Q. According to the New York Times sexual repression caused by the right wing American churches Catholic and Protestant has stopped, through pressure groups, condom provision to 16 countries and reduced 13 others, including some with the highest rates of AIDS infection.The influence of Christian view of sinfulness of sex outside marriage, the U.S government has required that one-third of it’s AIDS prevention funds allocated to Africa be squandered on teaching abstinence rather than condom use. Millions WILL die due to this religious dogmatism.
How would you answer this question?

A. The NYT is a left wing propaganda machine and a news organization barely at all.Many of the men in Africa who have AIDS think that if they have sex with a virgin they will be cured. So will they use a condom? Will rapists use a condom? Many who spread the AIDS Virus do so primarily because they have the contraceptive mentality that permeates Western culture which approves and encourages the goal of sexual pleasure stripped of its procreative meaning of total self-giving love. So pleasure seekers are reluctant to use condoms b/c they reduce the pleasure.

JPII’s Theology of the Body portrays the sexual union of a husband, wife and child as an image of the HOLY TRINITY! Putting a barrier between lovers destroys the beauty of love. Can you imagine one of the persons of the Holy Trinity rejecting the creative power of one of the other persons???? That is precisely what happens with contracepted sex–rejection of the fertility of the beloved. That is NOT Total Self-Giving Love it is total self-getting love & pleasure.

Abstinence works. Uganda promotes this and has for some time and they have reduced their AIDS problem. Don’t have the stats on hand but click HERE for the story. Abstinence does work.

To hand out condoms as a preventative for AIDS is absolutely IRRESPONSIBLE. Your give people a false sense of security that may very well lead to their death and the death of those they infect and on, ad infinitum. Condoms break and slip. Condoms have very small pores or holes that are 50-500 times larger than the HIV virus but much, much smaller than sperm. Click HERE. Due to the layers of latex these pores are not aligned all the time, so the openings to HIV are reduced BUT THEY ARE THERE.

Would you jump out of an airplane with a parachute that had a 15 % chance of not opening? Condom protection against AIDS has an 15% failure rate for vaginal sex and only of 50% chance of protecting against AIDS with anal sex. A room full of sex experts were at a conference and were asked if they would use a condom in order to have sex with someone they knew had AIDS. NONE were willing to risk their lives for the momentary pleasure of sex with someone who had a deadly disease. Would you? I wouldn’t.

So, responsible, caring and truly loving people will only promote abstinence to protect against AIDS and STI’s . It is the only moral choice. I don’t want blood on my head. Do you?

Other Links about Condom Failure: Here or Here

You can do your own research. Just remember that this is a topic rife with political correctness. So, try to ascertain any bias and make up your own mind about what is really SAFE.

Q. I just don’t get what is wrong with Contraception. What if parents can’t afford 10 children?

A. Yes, parents must be responsible. If they cannot afford more children or want to space their children, they must abstain from sex during the fertile time. Natural Family Planning is 95% effective. It has no side effects and does not put harmful drugs in the body of the woman. And this form of birth control is perfectly moral. Because there is no rule that says that one must have sex everytime one is fertile if married. That would be ridiculous. What if the woman is sick, or just had a baby, or just had surgery, or her husband is sick, etc.

I am sure it is hard to accept the Catholic view of these passages but did you know that all Christians condemned all contraception until 1930 when the Anglican Church approved it ONLY in the case of a threat to the mother’s life? Even secular people condemned it as immoral and leading to disorder and degradation of women. See my post Here and HERE

But God created us and sex. He has decreed that it be used only in marriage and it is meant to be a concrete and beautiful image of the love and total selfgiving of the Holy Trinity–Man, woman, child. Contraception is not total self-giving and accepting of the other. The use of contraception entails REJECTION. One or both of the partners are rejecting the fertility of the beloved. Therefore, their loving union is not TOTAL SELF GIVING. It is partial and actively rejects something that is intrinsic to the other.

As in the case of Onan, sexual pleasure/union and openness to procreation are not to be stripped away from each other in order to just have pleasure without procreation or procreation without sexual union of husband and wife. (In Vitro, etc)

Contraception in order to obtain pleasure without babies is intrusive and disfigures the meaning of sexual union. Homosexual sex, masturbation, pedophilia, beastiality, adultery, pre-marital sex prostitution, etc all seek only pleasure and so does contracepted sex. All of these sexual acts are aimed only at obtaining sexual pleasure stripped of any openess to or possibility of, procreation. None of these image the Holy Trinity.

