And now for something completely different.
November 4, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – “A homosexual organization is planning a massive “kiss-in” in front of the pope as he leaves Barcelona’s cathedral on Sunday during his planned visit to Spain.
“The group, which calls itself Queer Kissing FlashMob, is calling on homosexuals to kiss each other for two minutes as the pope passes, and then disperse. The group hopes to infiltrate the crowd by dressing like people from traditional Catholic movements such as “Cuentame” and Opus Dei, according to its website.”
So the targeting of the Catholic Church by homosexuals continues unabated. I wrote a four part series detailing their desecration of the Eucharist in St Patrick’s Cathedral, their disruptions of Cardinal O’Connor’s Masses, and their obscene treatment of the Cardinal himself ten years after his death. I publish their poster, part of an art show in New York City that received a glowing review this past October in the New York Times.
Never mind that it was homosexual men who infiltrated the Priesthood and raped 81% of the victims of pedophilia in the sex scandal.
So now it’s going to be a two-minute liplock. To what end? To show how loving gays and lesbians can be? True love moves far beyond the physical, the public displays of affection. But the gay community reinforces that theirs is a sexually grounded lifestyle. Why not offer prayers for the Pontiff, or a respectful request for an audience? The manner of our protest reveals our hearts.
This isn’t about bringing the Pope into alignment with their worldview through shock tactics. They know the moral teaching of the Church is immutable. This is about thuggishness, about putting perversity on parade, about surrounding a Pope with that which our moral norms hold to be “an abomination” as it is described by God to Moses in Leviticus 18:22.
Gay? Try rage-filled.
This is a pathologically narcissistic community, and not just the shock troops who target the Church. I have yet to see a denunciation of these atrocities by any major gay/lesbian publication. The rest of the community appears content to allow the shock troops to do their talking for them.
What these people seem not to understand is that morality is not a dialogue, or a negotiation. It is submission and sublimation of the human will to God’s, the emptying of the self and its desires and the acquisition of a new set of priorities for the sake of the Kingdom.
They are free, by virtue of their free will, to do as they please and have a demonstrated disdain for what the Magisterium has to say. What then is the basis of their complaint? They’ll only respect the Magisterium when the Magisterium articulates moral norms with which they are comfortable? Obviously so. And in so doing they make themselves the moral center of the universe.
That’s narcissism, by definition.
It seems at this juncture that there is little left to say. Rome will never cave to this thuggery. Gays are not a subspecies of human. They are as capable of free will adherence to God’s law as the rest of us. Their orientation may not be a choice, but their sexual activity is. Like heterosexuals, they choose with whom they sleep and with whom they do not. They choose whom they will love and who they will not. They are no more driven by compulsion than heterosexuals. They are free, and act freely.
Libraries are filled with the books about disordered desire in heterosexuals, and still we are expected to obey the law of God. Gays are no different.
This targeting of the Pope as he tries to rally Europe back to fidelity, back to a Culture of Life is one more despicable act in a long and growing train of atrocities committed by gays against the Church. If there are moderate voices within the gay community, the silence is deafening.
Coming Home 
Coincidentally, someone asked me tonight if I was worried that my eldest son is gay (because he’s 15, and he doesn’t like girls).
My answer?
“Nope, I don’t care. It doesn’t matter, one way or another.”
Doesn’t matter what the Church thinks, doesn’t matter what some silly, attention-seeking demonstrators think. As this post says, the kissin’ don’t last — fidelity do.
I would still be proud and happy to call him my son.
The damage pedophiles did — to their victims, to the Church, and to themselves — was devastating.
But did homosexual men infiltrate the Priesthood?
Or did God call flawed human beings to serve Him, and they failed and sinned?
L,
If my son told me he was gay, I wouldn’t love him any less, nor would I affirm a gay lifestyle. There are gay men and lesbians who seek to live celibate lives in order to conform their behavior to God’s moral norms for all humanity. I would want him to join with them.
L. sexual abuse happens in our own home. I’m not in anyway excusing the act on either sides. But if we look around sexual abuse is everywhere….
As a survivor of sexual abuse by my grandmother for 16 years, I do find it a tad bit ridiculos that everyone wants to sit in wallow in the damage done, rather then repair the damage that was done.
If they were abused, kissing in front of the Pope is a sad cry for help, they are not making a statement.
I’m sorry but there are just no excuses to carry that baggage around and cry about it. I have no pity or make excuses for grown people who can not and will not or even refuse to recitfy something so completely opposite to nature because “i was abused”…..Please, grow up.
One day they will wake up and stop blaming the church as I have stopped blaming my grandmother….Nothing is resolved that way….
Nicole, I don’t condone sexual abuse in any way — no one should have to endure what you did.
I support the gay agenda for consenting adults, not those who molest children.
And there are plenty of moderate voices within the gay community — the silence is deafening because they have better things to do than join silly demonstrations. They quietly go about their lives and their business, and they vote. If it weren’t for the rainbow bumper stickers on their cars, you might never even notice they were there.
L,
When a group is trying to overcome all of the negative images with the broader public, and is implicated in 81% of all the children raped by Catholic clergy, I hardly think it a ‘silly’ demonstration to point the finger of blame at the renegades from their community who perpetrated this calamity.
Instead they attack the Church, sidestepping the larger question.
The deviant pedophiles are not “in their community” anymore than they are in the Church community — that covered up their crimes.
Sorry, my sympathies are totally against the Church on this one.
Oh, and by “silly demonstration,” I meant the “kiss-in.” It sounds quite pointless to me.
But really, 20% of the pedophiles were heterosexual. Does that mean I ought to apologize for those in my “community,” since I, too, am heterosexual? Were they “renegades” from my community?
My parents left the Church because of the pedophile scandals.
I guess L my point is since when is it so easily excused and ignored when it happens in our own homes,mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, grandparents, aunts, uncles etc….The deviant pedophiles are amongst us. It seems easily turned a blind eye because it is so rampant. I’m not making excuses but I think abuse is abuse is abuse….And it seems to be better publicity when it is from the Catholic church…
There seems to be a distinction when it is done within the church….Oh but then it seems to be passed in protestant denominations because it does not get the press. Even when it happens in our own homes, it doesn’t get the press….
I guess to sum up my point is that if you let sexual by anyone kill you it will. If you let it have that control over you it will control you and then it leads down a very nasty road. I do not feel sorry for people who wallow in it and allow it to destroy them no matter who their abuser was …..And maybe I just feel it on a different level and that is not a good point to use in a debate, but there is a lot of acting out that I see.
I’m sorry your parents left the church…I would never leave my beloved church as I would never leave my family because of the wrong that was done to me….Just does not make any sense. Because the church that they left it for is still broken by human fraility and sin. And if they didn’t leave for another church we as people are still broken etc..etc…etc…
Your sympathies are against the church but where do they lie? Against the father who abused his son? Against the uncle that abused the niece? Because that is just as if not more covered up…..Or is it easy to just pass that by and focus on the church?
