I wouldn't go that far Joe. I wouldn't say you're a fraud. Talking through your dick maybe.
The Church in fact does take a position on artificial contraception, it's use, it's benefits, it's effect on the welfare of women.
Did I go to the trouble of discussing performance enhancing drugs in sport for nothing? If you are against such things you are in the same position as the Church vis-a-vis
AC. You would have no position on the matter until PEDs came into use. Your position against them, which I am assuming, requires the appearance of them and that they are a problem. Both AC and PEDs are obviously anti-evolutionary.
A sin may be defined as behaviour which the Church thinks is inimical to general welfare. Gluttony, for example, is a sin because it is bad for us and not easily discouraged by legal procedures. How would you legislate against gluttony? Or against lust?
I also explained that the Church, in order to discourage behaviours which it sees as inimical to welfare, needs to be powerful. It's business operational aspects are necessary. You are asking us to be naive. It has powerful forces to oppose.
And it's business operations are entirely voluntary. Nobody is constrained to make offerings as they are in other aspects of life through taxation. The Church taxes nobody who is unwilling to be taxed.
It is a sin to spit on the carpet in the pub. It is a mortal sin if the practice is continued and the offender is excommunicated.
The Church has no problem being exposed for what it is. I see no reason for your self-righteous indignation and particularly when an explanation has been presented to you which you have disdained to rebut.
I don't see how AC could be used for any other purpose than birth control. A recent report claimed that the Church provides nuns working in parts of Africa with the pill in case they are raped. I'm not sure it ought to do strictly speaking but pragmatism is a factor. Withdrawing the nuns from their work is a possibility. But once again, as always, you take the exceptional cases in order to try to show that the policy in relation to millions is wrong. You could shut down all the roads with such a view. There were 370, 000 road fatalities between 2001 and 2009 in the US.
It is a fundamental totalitarian position to strip language of words which suggest refinements of attitude and gradations of sensibility. And that is exactly what you do when you use an expression like artificial contraception. You make the expression fit all the widely differing circumstances to which it is applied. It saves you thinking which totalitarian systems discourage by this very process of reducing the number of words in existence.
That American bishops are not up for severe pulpit condemnations of AC has nothing to do with whether AC is wrong.
It is wrong because it is unnatural, anti-evolution, and because it leaves women at the mercy of male pressures and state interference with their most essential nature. And it is not illegal and thus I have no idea what the **** you are on about. You are as free to take advantage of the various procedures involved as you are to scoff 10,000 calories a day. Why don't you get on with it and let the Catholics get on with what they are free to choose. What's your beef? Is it that women are capable of exercising less control over men when they are spayed?