In article , duke
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 22:51:45 GMT, "Mike Painter"
wrote:

Until recent times the sole purpose of marriage and sex was to
reproduce. Even within your life time priests told people that the
*only* reason to have sex was to impregnate a female, not to jst do
it for fun.
Now tell me again where this is written down.
Forgotten already have we?

Your catechism. " ... Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when
sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive
purposes."

But sexual pleasure is unitive, even during periods of infertility.
It does not say OR it say "procreative and unitive purposes"

ie, artificial.

See what I mean? I knew Earl would do this so I specifically pointed out the
"AND" part.

You're dreaming about your greatness, mikey. Apparently you can't relate to
the non-procreative periods in a woman's cycle as being valid and unitive in
purpose.

• If a woman has two functioning ovaries and she is not pregnant, there
is no such thing as her non-orocreative period -- especially if she has an
orgasm during coitus. [ref: Dr. Jane Comfort "The Facts of Love".]

Even Saint Augustine realized that a woman can get pregnant during her
menstrual period:

- "Defective children will result if conceived during menstruation. Women
should not be enlightened or educated in any way. They should be
segregated because they are the cause of unholy erections in holy men."
- Saint Augustine (354-430)

--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr

in article , duke at
wrote on 8/2/05 8:38 PM:

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 22:51:45 GMT, "Mike Painter"
wrote:

Until recent times the sole purpose of marriage and sex was to
reproduce. Even within your life time priests told people that the
*only* reason to have sex was to impregnate a female, not to jst do
it for fun.
Now tell me again where this is written down.
Forgotten already have we?

Your catechism. " ... Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when
sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive
purposes."

But sexual pleasure is unitive, even during periods of infertility.
It does not say OR it say "procreative and unitive purposes"

ie, artificial.

See what I mean? I knew Earl would do this so I specifically pointed out the
"AND" part.

You're dreaming about your greatness, mikey. Apparently you can't relate to
the non-procreative periods in a woman's cycle as being valid and unitive in
purpose.

The sexual act is unitive even when it isn't procreative. God made it that
way, to keep Woman under Man's thumb...or other body part.

duke wrote:
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 22:51:45 GMT, "Mike Painter"
wrote:

Until recent times the sole purpose of marriage and sex was to
reproduce. Even within your life time priests told people that
the *only* reason to have sex was to impregnate a female, not to
jst do it for fun.
Now tell me again where this is written down.
Forgotten already have we?

Your catechism. " ... Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when
sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive
purposes." But sexual pleasure is unitive, even during periods of
infertility. It does not say OR it say "procreative and unitive
purposes"

ie, artificial.

See what I mean? I knew Earl would do this so I specifically pointed
out the "AND" part.

You're dreaming about your greatness, mikey. Apparently you can't
relate to the non-procreative periods in a woman's cycle as being
valid and unitive in purpose.

It's the church that makes these statements, not me.


The sexual act is unitive even when it isn't procreative. God made
it that way. Artificial contraception reduces the unitive to pleasure
for the satisfaction of other than procreative and/or unitive.

Irrelevant to what the RCC says.

You can bs your little atheist buddies, mikey, but I'm too smart for
you.

I guess Earl is so used to getting just an egg when he orders "ham
and eggs" that he never will understand

Gotcha.

Sure Earl, enjoy your egg.

duke wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 23:59:08 GMT, "Mike Painter"
wrote:

duke wrote:
On 27 Jul 2005 18:08:07 -0700, "Dom" wrote:

This has been pointed ou to you any number of times. The last
major one was in 1871 when the pope declared that he was
infalliable instead of the magisterium.

The infallibility dogma was promulgated on 18 July 1870, and it led
to the schism of the Old Catholics.

Still not a rule change.

The RCC seems to think so. Prior to the declaration the pope by
himself was not infallible.

And he is in charge of "revelations by the Holy Spirit".

He is now, he wasn't then. They voted on it.
"In the council there was a long dispute over the enunciation. In the first
vote it stood 451 in favor, 88 opposed, and 62 conditionally in favor; at
the last vote 433 were in favor of the promulgation, two opposing, 55
abstaining. "
602 people voted the first time but only 490 the last time. I wonder where
those 112 people went?

In article , "Mike Painter"
wrote:

duke wrote:
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 22:51:45 GMT, "Mike Painter"
wrote:

Until recent times the sole purpose of marriage and sex was to
reproduce. Even within your life time priests told people that
the *only* reason to have sex was to impregnate a female, not to
jst do it for fun.
Now tell me again where this is written down.
Forgotten already have we?

Your catechism. " ... Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when
sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive
purposes." But sexual pleasure is unitive, even during periods of
infertility. It does not say OR it say "procreative and unitive
purposes"

ie, artificial.

See what I mean? I knew Earl would do this so I specifically pointed
out the "AND" part.

You're dreaming about your greatness, mikey. Apparently you can't
relate to the non-procreative periods in a woman's cycle as being
valid and unitive in purpose.

It's the church that makes these statements, not me.