Mistakes have been made when it comes to sexual abuse, it neither starts nor ends with the church…I guess is my point….
Actually, Nicole, I think I agree with everything you said — and my sympathies are with the victims, and not with the Church for failing to act and covering up abuse (as my sympathies would not be with any family members or individuals who covered up abuse).
I can’t speak for my parents, and I don’t know exactly what they’re thinking because they’re not the kind to talk about things like this. But in Connecticut, where they’re from (though no longer live), the reverberations continue both in the Church and in the legal system.
I agree abuse doesn’t start with the Church — but it should end with the Church. I hope some good eventually comes out of all this.
L. Sorry if I got a little heated and wordy. :)- I just can’t seem to wrap my head around it….
hahahaha
but it should also end in our homes by those who bring us into this world, those are our first protectors, the people we first trust….
Okay, gonna give the dr. a break since we highjacked his blog…. 😉
Dr. Nadal is quite kind to hijackers, I’ve found. 🙂
I would disagree about the original post and compulsion. Same sex desire arises from a conglomerate of reasons, (see NARTH’s research), and compulsion is part if the picture, and it seems it would reduce culpability. Honest, non-enabling therapy can help, but the desire is deep seated and requires patient assistance. This does not mean we need to tolerate addictive, disordered behavior such as the Kiss-in, dressing like drag-nuns, rainbow-sashing. Many gays who find their SSD egodystonic are quite troubled by the compulsion, leading to depression and high suicide rates. Gay activists try to blame the usual targets (protesting the pope is so old hat by now. . .yawn. . .) for the suicide rate, but it is a politically useful red herring. No matter how difficult, we are called to be compassionate and patient, without compromising the complementarity of normal sexual behavior between a husband and wife.
Homosexuals were allowed into the priesthood with a wink-wink attitude, and the “lavender-mafia” still has a strong presence in many dioceses, although waning with age and younger priests who take celibacy seriously. Since 1950, there have roughly been 5,000 priests accused of some sort of sexual discrepancy (peaking in the 70’s and 80’s). A terrible number. Weeding out the creeps means primarily getting rid of the chickenhawk 81% (this is not necessarily pedophilia, but attraction to pubescent boys, and are disimilar paraphilias). However, the 5,000 pales in comparison to the U.S. public school teachers accused every year (IIRC it’s in the six figures). Hence, your kids are safer in a Catholic church than in a public school, and the teacher unions are better than the bishops at covering this up; once the lawyers bankrupt the dioceses, they will bankrupt the schools.
You’re all such lovely and wonderful hijackers, it hardly seems traumatic.
http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/internacional/70452.html
My girlfriend sent me this link but could not find it in English…There were only 100 kissing homosexuals and 250,000 supporters…Just thought I would post this link.
“So the targeting of the Catholic Church by homosexuals continues unabated” – pot, kettle, black.
“Never mind that it was homosexual men who infiltrated the Priesthood and raped 81% of the victims of pedophilia in the sex scandal” – evidence?
“The manner of our protest reveals our hearts” – oh it most certainly does.
“…putting perversity on parade, about surrounding a Pope with that which our moral norms hold to be “an abomination” as it is described by God to Moses in Leviticus 18:22.” – whose moral norms? Yours? The popes? The small percenatge of the world’s population who believe in the bible?
Actually when it comes to the text you quoted, this particular text was changed during the translation of the King James scribes. The original text stated that the act of a ‘man lying with a man’ is ‘toevah’. Toevah does not mean ‘abomination’. It does not even mean ‘sin’ or ‘unlawful’. It means ‘non-traditional/against tradition’ that is, it was against tradition for Jewish men to have homosexual sex.
Also , Christians do not abide by the vast majority of the Levitical Laws, and Jesus himself takes a stand against them in Mark 7:1-23. He says the laws are ‘traditions of men’ not of God. Thus, God never said gay men were an abomination.
“morality is not a dialogue, or a negotiation. It is submission and sublimation of the human will to God’s” – for those who believe, what about everybody else? You know, the majority.
I find ‘pope’ and ‘culture of life’ to be mutually exclusive terms.
“a long and growing train of atrocities committed by gays against the Church” – and an even bigger pot, kettle, black to end on.
ah cranium is trolling on this site too….
“My parents left the Church because of the pedophile scandals.”
what a truly LAME reason for leaving…
either you believe in the faith taught by Jesus and the church he founded or you don’t and you recognize that the church is made up of human beings who are sinners and make mistakes….
couldn’t have been much faith there anyways 😦
St. John Bosco had visions of the church being attacked from all sides as did Pius X
this entire fiasco began with liberal theologians gaining a foothold within the seminaries and the teaching of a liberal sexual morality
unlike Western society though, the Catholic church will survive and be stronger
If your parents had stayed L, they would be meeting today, the new JP II priests who are wonderful examples of masculinity. These men are strong Catholics and proud of it!
I was invited 🙂
I agree Mary Catherine. If they left because of that I don’t think they could have been all that committed.
“unlike Western society though, the Catholic church will survive and be stronger” – I find that to be quite a self-contradicting statement. ‘Where’ will the church survive and be stronger if western society doesn’t?
it will be the same as after the fall of Rome
the Catholic church preserved much of what was good in society at that time through the monasteries and the faith of individual families
Western society will collapse and it might even be that the church will undergo a serious and possibly the worse persecution in its existence
But the blood of the martyrs has always been the seed of the faith.
The Catholic church contributed much to the development of Western society and so it shall do again.
I think the very definition of “lame” is rushing to criticize something about which you know little or nothing.
I presume you don’t know my parents, Mary Catherine and Cranium, and therefore you know even less about their reasons for leaving the Church than I do.
It seems very easy for you to say, “couldn’t have been much faith there anyways,” about two people you don’t even know, who were devout Catholics for six decades until something hurt them enough to cut their ties — something of which they don’t speak. (Remember, they didn’t even cut ties to me, their heretical daughter, who married a man who spits on the Church every chance he gets.)
They continue to tithe 10% of their income to a local homeless shelter, where they say it does more good than it would paying off pedophile vicitms’ lawsuits.
Or perhaps commenters’ remarks about my parents’ alleged lack of faith are just mirrors, reflecting the commenters’ own lack of faith? After all, we tend to hate the aspects of ourselves which we hate most in others.
Or perhaps commenters’ remarks about my parents’ alleged lack of faith are just mirrors, reflecting the commenters’ own lack of faith? After all, we tend to hate the aspects of ourselves which we hate most in others.
yeah right. 🙂
To leave the Catholic faith because of the sex abuse scandal is NOT a valid reason.
If they left because they have a problem with an aspect of the actual beliefs of the Catholic faith that is one thing. That would make sense.
But to leave because of the reason you stated tells me that they in fact, do not understand their faith, they do not have enough faith and trust in God’s providence, they do not understand the economy of salvation and damnation, nor do they understand how the Catholic church on earth works.