This is disordered. The natural purpose and end of sex is UNION and Procreation– or Babies and Bonding. Anytime you actively exclude one or the other it is sinful.

This is very brief. I would recommend that you read a post here called Contraception: Why Not by Dr. Janet Smith –Click Here

Babies: we need more like you

This ad was put out in Germany to create a culture of life. Due to disdain for children, zero population propaganda, and contraception Germany’s population was beginning to decline . It was not even at replacement level and Germans would disappear in the mists of history if they did not embrace the sacrificial love of CHILDREN.

Q. Isn’t abortion allowed in order to save the life of the mother?

A. Never. We never do evil that good may come. However, either your or your teachers may have misunderstood the following sort of circumstances.

There are instances in which it is legitimate for an expectant mother to undergo certain medical or surgical procedures that will save her life, even if these procedures inevitably involve the death of her unborn child. In these cases it is not a question of intentionally aborting the child. They involve, rather, accepting the loss of the child as an unavoidable consequence of caring for the mother´s health.

The clearest and surest example is the ectopic pregnancy. As everyone knows, should the fetus become lodged in the oviduct or fallopian tube, its continued growth will result in the death of both child and mother. A normal and proper procedure in this case is the removal of the fallopian tube, from which the death of the unborn child inevitably follows. In this case the death of the child is not sought, nor is the mother´s life saved by the child´s dying.

This is not an abortion. Quite simply, the mother´s life is saved by the surgical removal of the oviduct, not by the death of her child. If this reasoning is too subtle for some American minds to follow, well, the available evidence suggests that just about any coherent thinking these days is too subtle for some American minds to follow.

A similar dilemma would arise in the case of an expectant mother diagnosed with uterine cancer. The death of the child obviously would result from the removal of the cancerous organ, but it is not the death of the child that is deliberately sought, nor is the mother´s life saved as a result of the child´s death. This is not an abortion in the sense used by moral theology; it is just a standard application of the ethical principle known as “double effect,” which is undoubtedly what the magazine in question, an Orthodox journal that takes its theology seriously, intended to say.

Unfortunately, however, given a chance to correct its earlier slip, the magazine compounded the difficulty by asserting that “the Church teaches that the mother must be saved.” No, strictly speaking, this is not true either; such a very tough medical decision is normally a matter of the mother´s choice, and I am familiar with no teaching of the Orthodox Church that would oblige a mother´s conscience to value her own life over her child´s. The mother´s life is not intrinsically of greater value than the child´s, and every mother known to me, if the choice were ineluctable, would value her child´s life above her own.

It is interesting to observe that the Roman Catholic Church recently honored with canonical beatification a woman who died in 1962 in consequence of choosing not to undergo the surgical procedure just mentioned. Even though she knew that it would result in her death, Gianna Molla carried her baby to term and then died a week later.
Her little girl grew up and was on hand in St. Peter´s Square to see her mother raised to the dignity of the altar. From CatholicNet

At her mother's canonization.

Q. Why is Natural Family Planning OK but contraception is a grave sin? What is the difference?

A. The difference is that one is indulgence in pleasure and the other practices self control. Both methods have the same effect, limiting family size, but that does not make them equal morally. For instance, if Grandma is terminally ill you could kill her or allow her to die naturally. The end result is the same but the moral difference could not be greater. Never do evil so that good may come.

The couple who practices NFP abstains from pleasure in order to limit family size while the contracepting couple indulges in pleasure stripped from its meaning and purpose.

The NFP couple practices total self giving love in their union but the contracepting couple rejects the fertility of their mate and so the union is incomplete.

God designed sex and eating to be pleasurable so that we would not forget to procreate and nourish our bodies. Stripping the pleasure of sex away from its God-given purpose is disordered just like attempting to get the pleasure out of eating but avoiding the natural purpose by throwing up after every meal.

God created the marital union to be a tri-unity of pleasure, bonding and openess to children. The attempt to extract pleasure and bypass the purpose of sex and eating is called lust and bulimia.