** The net result of the church's NFP is an increased supply of potential
altar-boys.
...

--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr

In article , "Mike Painter"
wrote:

duke wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 23:59:08 GMT, "Mike Painter"
wrote:

duke wrote:
On 27 Jul 2005 18:08:07 -0700, "Dom" wrote:

This has been pointed ou to you any number of times. The last
major one was in 1871 when the pope declared that he was
infalliable instead of the magisterium.

The infallibility dogma was promulgated on 18 July 1870, and it led
to the schism of the Old Catholics.

Still not a rule change.

The RCC seems to think so. Prior to the declaration the pope by
himself was not infallible.

And he is in charge of "revelations by the Holy Spirit".

He is now, he wasn't then. They voted on it.
"In the council there was a long dispute over the enunciation. In the first
vote it stood 451 in favor, 88 opposed, and 62 conditionally in favor; at
the last vote 433 were in favor of the promulgation, two opposing, 55
abstaining. "
602 people voted the first time but only 490 the last time. I wonder where
those 112 people went?

** To a local cat house that had a Monday Special?

--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr

..
Mike Painter wrote:
duke wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 23:59:08 GMT, "Mike Painter"
wrote:

duke wrote:
On 27 Jul 2005 18:08:07 -0700, "Dom" wrote:

This has been pointed ou to you any number of times. The last
major one was in 1871 when the pope declared that he was
infalliable instead of the magisterium.

The infallibility dogma was promulgated on 18 July 1870, and it led
to the schism of the Old Catholics.

Still not a rule change.

The RCC seems to think so. Prior to the declaration the pope by
himself was not infallible.

And he is in charge of "revelations by the Holy Spirit".

He is now, he wasn't then. They voted on it.
"In the council there was a long dispute over the enunciation. In the first
vote it stood 451 in favor, 88 opposed, and 62 conditionally in favor; at
the last vote 433 were in favor of the promulgation, two opposing, 55
abstaining. "
602 people voted the first time but only 490 the last time. I wonder where
those 112 people went?

Many bishops left Rome before the final vote because they did not want
to vote against Pius IX. For more details, read the book by the
Catholic priest August Bernhard Hasler: "HOW THE POPE BECAME
INFALLIBLE: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuation," Doubleday (1981)
[translation of "WIE DER PAPST UNFEHLBAR WURDE: Macht und Ohnmacht
eines Dogmas," R. Piper & Co. Verlag (1979)].

Domenico Rosa

..?R.L.Measures wrote:

duke wrote:
On 27 Jul 2005 18:08:07 -0700, "Dom" wrote:

This has been pointed ou to you any number of times. The last
major one was in 1871 when the pope declared that he was
infalliable instead of the magisterium.

The infallibility dogma was promulgated on 18 July 1870, and it
led to the schism of the Old Catholics.

Still not a rule change.

The RCC seems to think so. Prior to the declaration the pope by
himself was not infallible.

And he is in charge of "revelations by the Holy Spirit".

He is now, he wasn't then. They voted on it.
"In the council there was a long dispute over the enunciation. In
the first vote it stood 451 in favor, 88 opposed, and 62
conditionally in favor; at the last vote 433 were in favor of the
promulgation, two opposing, 55 abstaining. "
602 people voted the first time but only 490 the last time. I wonder
where those 112 people went?

** To a local cat house that had a Monday Special?

It's a little known historical fact that there was a school for little boys
close by.
(Little known because I made it up.)

In article , "Mike
Painter" wrote:

.?R.L.Measures wrote:

duke wrote:
On 27 Jul 2005 18:08:07 -0700, "Dom" wrote:

This has been pointed ou to you any number of times. The last
major one was in 1871 when the pope declared that he was
infalliable instead of the magisterium.

The infallibility dogma was promulgated on 18 July 1870, and it
led to the schism of the Old Catholics.

Still not a rule change.

The RCC seems to think so. Prior to the declaration the pope by
himself was not infallible.

And he is in charge of "revelations by the Holy Spirit".

He is now, he wasn't then. They voted on it.
"In the council there was a long dispute over the enunciation. In
the first vote it stood 451 in favor, 88 opposed, and 62
conditionally in favor; at the last vote 433 were in favor of the
promulgation, two opposing, 55 abstaining. "
602 people voted the first time but only 490 the last time. I wonder
where those 112 people went?

** To a local cat house that had a Monday Special?

It's a little known historical fact that there was a school for little boys
close by.
(Little known because I made it up.)

** There was a real boy-brothel at the Servants of the Paraclete
treatment center for pedophile priests in Jimez Springs, New Mexico.
Perhaps it should have been called a Treat center?

--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 06:00:20 GMT, "Mike Painter"
wrote:

The RCC seems to think so. Prior to the declaration the pope by
himself was not infallible.

And he is in charge of "revelations by the Holy Spirit".

He is now, he wasn't then. They voted on it.

"In the council there was a long dispute over the enunciation. In the first
vote it stood 451 in favor, 88 opposed, and 62 conditionally in favor; at
the last vote 433 were in favor of the promulgation, two opposing, 55
abstaining. "
602 people voted the first time but only 490 the last time. I wonder where
those 112 people went?

They were probably on vacation.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****