That is the reason it is LAME.
I think it’s lame to condemn something about which you know nothing, but…that’s just me.
Leaving the institutional Church, if one believes it is corrupt, is not the same as leaving the Catholic faith. I believe it is their way of “rendering unto Ceasar.” But as I say, I don’t know for sure — the fact that they have trouble talking about it suggests that something deeper may have happened.
If you really cared about the Church, you might even offer to pray for them, instead of assuming they had no faith to begin with.
The fall of Rome was not the same as the failure of ‘western society’. Far from it.
If western society falls the church will be starved of oxygen and wilt and die.
“But the blood of the martyrs has always been the seed of the faith” – now where have I heard that sort of language before??
Development of western society has to a large extent taken place despite the church.
cran, you don’t know your history very well. 😀
The Roman empire WAS the major force in the world at the time of Christ – very much comparable to the West today.
It’s decay although begun before Christ’s time on earth took about 500 years to complete.
During that time Christianity began to grow and was the dominant force that saw a primarily Christian society in full flower by the 1200’s.
Women were treated with much more dignity than in any pagan society that existed prior, routine sacrifice of infants had ceased, and the poor instead of being enslaved knew they had a friend in the church who rescued, educated, married many. It wasn’t perfect but it was working and the main goal was to create a just society based on the belief that every person had dignity and a right to life.
To not acknowledge the contribution of the Catholic church in the creation of western society is not only intellectual dishonesty, it is plain ignorant.
The neo-pagan society we currently have mirrors the pagan society that existed at the time of Rome. I expect the that we Christians will likely be fed to the lions fairly soon. It’s already happening in places like the UK.
“If you really cared about the Church, you might even offer to pray for them, instead of assuming they had no faith to begin with.”
I’d be happy to pray for YOUR parents, although it sounds like you are suggesting that I pray for the church.
you know what they say, L? Charity begins at home – so maybe YOU should do the praying. After all, they are YOUR parents. 😉
If you knew your faith you would know that we pray for all Catholics in the Mass, both the living and the dead.
What I am saying is that this is the same lame-duck argument we have heard from this generation and my generation for the past 50- years. I’m leaving the church because
a. no contraception
b. no women priests
c. no gay marriage
d. sex abuse scandals
etc.etc.etc.
It’s intellectually dishonest and it’s spiritually dishonest. Each person is responsible for working out their salvation. Are your parents so ignorant of Catholic church history? Do they think that there haven’t been problems with the clergy before this?
Do they believe that priests aren’t human beings subject to the same, if not even MORE temptations than other men?
for pete’s sake. What a terminal cop-out! 😦
(or as the young generation says today: EPIC FAIL)
Of course I pray for my parents, Mary Catherine. What an odd suggestion….or maybe not.
You do judge the actions of total strangers with such words as “terminal cop-out” and “EPIC FAIL,” to convince yourself that your own smug superiority is better than anyone else’s pathetic little attempt to be true to his own conscience.
Actually, I have started to feel a little sorry for you. It has never occurred to me before now that maybe I should pray for you, too, which was perhaps uncharitable of me.
Perhaps the best way I can put it Mary Catherine, is that you have too much milk and not enough tea in your cup. That pretty much describes what you have presented on the historical perspective.
“The neo-pagan society we currently have mirrors the pagan society that existed at the time of Rome” – {Comment Edited. Politeness matters here cranium.–GN}
@cranium: your cup is empty when it comes to understanding the role Christianity, specifically Catholicism played in the development of western society, science, jurisprudence and ethics. 😉
I”ll leave it at that. Have a nice evening……
ok L. Here’s how it is.
The sex abuse scandal involved a very small percentage of priests. To label all priests because of these few is wrong.
There is no doubt that the scandal was handled badly. I personally know people who were abused.
But the problem is a complex one that does not just affect the Catholic church. It began in our universities and moved into the seminaries. Generations before us were raised to respect a priest but perhaps in a way that was not healthy. There were also serious currents in society that were at work as well.
There is also some perspective required. For example, there is a much higher rate of abuse in the public school system in the US. Many of these situations go unreported. There is also an abuse problem in many other Christian religions. Perpetrators in these situations have also been enabled. It was part of our culture in the mid-20th century and it’s taken many years to change.
I personally had an experience where a man attempted to abduct me when I was a little girl. What was the police response? It was to drive the well-known perp to another jurisdiction where likely some other little girl was not so lucky. The fact that he tried TWICE to do this seemed to have little effect on how the police dealt with him.
Yet somehow it’s the same old story. Catholics of a certain bent leave the church for the strangest reasons while others stay in and actually do corrupt the church by their presence. To my mind, rogue priests and nuns such Hans Kung, crazy feminists and proaborts such as Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi have done just as much damage in terms of corrupting the church and destroying the faith of Catholics. Yet people do not complain about these catholycs.
I do not believe I am superior to ANY Catholic but I do believe that leaving the church because of the sex abuse scandal does not hold water. Rather it is a sign that one does not believe the words of Christ “The gates of hell shall not prevail.”
That is THE issue. It is a profound lack of trust in God’s providence over the church. We do not know why God allowed this to happen but in his infinite wisdom he did.
Most if not all of the seminaries in North America have been reformed. It has been done both by Rome and from within through the young seminarians who are arriving and actually do know their faith and can stand up to some of the garbage still being taught.
Met any young priests recently? They are awesome. These are not only men of Christ, they are true men in every aspect. They are the wonderful future of the church.
I would welcome your prayers, as long as you include yourself in them and pray to return in fullness to the Catholic faith. 😉
Thanks, Mary Catherine. 🙂 I don’t know if returning in fullness is in the cards for me, but prayers never hurt anyone.
And I do hear PLENTY of Catholic lay people as well as clergy complaining about the Kennedys, Nancy Pelosi, etc.
Mary Catherine, {Content Edited. Try addressing the area of disagreement, rather than hurling invective. This sort of dialogue is inappropriate here. This is my blog, not a hand grenade range–GN} does not constitute a valid or evidential argument on any level.
Point taken Dr. Nadal. Perhaps Mary Catherine would like to offer some evidence for her assertions that “it will be the same as after the fall of Rome…..the Catholic church preserved much of what was good in society” ; “The Catholic church contributed much to the development of Western society” and “the role Christianity, specifically Catholicism played in the development of western society, science, jurisprudence and ethics” rather than just tell me I don’t understand and then run away.
cran, for your further edification and enjoyment, may I direct you to “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods.
It is an excellent, well researched book.
It is a myth perpetrated by many in our neo-pagan, post modern society that anyone who believes in God is ignorant and stupid. But it is a myth that media and academia in particular love to indulge in. To deny our Christian heritage and its effects on the development of our society is suicide.
The topic is much too involved for discussion on a blog. This is not a cop out. However, I will say that most of the brilliant scientists (for example) were Catholics and Jesuits in particular. The body of research done by the Jesuits alone is staggering.
