You complete inability to get my point is astounding. My point was idiotic reasoning on two points. First, a former presbyterian convert to Catholicism is forced to sweat it out and prove by a “positive act of the will” that his former marriage was null, even though he was completely oblivious of the church’s teaching. On the other hand, a Catholic (baptized and confirmed in CC), can get a cut & tried annullment for “defect of form”, since he did not get a dispensation to marry outside the CC. In the former’s case, the CC could determine that his 20 marriage to his current wife (w/ children) could be non-existent. The latter can skate by with his clean “defect of form” annullment. That fact that you do not see this as unjust is disturbing; to say the least.

Secondly, the CC teachs that Coitus Interruptus is prohibited because your not leaving yourself open to procreation. But coitus interruptus does not concieve a baby, so it is unlike abortion. My point here is that just this. While the two may have the same result, one concieves the other doesn’t. If you same they both lead to the same thing, then I will say that going to play hockey while my wife is home will stop us from concieving too. Is play hockey disallowed? Barring you inclusion of the Oran story (which will inevitably follow), this is not sound reasoning. Coitus Interruptus and abortion are not the same in the most important aspect. Just for kicks, though. Do you believe that the Church could be wrong on anything…ever?