else's words, as you've been told. So go and refute it to them, it's nothing to do with me.

Quote:

---

These beliefs are grounded in their concept of natural law. The church once taught that the sole purpose of sex -- and marriage -- was procreation. They have modified this stance in recent decades by admitting that also has a unitive function; it bonds married couples closer together and strengthens their relationship. But, since the Church still regards the main purpose of sex to be procreation, they insist that any ethical sexual act must be open to conception. On this basis, they forbid the use of artificial methods of birth control, and consider any sexual behavior other than intercourse between a husband and wife to be a grave moral sin. Forbidden practices include masturbation, pre-marital sex, post-marital sex, extra-marital sex and all same-sex behaviors.

Here you go, Captain Doodoo.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

You posted drivel, so I pointed out that it was drivel.

---

No, you did what you always do, you read the post, then decided what nasty remark you could make. That's all you do, it's all you've ever done, you're a nasty, vindictive piece of work. But that's OK, every forum needs someone like you, you perform a duty, we should all be grateful you grace us with your presence.

---

Just like every forum needs a Billy Dean? :unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanB

Just like every forum needs a Billy Dean? :unsure:

---

Isn't he a mate of yours Dan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

So, refute what I've written.

---

Why should l? You refuted someone else's words, as you've been told. So go and refute it to them, it's nothing to do with me.

---

It's a bit mental to go and copy/paste words to use in a discussion if you don't agree with their meaning.

Wouldn't you say.



Funny tho' - you truly are the king of cut-and-paste, with the added string to your bow that you have the gall - when you get caught posting drivel - to say 'Wasn't me, guv'.

Btw, when I say funny, you'll realise I mean that in a 'dog with two legs' kinda way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

Why should l? You refuted someone else's words, as you've been told. So go and refute it to them, it's nothing to do with me.

---

It's a bit mental to go and copy/paste words to use in a discussion if you don't agree with their meaning.

Wouldn't you say.



Funny tho' - you truly are the king of cut-and-paste, with the added string to your bow that you have the gall - when you get caught posting drivel - to say 'Wasn't me, guv'.

Btw, when I say funny, you'll realise I mean that in a 'dog with two legs' kinda way.

---

With the two legs on a different axle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

It's a bit mental to go and copy/paste words to use in a discussion if you don't agree with their meaning.

---

Don't be stupid Manky, just think over what you just said ... then admit you've been PWNED again! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

With the two legs on a different axle.

---

Who has the collar out of you two, and who has the lead? :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

With the two legs on a different axle.

---

Who has the collar out of you two, and who has the lead? :lol:

---

seriously mang. don't laugh with yourself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

Who has the collar out of you two, and who has the lead? :lol:

---

seriously mang. don't laugh with yourself

---

Don't be cruel.

How sad is someone who posts what he did and laughs at it himself.

More to be pitied than scorned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

seriously mang. don't laugh with yourself

---

Who's mang?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

More to be pitied than scorned.

---

Woof, woof!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

More to be pitied than scorned.

---

Woof, woof!

---

Thanks, that actually made me laugh. At you, obviously.

Why do people even bother with you, you really are so good at making an arse of yourself. In fact that's probably the answer, to see just how stupid you are willing to make yourself look. New record methinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Thanks, that actually made me laugh.

---

:lips:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

It's a bit mental to go and copy/paste words to use in a discussion if you don't agree with their meaning.

---

Don't be stupid Manky, just think over what you just said ... then admit you've been PWNED again! :lol: :lol: :lol:

---

Please explain so us lesser mortals can understand what you mean.

You posted drivel, I said it was drivel, you said someone else wrote it, I said it was mental for you to use someone else's words in a discussion if you didn't agree with what they'd wrote.

Sounds fair enough to me. However, as always, I stand to be corrected. Maybe you're not mental. In the absence of reasoning tho' - I'll assume you are.


Btw, a good barometer of how much someone has got to you seems to be your use of the :lol: smiley.

I'm winning :happy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

seriously mang. don't laugh with yourself

---

Who's mang?

---

it's how the cool kids spell man :snooty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

I'm winning :happy:

---

l'll bet you were one of those little kids at school who never knew when they were beaten, the ones who bite your ankles as you walk away, leaving them in a bleeding mess on the ground.