“To deny our Christian heritage and its effects on the development of our society is suicide.”
Why suicide?
Also, you make it sound as if any kind of civilization at all is impossible without Christianity.
Cranium,
MC took the words right out of my mouth. Woods’ book is an excellent piece of scholarship, extremely well footnoted. Pick up a copy and read it. It’s all right there.
The dialogue above exhibits a problem, a caricature perhaps, of the landscape of Catholicism today. One can write all day the truth of Catholicism, most of which I agree with. And people can agree with it and still be so disgusted with behavior or hurtful things that happened in their church that they emotionally cannot bring themselves to return. To them we have to be compassionate and patient. Reading the catechism to them will not change minds. But for the grace of God, there go I. . .
I cannot blame anyone who was abused and has left the church. Would any altar boy who was touched in a sacristy or rectory ever want to go near a church of any kind again? Would any parent or relative of those victims? There are layers and layers of healing that need to be addressed before a person can approach a former oppressor, whether in the form of an institution or person. I would agree with L. that the use of “Lame” is rather poor judgement. God can see into other’s hearts, not us, so insinuating against another’s parents is naive, in the least. B16, in Deus Caritas Est, explained how charity should be solely out of love for the person, devoid of underlying intent, even if that intent is conversion. To paraphrase Chesterton, the reason the church survived for so long is because she loved those who are unlovable.
snaul I do love those who are unlovable but honestly, as a Catholic I’ve had enough.
I’ve had enough of people saying they are leaving because of the church doing this or that. There are plenty of abuse victims who have healed through the church and are still of the church.
The bottom line is that it comes down to pride in some cases and profound ignorance in others.
“Also, you make it sound as if any kind of civilization at all is impossible without Christianity.”
L, the nearest thing to a just society here on earth will be that which is based upon the laws of God and which endeavors to follow as best as possible the truths as they have been revealed to us by God.
The CATHOLIC church is THE one true holy and apostolic church. It is the church founded by Jesus Christ who is the son of God.
There might be a civilization without God – such as we what we have now, but it certainly isn’t and won’t be just. Not even close. We don’t have a society that even remotely follows the ten commandments anymore – esp. the 6th and 9th.
And of course a reminder: we are not made for this world. We are travelers on the road to heaven. 🙂
“There might be a civilization without God – such as we what we have now, but it certainly isn’t and won’t be just. Not even close.”
I live in a pagan land with a long, rich history, and little Christian influence. It’s just enough for me. And quite civilized, too.
“I live in a pagan land with a long, rich history, and little Christian influence. It’s just enough for me. And quite civilized, too.”
yes and they are a dying culture with millions of abortions and women who don’t want babies….
yup, that’s what I’d call civilized…
Indeed. Suits me quite nicely! 😉
Thomas E Woods? That’s it? One source which is not exactly unbiased. That is not at all convincing or supportive of your claims.
“I will say that most of the brilliant scientists (for example) were Catholics and Jesuits in particular” – I can neither agree with or believe this claim.
“the nearest thing to a just society here on earth will be that which is based upon the laws of God and which endeavors to follow as best as possible the truths as they have been revealed to us by God” – just and successful societies existed before and without any deities. In fact the core ‘morals’ and strictures of the bible were based upon existing social mores and behaviors.
“The CATHOLIC church is THE one true holy and apostolic church. It is the church founded by Jesus Christ who is the son of God.” – you do realise how many other faiths claim this, some even more vehemently than you do?
“I will say that most of the brilliant scientists (for example) were Catholics and Jesuits in particular” – I can neither agree with or believe this claim.
I think you should stop cranium. Your ignorance is profound in this matter. 😉
and yes I do get it totally cran. Just like proaborts, the only source that will satisfy you is THE one that supports YOUR view of the world..
this discussion is over.
Have a nice evening….. 🙂
sorry L. Next time I’ll type in **sarcasm** alert just so you get it! 😉
Mary Catherine, you have made a number of claims in regard to the church and its place and contributions to society and science.
When challenged to provide evidence all you have done is accuse me of ignorance (what, because I don’t just accept what you claim?), thrown mud and then run away.
Not exactly convincing.
cranium, this blog is NOT about Catholicism’s influence on the development of western civilization
therefore, I recommended a very good book
go read it. It is well written and having a science background I can vouch for the stuff on the development of science etc.
Other than that, I have a life you know. Mass , the rosary, family stuff.
Have a nice evening.
Mary Catherine, you made the claims here. And rather than substantiate them you have merely repeated them and slung mud at me. And then you excuse yourself.
One single, biased source does not constitute sufficient evidence.
Gentles All,
I detect a trend toward making insulting comments followed by a 😉
This has begun to try my patience and I ask that it stop. I will not 😉 at such discourse going forward. It’s catty.
no cattiness intended Dr. Nadal.
I honestly meant them to add a touch of lightness and nothing else..
At any rate, the discussion here is over for me.
Have a blessed evening.
Didn’t intend to create a mud-slinging scenario Dr. Nadal. I just get slightly infuriated when people claim the church is the be all and end all of society and science without providing any substantaition.
Especially when I get the distinct impression I’m copping a bit of ‘hurl and run’.
I give you my personal guarantee, staking my life on it, that the sun will rise tomorrow Mary Catherine. For you too Dr. Nadal.
MC, understood 😉
Cranium,
No need to get infuriated, though I share your disdain for unsubstantiated assertions (It’s the professor in me). However, MC and I both suggested Woods’ book. It really is quite a page-turner. There’s no sense in us trying to paraphrase it here. Grab a copy and enjoy the read! If you want, we can have a good discussion of it going forward. We can even ask Woods to drop in and answer questions.
As for the sun rising… are you trying to provoke a Galileo part deux?? Have a good night.
Dr. Nadal, I have already explained that a single source of biased information is not acceptable as evidence for Mary Catherine’s claims.
Nah, it’s just a pretty safe bet way of big-noting oneself in a comical way – tends to furrow many a brow 🙂
Ciao
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/
Cranium – this is a blog you might be interested in…Not her blog post today, or maybe, but recent and past posts…. 🙂
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2010/11/question-for-atheists-love.html
This post is her most recent one that you might like to engage in…. 😉
Was curious why someone is arguing about homosexuality and the Catholic Church’s position, used the protestant interpretation and their own interpretation as basis for the church being wrong.
Maybe I misunderstand.
Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm
As far as L being happy in “your type” of society….. great – but don’t keep trying to infect others with your point of view…. but, I guess everyone feels their positions are right – some of them try to publish “how to” manuals, so that others may feel less offended at their views – if only they understood…..
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/11/amazon-pulls-pedophile-guide-amid-outrage/
I keep my position that there are two or more sides to every story, and each side contains a bit of truth. There’s some good stuff I’ve read here, and some good stuff I’ve read in lefty blogs. I am happily between the two ends of the spectrum.
