Originally Posted by RichieLion

I'm sorry Cologal, but I believe you're wrong on this again. The Church does not ban E.D. medications because they promote conception.

The Church bans birth control pills because they prevent conception by artificial means.

Did you know that the Church officially has a ban on the use of condoms for the same reason as they ban birth control pills? Because condoms artificially prevent conception.

There is controversy in the Church at it's highest levels because of the Aids problem in the world and the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the transmission of that disease. The debate go on in the Vatican as we speak.

The Church has said forever that "Sex was for pro-creation not recreation" ...They need this statement because it forms the basis of the "Gay unions are imperfect doctrine."

ED medication for any man whose wife is over child bearing year would be used for sexual recreation.

DONE.....

Originally Posted by cologal

The Church has said forever that "Sex was for pro-creation not recreation" ...They need this statement because it forms the basis of the "Gay unions are imperfect doctrine."

ED medication for any man whose wife is over child bearing year would be used for sexual recreation.

DONE.....

In your postulation, sex itself for couples over child bearing age would itself be forbidden and you know that's not the case. Married Catholics are never forbidden intimacy. If E.D. medications foments the continuation of this sanctified intimacy, it's in the interests of the couple and thus the Church.

Conception restrictions are hardly the reason for the forbidding of homosexual unions by the Church.

I wonder what the Catholic thought would be of a former Catholic Army chaplain - now a priest - getting Viagra prescribed to him by the VA? Hmmm?

Originally Posted by buggyone

I wonder what the Catholic thought would be of a former Catholic Army chaplain - now a priest - getting Viagra prescribed to him by the VA? Hmmm?

I would think the Church would be against that. The Church has no power over the VA though, do they?

Originally Posted by RichieLion

In your postulation, sex itself for couples over child bearing age would itself be forbidden and you know that's not the case. Married Catholics are never forbidden intimacy. If E.D. medications foments the continuation of this sanctified intimacy, it's in the interests of the couple and thus the Church.

Conception restrictions are hardly the reason for the forbidding of homosexual unions by the Church.

There is no point continuing this.... I know what I have been taught in Catholic schools, CCD classes and finally a Catholic college.

From the Vatican website....

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Originally Posted by cologal

There is no point continuing this.... I know what I have been taught in Catholic schools, CCD classes and finally a Catholic college.

From the Vatican website....

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

That's interesting, as I've never read that sentence and I went through 12 years of Catholic education and read much on my own.

I knew homosexuality, or more specifically the physical acts themselves, was considered against the natural order and a perversion that was against the will of God and forbidden.

I will accept your above quote as I trust your honesty. I guess I learned something.

But, the facts as I presented them regarding the inviolable First Amendment Rights of the Roman Catholic Church remain unchanged.

Would the Roman Catholic Church have First Ammendment rights if they were still doing Inquisitions? Or if the Mormons still believed people of African descent were 2nd class citizens (old tenet was that blacks could get into heaven as the 'servants' of whites) ...or if an Islamic committed an honor killing? (Oh, wait, they still do that in the Middle East)

The reason I bring that up is - where do you draw the line between the First Ammendment and stating that a given practice is illegal REGARDLESS of religion?

Originally Posted by djplong

Would the Roman Catholic Church have First Ammendment rights if they were still doing Inquisitions? Or if the Mormons still believed people of African descent were 2nd class citizens (old tenet was that blacks could get into heaven as the 'servants' of whites) ...or if an Islamic committed an honor killing? (Oh, wait, they still do that in the Middle East)

The reason I bring that up is - where do you draw the line between the First Ammendment and stating that a given practice is illegal REGARDLESS of religion?

You draw the line in the place where your rights are impinged by the practice of another. There are no rights being trampled here.

You have your rights, and the Church has theirs. You have no Constitutional Right to the Church's money.

This isn't that difficult DJ.

Take same sex marriage. Suppose the highest court decides that same sex marriage is a right. You wouldn't be able to force the Church to perform this ceremony, or to recognize it's validity. The Church wouldn't have any power to prevent civil ceremonies or any other denomination's decision to perform one.

Well, Richie, I'm glad you have a spot where you draw the line.

You and I differ in that, in my opinion, it shouldn't matter if I worked for St. Joseph's Hospital or Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital - the laws should apply to me equally at either employer. If I worked at Alvirne High School here in Hudson NH, I should have the same protections as if I worked at Bishop Guertin High School in Nashua.

I certainly agree with you that, if I chose to work *in a church*, the rules may be different.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

You draw the line in the place where your rights are impinged by the practice of another. There are no rights being trampled here.

Take same sex marriage. Suppose the highest court decides that same sex marriage is a right. You wouldn't be able to force the Church to perform this ceremony, or to recognize it's validity. The Church wouldn't have any power to prevent civil ceremonies or any other denomination's decision to perform one.

Dang it, Richie - Just about every time when I start shaking my head and muttering aloud about your postings, you come up with a very good answer to someone. You hit this one out of the ballpark.

Originally Posted by djplong

Well, Richie, I'm glad you have a spot where you draw the line.

You and I differ in that, in my opinion, it shouldn't matter if I worked for St. Joseph's Hospital or Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital - the laws should apply to me equally at either employer. If I worked at Alvirne High School here in Hudson NH, I should have the same protections as if I worked at Bishop Guertin High School in Nashua.

I certainly agree with you that, if I chose to work *in a church*, the rules may be different.

I don't quite understand your point here. Are you saying that one Church organization had different beliefs than another Church organization? Does it have anything to do with Church Doctrine?

In any case, you cannot trample Freedom of Religion with secular laws.

No, I'm not saying that Church Doctrine should be different in different cases.

Without getting into all the OTHER problems I have with the Church, I'm saying that when the Church is "playing outside it's own protected sandbox", it should have to play by the public's rules.

In other words, if the Church wants to operate a hospital, they have to abide by the rules governing hospitals.

In an example I have experience with, my wife is a member of the Light of the World Christian Church. For many years they operated the Milford Christian Academy. They still had to abide by all the rules that govern any school in New Hampshire. And while the Church was exempt from taxes, their employees certainly were not. (Not picking on the Catholic Church when I say I find it ironic that Jesus said "rend unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and yet *all* Churches are exempt from doing exactly that)

Amended Virginia Ultrasound bill Clarifies that there is no requirement to do what was never required
Amended Virginia Ultrasound bill Clarifies that there is no requirement to do what was never required | NRL News Today

Originally Posted by djplong

No, I'm not saying that Church Doctrine should be different in different cases.

Without getting into all the OTHER problems I have with the Church, I'm saying that when the Church is "playing outside it's own protected sandbox", it should have to play by the public's rules.

In other words, if the Church wants to operate a hospital, they have to abide by the rules governing hospitals.

In an example I have experience with, my wife is a member of the Light of the World Christian Church. For many years they operated the Milford Christian Academy. They still had to abide by all the rules that govern any school in New Hampshire. And while the Church was exempt from taxes, their employees certainly were not. (Not picking on the Catholic Church when I say I find it ironic that Jesus said "rend unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and yet *all* Churches are exempt from doing exactly that)

You are picking on the Catholic Church no matter what your intent is. I think your attempt to justify a forfeiture of First Amendment Rights by The Catholic Church because they operate in the public arena is outrageous.

There's no justification for your position; none at all.

if the catholic church wants to play they should pay like everyone else. Oh thats right they have to save their money to settle the child molestation cases.