[net.women] Marchionni replies to Winslow, Mauney et al on porn.

V6M@PSUVM.BITNET (01/21/85)

MOSTLy in paraphrase.....

Why should you care what the Roman Church says?  Well for one thing porn
is NOT just an RC issue!!! It affects all people or hadn't you noticed?

If you manage to read ANY CHRISTIAN positions on morality you will usually
find condemnation of porn and other illicit sexual activities.

The churches make statements on these items as part of their pastoral function
to lead their particular congregations; to define how their followers should
handle the evil and to make a relavant statement on moral, social and ethical
problems which their followers have in particular  and  (N.B.)
to make a pastoral statement on problems which affect ALL.  HOPEFULLY
aleviating or at least ameliorating the problem for ALL.

In other words they just might be able to solve a problem that an atheist
or agnostic might have.  You should listen because it may help you!!!!

Of course it is not binding on anyone outside of the particular Church which
makes the pronouncement.

The cheap shot "this isn't the Vatican" reveals a certain amount of prejudice
and a great deal of ignorance on what Catholicism is and even MORE IMPORTANT
ignorance on the proper role of religion to man.  Why don't you  READ
a catechism.  They are not a restricted item!!!
If you are embarresed about getting one contact me at 215 565 3300 and I'll
send one to you.  I'M NOT BEING SARCASTIC.  I'll be happy to buy and send one
to you. (No priest will knock at your door.....:-).....)

As for the "12 times 12 kids Catholic couple"...cheap shot.
Even the Baptists are more civil after Vatican I....:-)
Seriously...Go read some basic Church documents such as the Encyclicals
to appreciate the TRUE Catholic view of sexuality.  I admit many of our
members have an almost Puritanical outlook on it.  Much of the this problem
came from the way the virtue of Chastity was emphasized in example and training
but not from the official teaching itself.  As happened to other sects, the
practice of the virtue tended to negate the importance and beauty of sexuality.
We are NOT the only ones with that problem!!!

You should remember this!!!   Christian and Catholic teaching on sexuality
is based on two authorites:  Revelation and Natural Law.  These are best
discussed in net.religion.

"Why does <porn discussion> sound like net.religion?"...
Because porn is a moral evil and moral evils are the proper area of religion.
You have seen the relationship! BREAKTHROUGH!!!!   :-)

BTW
"The Catholic Catechism: A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings
 of the Catholic Church"
John Hardon, S.J.
Doubleday
$5.95  paper

Marchionni

jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (01/23/85)

> "Why does <porn discussion> sound like net.religion?"...
> Because porn is a moral evil and moral evils are the proper area of religion.

Wrong. It's because Marchionni's morals say porn is evil and he insists
on presenting this moral view as if it should be universal, on net.women.

But I've got to hand it to you. Only someone with a hyperactive imagination
(a trait that I tend to admire) would conclude that my making the simple
statement that the USA is not the Vatican (or more to the point, the USA is
not a Catholic state) shows my "ignorance on the proper role of religion to
man". I'm sure my view of this role disagrees with yours, but it would be
rash to conclude therefore that I am ignorant.

By the way, the point was not to make a cheap shot (are you defensive about
your religion?) but to say that the Catholic church is only one of many
voices listened to when making legal policy in this country. And moral
policy, if such a thing exists. 

> Why don't you  READ a catechism.  They are not a restricted item!!!
> If you are embarresed about getting one contact me at 215 565 3300 and I'll
> send one to you.  I'M NOT BEING SARCASTIC.  I'll be happy to buy and send one
> to you. (No priest will knock at your door.....:-).....)

Um, what was that about cheap shots? Why should it embarrass me?
I have read some of "A New Catechism" (which I think is hardly official -
too bad) and found it very interesting.

But consider - in spite of all this friction, in spite of our religious
differences (although I am neither atheist or agnostic), we agree on the
dangers of censorship. Perhaps there's a lesson there.

As for prejudices, Mr. Gerald Owens, Mr. Marchionni references religion
far more consistently and with a more single-minded view than I do -
why do you single me out for reproach? Hmmm?

		One's religion is another's prejudice...
                (Like my non-gender specificity?)

                 Jeff Winslow

mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) (01/28/85)

> As for the "12 times 12 kids Catholic couple"...cheap shot.

I am guilty of unnecessary promotion of stereotypes, and I apologize.
I was characterizing the view of "sex for procreation and nothing else,"
a view commonly associated with the Catholic church, but one which is
not supported by Official Doctrine.  I should have been more accurate.

Please replace the word Catholic with "Straightlaced," or "Puritanical"
or "Busy", or something else.
-- 

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH A HOOK AND SINKER ***

Jon Mauney    mcnc!ncsu!mauney    C.S. Dept, North Carolina State University