I used to read Nicole’s friend’s blog a while ago. Nothing to see there, except the blogger and her friends often congratulating each other on how smart they are when they talk about Church teachings. IMO, this blog and at least one other that I can think of are written exceptionally clearly about Church teaching (whether or not I agree with any of it) without the club mentality, which is what I look for in the blogs I read, regardless of the blog’s religious or political views.
When in doubt, blame the gays. Deflect attention away from the ability of Church hierarchy to shield massive abuse and protect its offenders. Instead, pick an Other to scapegoat. Makes for a news story the public can digest more easily.
You know what’s unhealthy? Cloistering a bunch of men together and telling them sexual desire of all types is an abomination. CELIBACY is unhealthy and unnatural.
No, it can’t be denied that the Church has done good work caring for people who have fallen prey to AIDS. But it would be far more effective to get on board of a massive prevention campaign. The Pope needs to stop condemning condom use. It’s ridiculous. Do you want to know what the primary risk factor for HIV infection is for women in many African countries? MARRIAGE. Abstinence programs have a differential impact on men and women. Women are seen as the primary disease vector and told to remain chaste, while society more or less condones male premarital sexual experimentation (even if ABC programs nominally encourage male abstinence). So you get a young girl married off to an older man, and she doesn’t have the power or resources to protect herself. Abstinence: nice in theory, in reality used to perpetuate terrible inequities.
I love our Holy Preists! Love them!
LOL @ guest….The invite was for cranium if she wanted to continue and I thought she might be interested, so it was just a suggestion….
Two different blogs, two different focuses, same great purpose….
We really don’t hide the fact that we love truth, no Catholic does!
But there have been some great conversations and I thought cranium might like it and actually it had nothing to do with you.
But thanks….
Megan, It’s been well documented that the spread of HIV in Africa has not been entirely heterosexual. Truck drivers have been having a good time with one another over there and then coming home to their wives. As for the Pope condemning condom use, his public health view is in line with the public health data indicating the limited efficacy of condoms in typical use. You’ll need to read the articles written here on condoms and deal with the scientific facts linked to at CDC. I’ll delete all polemics. We traffic in science here, not pro-gay, pro-abort tirades.
As for what men are taught about sex in seminary, you’ve never been there, and I have. You sound like an ass.
While Megan does go a little bit of everywhere on her response – I found this part of a disussion (on a pro-life discussion site on facebook) very interesting when refuting an article about how abstinence doesn’t work.
Discussion here (http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/topic.php?uid=2207986099&topic=22308)
this response – excellent…. not me – just someone much smarter than me 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
“In ethology, risk compensation is an effect whereby individual people may tend to adjust their behaviour in response to perceived changes in risk. It is seen as self-evident that individuals will tend to behave in a more cautious manner if their perception of risk or danger increases. Another way of stating this is that individuals will behave less cautiously in situations where they feel “safer” or more protected.”
See especially the section on condom use and HIV protection:
“Harvard researcher Edward C. Green argued that the risk compensation phenomenon could explain the failure of condom distribution programs to reverse HIV prevalence. Dr Green says his ideas are motivated by empirical research, rather than by any moral or religious association with the Catholic Church. Green provided more detailed explanations of his views in an op-ed article for The Washington Post[14] and an extended interview with the BBC.[15] This view is shared by other specialists.[16]”
That last end-note (#16) links to a paper by by James Shelton in the Lancet. The Lancet is one of the most prestigious, peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. So I’m not throwing random internet links or even news articles, but actual scientific research. One of the conclusions of this research?
“[…] condoms seem to foster disinhibition, in which people engage in risky sex either with condoms or with the intention of using condoms.”
If you apply the principle of risk compensation to the question of abstinence-only education it’s not hard to see what may be going on. One of the biggest concerns about having sex is pregnancy. But the risk factor is actually very small if there is a perception that abortion is available as a back-up tool. In other words: abstinence-only education likely fails preciely because the availability of abortion leads to risk-compensation.
What this means is that in a location where abortionw as considered hard to get (either by statute or just because there happened to be no abortionists around) you would expect to see dramatically lower rates of unplanned pregnancy because people would respond to lack of abortion by taking greater precautions.
Of course, this isn’t just theoretical. It’s empirically verified on a national scale. The controversial and famous paper “The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime” made famous by Freakonomics makes this point. The paper, originally in the Quarterly Review of Economics, 2001 noted that there was an explosion of unplanned pregnancies immediately following the Roe v. Wade decision.
You can get the full text of the articler here: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf
In summarizing the impact of legalized abortion, economists Donohue and Levitt make a couple of observations. The main one is that the # of abortions skyrocketed after it was legalized. As a corollary with this, the number of adoptions plummeted. What’s really interesting, however, is that while abortions skyrocket the birth rate falls by a very small percent (it fell by just 5%).
You can do some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations which (if I remember correctly) conclude that the *pregnancy rate* had to increase by 40% in order for the birth rate to go down by just 5% given the high number of abortions. You should look up footnote 8 to see where Donohue and Levitt point this out themselves:
“Note, however, that the decline in births is far less than the number of abortions, suggesting that the number of conceptions increased substantially—an example of insurance leading to moral hazard. The insurance that abortion provides against unwanted pregnancy induces more sexual conduct or diminished protections against pregnancy in a way that substantially increases the number of pregnancies.”
While not using the phrase “risk compensation”, that is EXACTLY what they are describing. Risk compensation is just a superset of “insurance leading to moral hazard”.
Let me wrap this all up for you.
People respond to a perception of safety (insurance) by increasing their risky behavior. It has been empirically demonstrated that legalization of abortion led to a massive demonstration of this fact by dramatically increasing the pregnancy rate after legalization. It is therefore unlikely that abstinence-only education will be able to overcome this risk compensation effect by itself. In conclusion, abstinence doesn’t lead to high levels of pregnancy. Abortion does.
…the church is the be all and end all of society and science..
but cran, the Catholic church IS! because she holds the repository of TRUTH.
It was established by the son of God, Jesus Christ.
So the buck stops there.
As for one source, if you check out Wood’s book,there are numerous resources listed many of them from unbiased sources and from atheists and secular writers. He is simply a portal of information that backs up the thesis of his book.
There is no denying the contribution of the church and in particular the Jesuits who were brilliantly educated, to many fields.
There is even, if memory serves me, a very interesting explanation as to why the Muslim world has not had a comparable contribution. This has to do with the Catholic view of God compared to that of Islam.
Sorry for the hit and run. But my beliefs are just hanging on faith – I have the goods to back up what I believe and why.
(I wanted to insert a winky icon but I guess all just have to pass if I want the comment to be published.)
“The Pope needs to stop condemning condom use. It’s ridiculous. Do you want to know what the primary risk factor for HIV infection is for women in many African countries?”
DO YOU KNOW that the condom does not prevent the passage of the HIV virus? So it’s quite ridiculous to promote condoms when they don’t actually work and provide a false sense of security.
Abstinence by both single men and women and faithfulness in marriage to ones spouse are the only ways to stop AIDS.