Technorati Tags: Religion, Catholic, Marriage, Contraception, mortal+sin

Q. Why doesn’t the Catholic Church allow contraception?

A. Because the pleasure of the marital embrace was created by God for babies & bonding. It is a package deal. Anytime the pleasure of the sexual act is obtained while actively or purposely excluding either of these goods, it is a grave sin. The following acts are gravely sinful:

Below are sins that result from the pursuit of sexual pleasure alone while excluding both bonding and openness to procreation:

• masturbation-CCC
• pornography-CCC
• prostitution-CCC
• rape-CCC
• anonymous homosexual acts
• beastiality
• orgies
• Oral sex without intercourse

Below are sins that result from the pursuit of sexual pleasure within the context of bonding with another human being but excluding openness or the possibility of procreation:

• homosexual-CCC
• fornication-CCC
• contraception-CCC
• Oral sex without intercourse

Below are sins that occur when there is a pursuit of procreation outside of the marital act which excludes bonding and in addition to this it includes the grave sin of masturbation:

• artificial insemination-CCC
• artficial procreation (test tube babies)-CCC

Contraception is only one of several sins resulting from the misuse of human sexuality according to the laws of God. These are some of the reasons the Catholic Church can never approve of any of these practices.
For a more elegant and complete explanation see the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2351 ff.

Technorati Tags: Religion, Catholic, Marriage, Contraception, mortal+sin homosexual, masturbation, pornography, beastiality,

Rosa Linda G. Valenzona
25 June 2008

“The great tragedy of population control, the fatal misconception, was to think that one could know other people’s interests better than they knew it themselves,” says Matthew Connelly, summing up one of the major global forces of the last 50 years. Although that assessment comes nowhere near my own sense of outrage at the movement that has filled the world with aborted fetuses and sterilized men and women, Connelly’s book as a whole is an unprecedented admission, from a supporter of what is now known as “reproductive rights”, that the movement, historically at least, has trampled wholesale on the rights of Third World people. As a citizen of a developing country I can breathe a sigh of relief: finally, the truth is coming out.

Connelly, an associate professor of history at Columbia University in the United States, set himself a task that has been avoided by mainstream academics; the result is what his publishers call “a withering critique [that] uncovers the cost inflicted by a humanitarian movement gone terribly awry”.

In spite of my familiarity with human rights violations committed in the name of population control in the Philippines, I am still appalled by what this movement has done in India, China, Bangladesh and other Third World countries.

India First…see the rest of this article Here

Hint: The Catholic Church is not the answer to any of them.

1) Contraception is the one sin for which the penalty is national death; a sin for which there is no atonement.

2) The abandonment of the reproductive function is the common feature of all sexual perversions. We actually describe a sexual activity as perverse if it has given up the aim of reproduction and pursues the attainment of pleasure as an aim independent of it.

3) “Contraceptive methods are like putting a premium on vice. They make men and women reckless. Nature is relentless and will have full revenge for any such violation of her laws…If contraceptive methods become the order of the day nothing but moral degradation can be the result. As it is, man has sufficiently degraded woman for his lust, and contraception, no matter how well-meaning the advocates many be, will still further degrade her.”

4) “By accepting contraception, the world is trying …to form a civilized but non-Christian, mentality. The experiment will fail; but we must be very patient in awaiting its collapse; meanwhile redeeming the time so that the Faith may be preserved alive through the dark ages before us; to renew and rebuild civilization and save the world from suicide.”

Prior to 1930 all of Christendom condemned the use of contraception as an evil. But, then in 1930 the Anglican Church decreed that the use of contraception was permissible when the life of the mother was in danger. What periodical ridiculed that decision? Hint: It is still published today.

5) “Carried to its logical conclusions, (contraceptives)…would sound the death knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality: The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be ‘careful and restrained’ is preposterous.”

Answers:
1) President Theodore Roosevelt
2) Freud
3) Ghandi
4) T.S. Eliot
5) The Washington Post-”Forgetting Religion” 3/22/1931

Q. If bulimia and contraception are abuses of the pleasure of eating and sexual union, then why do I agree that bulimia is disordered but contraception doesn’t seem disordered at all?

