Originally Posted by AemJeff
I didn't see any mention of doctrine in Hilbert's post. What he did refer to was a "attempted systematic cover-up of child molestation" - and that certainly did occur.
He is addressing a doctrinal
critique by apple with a non-sequitur then.
if I follow you (I'm pretty sure I do), then you have a terribly limited conception of the purpose of "the sexual act." (It's not singular, by the way.)
LOL Actually I have a scientific conception of the purpose of the sexual act (Writ large, requiring only singular reference). Recognizing that we gain other things from it (As an evolutionary device to encourage its use, better serving the primary function) doesn't change that fact. What, are you anti-science?
The Church simply takes that to the next level, recognizing this biological reality as a consequence of God's will. And God, not being one to act without purpose, is someone the Church feels has a pretty pivotal place in moral debate. Now, you may find that ridiculous
. But as long as you require some generous, kindly, kid gloves talk about liberal shibboleths, you should show some degree of respect for real Catholics.