It’s time people got off the pot and started behaving like reasonable adults with a bit of self-control instead of raving animals in heat all the time.
“In conclusion, abstinence doesn’t lead to high levels of pregnancy. Abortion does.”
This is like saying, “Teaching good study habits doesn’t lead to higher school performance, school uniforms does.” There are studies that show that when public schools require their students to wear uniforms, academic performance improves. Was it the uniforms, or was it that a school that is conscientious enough and musters the parental support to introduce uniforms is also taking other measures, and together they all add up to improved performance?
Was it simply the availibility of legalized abortion, or other societal changes that were taking place at the same time that all led to more sex outside of marriage?
“One of the biggest concerns about having sex is pregnancy. But the risk factor is actually very small if there is a perception that abortion is available as a back-up tool.”
I am personally grateful that abortion is available as a back-up tool, and yet I have ZERO desire to ever have one — I mean, ick! Even if one has no moral qualms, it’s still a highly undesirable, expensive, invasive procedure. I do know a few “pro-aborts” who seem to think abortion is so minor that no one should even bother worrying about preventing them, but they are definitely in the minority.
Thanks for comparing me to a pedophile, AMC. Except pedophiles aren’t as bad as we “pro-aborts” — the former aren’t automatically excommunicated, while the latter are. And you better believe I will “keep trying to infect others” with my point of view. [Insert chuckle here, to avoid ambiguous winky-smiley emoticon]
“It’s time people got off the pot and started behaving like reasonable adults with a bit of self-control instead of raving animals in heat all the time.”
If I were an African woman, married to a man I feared was HIV-positive, I imagine I would want to do all I could to protect myself. It is absolutely TRUE that condoms aren’t 100% effective, but even 80% or 90% is better than the ZERO of unprotected sex with an infected spouse.
But what do I know, I’m just a raving animal in heat. [Not just a chuckle this time — insert hearty laughter here.]
So wait, Mary Catherine- the Catholic view of God is responsible for the superiority of Western civilization, compared all other world civilizations? Is this really what you’re saying there?
” So the buck stops there” – that’s it is it? Your evidence is a religious affirmation that it is because it is.
And references from a biased book would be of any more value because….?
“But my beliefs are just hanging on faith” – well that appears to be true.
“I have the goods to back up what I believe and why” – yes but we never see them do we.
You ‘sound’ very similar to someone I dealt with on another site a while back in the way you purport to have great knowledge and evidence but are always too busy or something to actually deliver.
Nah, as far as I can tell Dr. Nadal doesn’t have a problem with the emoticons unless they are used in an attempt to atone for excess 🙂
I checked it out Nicole, I see no value in contributing to a semantics session predicated on someones pre-concieved position.
Cranium,
Unless you bother to engage the book head-on, and its sources, you come off rather poorly here. Your comment is polemical and borders on being censored. I don’t tolerate ignorant polemics, ON EITHER SIDE here at Coming Home. When I write, I cite my sources from mainstream science. I tend to delete commentary that attacks the source material when it is obvious that the commenter hasn’t read it. I strive for an intellectually honest commentary between both sides. That means reading and internalizing the other side’s point of view.
MC has delivered a readable and engaging historical treatise. You could do your part by reading it before passing judgement.
That’s the set point for the bar here.
cranium I think you are being a bit disingenuous
the word should be aren’t (as in my beliefs aren’t just hanging on faith) instead of are but you stick with what you want to read into it. Fine by me.
go get the book cran. {Content edited. No ad hominems–GN}
@L:
It is absolutely TRUE that condoms aren’t 100% effective, but even 80% or 90% is better than the ZERO of unprotected sex with an infected spouse.
no this is not true L. in a 2003 study the UN stated that condoms fail at least 10% of the time. HOwever, there are plenty of studies that demonstrate failure to protect rates as high as 50%.
A failure rate of even 10% is very high for a disease that is fatal. Would you take this risk with rabies?
However, of course PP markets condoms like they are 100 % safe. They are not.
Uganda saw a significant drop in AIDS cases when they promoted abstinence and stopped promoting the use of condoms. They were considered the success story on the continent but you won’t hear Planned Parenthood promoting the Ugandan way.
Sadly this battle is about ideology rather than real care about helping the African people.
oh and about the emoticons: I don’t get cut any slack by Dr. Nadal. I’d rather not use them then see yet another comment deleted…..
sorry I should have placed your comment in quotes, L.
I’ve never heard any “pro-aborts” claim that condoms are 100% effective. And yes, surely the poorly manufactured ones are far more prone to leakage and breakage. (I am blessed to live in a country where high-quality condoms are available, and if I may get personal, I think they are wonderful, for lots of reasons). I actually agree with you, that no one should be taught that condoms will eliminate risks, because surely they won’t — but I think any degree of protection is better than ZERO protection.
Uganda is promoting abstinence now? I wish them luck, but I think abstinence-only education is really silly. (I had to “supplement” the sex-education materials they received at their Catholic school, and teach them my own views on contraception and masturbation). I hear Uganda is quite forward-looking when it comes to gay rights, too. [Insert giggle after last sentence.]
That is to say, MY KIDS received. Sorry, I clearly don’t proof-read my comments before I hit publish, and I really should!
L said: Was it simply the availibility of legalized abortion, or other societal changes that were taking place at the same time that all led to more sex outside of marriage?
I wonder why you ask this question L?
The institution of birthcontrol were the societal changes that were taking place that led to more sex outside of marriage, more affairs…It’s a consequence of our actions that have lead us to this….The irresponsibility we take when we cut the Creator off of the reproductive aspect in our marriages. Obviously, I’m sensing there might not be a creator for you? We become animalistic and use each spouse for their own fulfillment and satisfaction. There is no self giving where one is sterilized.
L you really have me confused when you say personally grateful for abortion, I’m sorry you really can not mean that? The sentence that stands out the most AS A BACK UP TOOL. So you already are saying that birth control does not control birth. You still ovulate on the pill even when they claim you don’t. You still conceive on the pill even when they say it’s so effective. If it was so effective would your back up tool be then needed?
Personally grateful that murder is legalized in the womb? Wow, that just takes things to a whole new level. Yet you will not have one for yourself…Is this the liberal motto: If it doesn’t affect me personally, anything goes? Please explain because I really can not even comprehend the word grateful and abortion to be used in the same sentence.
When is it that you think life begins?
A first trimester abortion is not expensive…I’m sure you could get one if you wanted one with no problems. But with it being legal through all 9 months, I’m sure you could get one with no problem. How is it undesirable when you can get one on just about any corner in the city? Have you ever been involved with a friend that has recovered from or suffered the effects of an abortion?
Nicole, I am Catholic, and I believe life begins at conception, and yet I believe fervently in both abortion and contraception (and use the latter). I believe both kill ensouled human beings, and yet and I have no moral qualms about either — I think women should be able to remove or kill anything in their own bodies as they see fit. I am not a devout Catholic, by any means. And I believe it is better to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Yes, I know more than four dozen post-abortive women, including one who terminated shortly before her due date.