A. Contraception doesn’t seem or feel as disordered because in our culture bulimia is still disapproved of but contraception is highly approved. We are steeped in the teaching of our culture. In all the surrounding culture contraception is not just OK but it is a duty. It is a duty if you are not married to your partner. It is a duty if you have financial problems. It is a duty if you already have two children, especially, if you have a boy and a girl. This is often unspoken but this mindset lies behind the comments to the newly pregnant woman like, “Oh, a surprise pregnancy, right?” “Don’t you know what causes these things?” or from a friend, “sigh…..Now it will be even longer before we can do lunch. (I have seven children so I have heard these and more for myself)

This worldly wisdom seems practical and logical based on the little we know about ourselves. But God knows fully what is best for us. He knows how this Sexual Union Abuse wounds our souls and our marriages. The abuse of the sexual union with contraception, both in and out of matrimony has created chaos in the culture, disordered relationships, and deeply wounded hearts and minds.

Compare the mindset of most people today with the convictions of respected leaders from the very recent past:

Contraception is the one sin for which the penalty is national death, race death; a sin for which there is no atonement–Theodore Roosevelt

The abandonment of the reproductive function is the common feature of all sexual perversions. We actually describe a sexual activity as perverse if it has given up the aim of reproduction and pursues the attainment of pleasure as an aim independent of it.–Sigmund Freud

Contraceptive methods are like putting a premium on vice. They make men and women reckless. Nature is relentless and will have full revenge for any such violation of her laws….If (contraceptive) methods become the order of the day, nothing but moral degradation can be the result. As it is, man has sufficiently degraded woman for his lust, and no matter how well meaning the advocates may be, (contraception) will still further degrade her.”-Ghandi

“Contraceptives are an insult to womanhood. The only difference between a prostitute and a woman who uses contraceptives is that the former sells her body to many men, the latter to one only . . . It is the work of our generation to glorify vice by calling it virtue.”–Ghandi

By accepting contraception, the world is trying to form a civilized but non-
Christian mentality. The experiment will fail; but we must be very patient in awaiting its collapse; meanwhile redeeming the time so that the Faith may be preserved alive through the dark ages before us; to renew and rebuild civilization and save the world from suicide.”–T. S Eliot

These are “the consequences of methods of artificially limiting the increase of children. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. … men—… growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion” –Pope Paul VI: Humane Vite 17.

We have slid

way,

way

down

the

slippery

slope of immorality.

Technorati Tags: Catholic, contraception, bulimia, sex, sexual+sin, sin

Q. I also would like to raise the question of a person continually reproducing offspring that they cannot afford to clothe and feed. Do you think that God would approve of us conceiving a child that we cannot feed, clothe, or nurture?

A.  Regulation of family size is completely under the control of the parents. It is very simple–abstinence. That is how responsible people have since the beginning of history have been able to regulate their family size when necessary. Self control/self mastery is a Christian Virtue. It is our post-Christian culture that has come to believe that having sex is an inalienable right!

Q. I believe that every child is a precious gift from God, but do you believe that God intentionally allows a child to be born to drug addicts or child abusers?

A. No. He created our fertility. Our job is to seek to live virtuous and holy lives and love Him. Drug Addicts and child abusers and children born to them are the result of the sinful choices man makes with his free will. Does God intend these choices? Absolutely not. But He does allow it. You will have to take that up with God.

Q. I believe this becomes a question of our free will. Yes he wants us to be frutiful and multiply. Yes he wants us to have children and teach them about God, but he would want us to use our brain and not create children that may be loved from the depth of our heart, but cannot be provided for.

A. I could not agree more. So, self denial is called for in order to regulate family size.

Q. More often than not, this actually leads to a family having more children than they can possibly afford and can lead to money issues which can lead to abuse of an innocent child.

A. It is not cause and effect. Yes, poverty can stress parents. But I live in Southern California and travel down to Mexico where there is a lot of poverty due to government corruption. And, yes, a friend of mine and her family left their father in Mexico because he was abusive…but they were NOT poor. Although, of course, I don’t doubt it can happen in poor families also. But do you know what I see in Mexico and here in the US among poorer Mexicans? Love and celebration of family. Because of their poverty they value that which is eternal –people/family and friends. No doubt this will change, unfortunately the longer they are here. But poverty does NOT cause abuse, sin does that. Poverty oddly enough gives better clarity about what has lasting value.