"breeders" - scope
Alan J Rosenthal
I like the word 'breeders' best when applied to Catholics. Recall that sex was
prohibited except for reproduction until Vatican II (council in Vatican that
revised many of the rules for Catholics), when sex was declared a 'sacrament'
for no apparent reason (:-)). But it still has a strong effect on Catholics
today, being the basis for their anti-abortion and anti-birth-control stance.
So these are the "breeders". (Anti-gay, of course!)
Alan J Rosenthal
{linus|decvax}!utzoo!utcs!flaps, {ihnp4|allegra}!cbosgd!utcs!flaps
"Sex for pleasure?? Oooh, gross!!"
cy...@isl1.ri.cmu.edu.uucp
>prohibited except for reproduction until Vatican II (council in Vatican that
>revised many of the rules for Catholics), when sex was declared a 'sacrament'
>for no apparent reason (:-)). But it still has a strong effect on Catholics
>today, being the basis for their anti-abortion and anti-birth-control stance.
>So these are the "breeders". (Anti-gay, of course!)
>
>Alan J Rosenthal
As he probably expected, some people rather resent this post. I am among
them. For one thing, the Church's stance on sex does not really have as
strong of an effect upon Catholics he he implies. The majority of Catholics
in the US, Canada, and (I believe) most of Europe, esp. Netherlans (and
including Italy) use birth control (outside, of course, the so-called
Rhythm method). The Church is rather split on the issue of abortion, but
then so is the population as a whole. As far as being anti- gay, I think that
within the Church there is a considerable range of opinion. I'm from a
diocese where the bishop was quite supportive of gay rights; the one
in San Diego, on the other hand, is a real slime about it. Dignity,
interestingly enough, recieve the Paternal Blessing of the Holy Father
last year. I don't know why, but that's something. Homosexuality is
an issue which is still pretty hot in the Church, though I doubt it
will ever be decided in our favour (so to speak) while the current pope
is in power. By the way, the current official stance on homosexuality
is that it is okay to be homosexual, but not to practise it. This is
a little strange (well, okay. a lot strange), but it's a step in
the correct direction. And, as I say, it's not a unanimous position.
But compare this to the Southern Baptists or Orthodox Church (Greek,
Russian, etc.) or a number of other churches, especially fundementalist
ones. The Lutherans have problems too. The Catholic position is hardly
the worst.
Finally, don't think that just because somebody is an atheist that they'll
be tolerant. There is always someway to come up with a reason to discriminate.
I don't think singling out the Catholic Church is fair, even though I
admit there is work to be done within it.
Owen Rowley
>them. For one thing, the Church's stance on sex does not really have as
>strong of an effect upon Catholics he he implies. The majority of Catholics
>in the US, Canada, and (I believe) most of Europe, esp. Netherlans (and
>including Italy) use birth control (outside, of course, the so-called
>Rhythm method). The Church is rather split on the issue of abortion, but
>then so is the population as a whole. As far as being anti- gay, I think that
>within the Church there is a considerable range of opinion. I'm from a
MOST OF IT NEGATIVE !!!
>diocese where the bishop was quite supportive of gay rights; the one
>in San Diego, on the other hand, is a real slime about it. Dignity,
>interestingly enough, recieve the Paternal Blessing of the Holy Father
>last year. I don't know why, but that's something. Homosexuality is
>an issue which is still pretty hot in the Church, though I doubt it
>will ever be decided in our favour (so to speak) while the current pope
>is in power. By the way, the current official stance on homosexuality
>is that it is okay to be homosexual, but not to practise it. This is
>a little strange (well, okay. a lot strange), but it's a step in
>the correct direction. And, as I say, it's not a unanimous position.
>But compare this to the Southern Baptists or Orthodox Church (Greek,
>Russian, etc.) or a number of other churches, especially fundementalist
>ones. The Lutherans have problems too. The Catholic position is hardly
>the worst.
Though you are certainly entitled to your opinion, many find these "strange"
restrictive patterns intolerable. Some feel that it is a sign of spiritual
masochism to continue belief in the church dogma in spite of the high level
of rejection that is USUALLY present.
I for one wonder if the church is really taking those "steps in the right
direction" on their own power or if they are being dragged screaming and
kicking into the next millenium.
LUX .. on
Owen Rowley