“If it doesn’t affect me personally, anything goes?”
It DOES affect me personally. I want to be able to obtain a legal abortion, in some circumstances, and keep on using my legal contraception. This is why I feel so strongly about the subject.
“So you already are saying that birth control does not control birth.”
Abortion = birth control. I think you mean, contraception fails — yes, this is true. However, if one uses multiple forms of barrier contraception, and on top of that studies NFP and uses it contraceptively, one can reduce chances of conception pretty close to zero.
Gentles All,
I’m off to a meeting, but will comment later. Have fun, but PLEASE be civil. I presume upon everyone’s good will and ask that you do the same.
Don’t trash the living room while I’m gone 😉
(Good God the winking is contagious!)
L:
compare the Philippines with Thailand
The Philippines do not promote condom use and had a rate of 9,000 HIV-positive out of a population of 80 million.
Thailand by contrast, with its promotion of condoms, had 570,000 HIV cases in a population of 63 million.
You can also check out Edward Green, Director of Harvard’s AIDS Prevention Research Project at
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227110/saint-peters-square-harvard-square/kathryn-jean-lopez
I too am gone for the night.
You have something in your eye, Dr. Nadal. 😉
I am off to cover the APEC meeting in Yokohama, so I have to leave, too.
Oh, and Mary Catherine? The Philippines has made greater strides in controlling its sex industry, while Thailand still has a thriving “sex tourism” business — I think that also helps explain the lower HIV rate.
Oh wow L. I guess just to help me understand and I’m not even being confrontational, how can you be Catholic or even call yourself Catholic yet reject the church. I guess I would even wonder why you would bother? Convenience?
Oh yes, don’t mind my lingo…. Hahahaha I always tongue tie my words, not very clear….Usually it’s pretty easy to read between the lines of what I’m trying to say!
You believe life begins at conception, yet it’s still okay to have it your way….Your birthcontrol is an abortificient. That’s okay too?
I guess, I just wonder, as a Catholic where it you have no moral qualms with it…I’m really just trying to understand.
I’ve been over it before on this blog, Nicole, so apologies to those who heard it before — yes, I accept that some people believe that I am not a Catholic, because clearly, my opinions contradict Church views. As for why I still bother going to mass — your guess is as good as mine. I don’t know. I guess because I think it’s about more than abortion and birth control? Overall, it’s a mystery.
Also, rest assured I am not one of those people running around and insisting it’s still possible to be a good Catholic and reject Church teachings. I am very clear and honest about my opinions, and the fact that some of them misalign.
What made you proclaim that my birth control is an abortificiant? That seems rather presumptuous of you, if I do say so.
Okay, I see the place is in great shape and there is no blood on the walls.
L,
You are a Catholic who is drawn to Mass for the same reason that I am. We’re both sinners much in need of the graces that come to s through the Word and Eucharist. And I’ll defend you as a full member of the faith against any who opine otherwise. Of course I’d love to see you come around on abortion, but I’m rather busy working on my own wretchedness. As for the pill being an abortifacient, that’s true and stated in the product inserts.
Now to the most serious issue of the night, how is the sushi over there compared to the states?
Nicole,
Sadly the blog world mirrors the real world when it comes to Catholicism. And right now at this point in history, there are many catholycs who are contracepting and who pick and choose what they will believe in. Technically because she was baptized a Catholic, L still is one – just not in union with Rome nor at right with God.
However, I prefer to use the term “catholyc” because this recognizes that in fact these persons while determined to identify as Catholic and convinced they are Catholics in good standing, are in false Catholics and usually the case of scandal. These people often revel in their rebellion and also revel in flaunting (esp. on blogs and anywhere else they possibly can) how they have managed to trick priests in to marrying them, or have been aided by persons in the church in contracepting, aborting, fornicating and so forth. Mostly their lives are built around lies.
The church Jesus Christ founded never was a democracy. Peter and the apostles did not choose what they would believe in. They were taught by the church and they had the humility to believe and to form their conscience according to church teachings. Catholycs like Nancy Pelosi for example, are firm in their belief that one can support abortion rights and still receive Holy Communion.
As to why aborting and contracepting catholycs still attend the church I believe it’s likely that this assuages their consciences somewhat and is largely about trying to feel good about themselves. It is a common trait that such persons are very involved in social justice issues excepting those ones that touch on justice for the unborn or issues involving sexual morality.
These persons are mostly indoctrinated heavily in secular humanist rationalization. This is a religion characterized by a hardened heart (supporting abortion rights is one example) and a closed mind (refusal to accept scientific proof of the humanity of unborn children, the science of how oral contraceptives are abortifacient are examples).
So yes. L is catholyc.
God bless
Dr. Nadal, you’ ve been majorly dissed over at Jill Stanek on the post abortion syndrome thread.
L. I didn’t want to come off as a sinner throwing the stones, cause Lord knows I’m a pitiful sinner, I guess I just wonder how it is possible to believe in something so beautiful such as the Mass, but then reject the truths of the very foundation in which we believe. You say they are Church views. I don’t think the church is shallow enough have view points, she sees it as truth, not just an opinon or view.
John 18:37-38:
Jesus [said]….”For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice.”
Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”
We are surrounded by Pilates world view today. You have your truth, I have mine and who cares if we contradict. Pilate’s words are conventional wisdom today, but we Christians must understand that Pilate’s worldview — the worldview that all truth is subjective — is incompatible with Christianity.
I’ve come to learn that if I question what the church truth is that is set before me, it is always myself that has the issue, it isn’t the church. It takes a lot of prayer and discernment to get me to see the truth, but in time it is revealed.
Presumptious about the pill being an abortificient is not a secret, I did not make this up on my own. To sum it up most pills release low dose hormones that make the uterine lining hostile for a conceived baby unable to implant and is aborted due to hostile uterine lining. When the pill was first sent out it had such high doses of hormones in it that women were having ill side effects. So they lowered the dose to stop the side effects but that then made it possible for breakthrough ovulation…..(I could be wrong in my wording, it’s all off the top of my head and most the time I have the memory of a gnat when it comes to “fact” learning)
Remember because abortion is the back up tool for failed birth control….There is so much information on the ill effects of the birth control pill. I would be happy to give you some links and more information about it. As a mother, or maybe I’m just assuming, it is a natural instinct to protect our children from conception. Unfortunately, one can be easily decieved by all the great catchy commericals that are out there…All the convenience, all the great “choices” we have Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday etc…etc…..
Anyway, I’m new on this blog, sorry if this has all been hashed before…..I was merely just asking questions L, because I don’t understand how you marvel in the Mass, but reject the truths of church. And I’m not throwing stones, just asking because I merely want to understand because I do see it in the pews as well. And no I’m not perfect and sometimes I wonder how I am even able to have faith….
Greetings from Yokohama, where I am eating my lunch.
I meant, it’s presumptuous to assume that my contraception is the pill, when there are so many other forms of birth control out there. In fact, I only took the pill for a few months, as a teen, but switched to barrier contraception because I was worried about side effects (though I did use a copper IUD for a while). Not all birth control is abortificiant.
Mary Catherine, I am a Catholyc the way you are a womyn. Okay? Okay! Heh.
And Dr. Nadal, the sushi here is divine (though some varieties of it are no more delicious than in the U.S., since some is caught in the Atlantic or the U.S. side of the Pacific). If you ever get over to Tokyo, I would enjoy taking you out for a meal you would never forget.
Sorry guys, had to shoot over to the G20 summit in Korea to get a couple of recalcitrants to kiss and make up. Probably saved your walls and carpet though Dr. Nadal 😉
I find books such as Don O’Leary’s ‘Roman Catholicism and Modern Science: A History’ to be quite representative the majority view of the interplay between science and the church.
The conclusion I draw is that if we are to say that the church had a major impact on science, it was in regard to the extreme efforts and voluminous information which were required to overcome the protestations of the church in respect of various scientific factors.
“As a mother, or maybe I’m just assuming, it is a natural instinct to protect our children from conception.”
You mean, protect them from contraception? Or protect them from the moment of conception?
For some of us, it’s indeed true that it’s a natural instinct to protect them from being conceived, but somehow I doubt you mean that!
Oh and I think I read somewhere with barrier methods and NFP you can cut down your conception rate to zero, there for it might have been presumptious of me to assume you were taking a hormonal contraception.
Pope John Paul wrote a wonderful piece called The Theology of The Body.
Condom use is a sin because it closes the door to the possibility of creation. Creation in this sense the creation of another human being. NFP does not close the door to life because man and woman are simply engaging in the procreative act of sexual intercourse..the way god intended. Condom use is an artificial barrier to prevent new life.
God gave us the awesome gift of actually being able to actively participate in his greatest creation…that is, the creation of another human being. Using a condom is like stadning toe to toe with god and telling him you are going to do it YOUR way.
NFP NEVER interferes with the possibility of conception from engaging in intercourse. It is simply monitoring for times of less chance of conception.
God created sexual intercourse for the primary purpose of allowing us to participate in cooperation with Him in the creation of a new human life. Whenever we tinker with this gift via contraception we are removing the core component of its reason for existence. THus we are reducing it to a physical event and have removed the spiritual aspect of it. WHich guts it of its meaning.
If my insomnia will allow me to sleep, I will get off this blog! But I fell asleep and now I’m wide awake!
L, you doubted correctly.
Is it bold of me to ask for the link where Dr. N was dissed by JS? I can’t seem to find it.
Nicole, I wasn’t insulted by Jill Stanek. Jill and I are friends. I was spoken ill of by a troll name Joan on the Pro-liferations thread, and responded accordingly.
Gotcha! trolls….
Thank you L BUT I have never used contraception and I have had a wonderful bunch of kids!
I have treated my body with dignity and seen my God given fertility as the gift it is!
Have a nice day!
Nicole you have made some wonderful comments here!
“Using a condom is like stadning toe to toe with god and telling him you are going to do it YOUR way.”
Yes — indeed. And I most certainly do. I also abstain during my most fertile times, because I am absolutely closed to life. If God wants to give me another baby, He can leave it in a rush basket on my doorstep.
Fertility can be a gift, but it can also be a curse. One woman’s blessing is another woman’s curse.
“The conclusion I draw is that if we are to say that the church had a major impact on science, it was in regard to the extreme efforts and voluminous information which were required to overcome the protestations of the church in respect of various scientific factors.”
Actually, the church was the lead edge in many scientific fields, especially astronomy, seismology and mathematics.
L. Can you at least answer the question where you get your truth from? From Pilate or Jesus? I’m really wanting to know that….You just pick and choose it for yourself since your conscience doesn’t scream it’s morally wrong? Just trying to understand your “logic”.
But other then that your statement about being in control over your “fertility” sends off waves of hurt. Obviously, there is more to this story then what is blog worthy and for that I respect your privacy…Or maybe then I’m just being presumtious again….
We were infertile for the first 5 years of our marriage. I sit now 31 weeks pregnant. I thought that infertility almost killed me with all the surgeries, but physically carrying this child has been the most demanding things I have ever done. But where my infertility cross was once hidden from the eyes of the world, I have an outward cross that I now carry of His love nesteled in my womb. This is my body which will be given up for my children….In someway I am able to play part in Christs suffering in some very small way.
No house, car, designer jeans were made with heaven as their desitnation, but the soul that thrives inside of me was created out of His image. A blessing only He can give. When we reject and barrier His gifts, we reject Our Savior Himself.
“We were infertile for the first 5 years of our marriage. I sit now 31 weeks pregnant.”
Congratulations Nicole! I will pray that you have a safe delivery.
Yes, let me add to the congratulations here, Nicole, and I hope the rest of your pregnancy and delivery go well.
Your situation helps me better understand your point of view. I have never suffered from infertility, but have many friends who have, and I can’t imagine what you went through.
Thanks ladies! 🙂 I started out thinking I derserved children….hahahaha Thankfully I got myself in check…. 😉
L. That is where I was talking about when the church has something out, in our case Dignitas Personae, Humane Vitae etc…I cringed because I was told by a “fake” infertility doctor that I needed IVF or IUI or assisted reproduction to become pregnant and that it would never happen on its own…But the church was saying no, we respect the human dignity of the person here is why…..So it took a long battle to get me to see the beauty behind the truth….
It was through my infertility that I came to understand the church teaching much better, but not just when it came to fertility to all things that the church taught…..So my view point is the truth of the church that was revealed to me in my darkest hours.
Ack, I don’t want to make this all about me…..Moving on…. 😉
Nicole, thank you for sharing how the truth of church teachings actually was a blessing for you.
Sometimes it seems that the teachings of our faith make things very difficult and cause us more suffering.
Yet God is never outdone in generosity.
I have learned all this and much more just from being open to the gift of life when at times, one more child seemed one to many. I have been abundantly blessed because of this openness to God’s will in my life and in ways I could never have imagined.
Nicole, I love hearing people’s stories, and hearing why they believe what they do, and how they live these beliefs in their lives. I think this is one reason I am fond of reading Catholic (and Mormon) blogs.
I also try never to project my own particular beliefs and feelings onto others. This is why, even though your pregnancy is something that I personally do not want right now, I am genuinely happy for you.
Thanks L….I actually really enjoy talking to you. Even if I don’t understand..It isn’t for me to understand…Even though I desperately want to…hahahaha
Oh and on some days in my very weakness I freak out over what I signed up for and the responsibility, the hardships and all, I sometimes barely make it through a day….It is better then a barren womb any day though.
Are we to sappy for you Dr! :)- Blaming it on hormones!
It reminds me of something I once read: People who have children and people who don’t have children often feel sorry for the other.