In our brave new world, in which the only criterion of morality, with regards to sex, seems to be mutual consent, with a nod in the direction of protecting children given by the law on the age of consent, we find some puzzling anomalies.
The Irish case, in which a boy with learning difficulties is being prosecuted for statutory rape of a girl of his own age (both 16 - the age of consent being 17 in that jurisdiction) highlights these.
Why is it the boy who is deemed the rapist? Because the girl has parents who complained to the Gardai, whereas the boy is in care?
Likewise, we repeatedly hear of cases in which both parties were incapable of proper consent through drink or drugs. Is that mutual rape? If not, why not? But typically, it will be the man who is deemed the rapist. But surely that is a hangover from those dark days when we thought there was some difference between the sexes...
The current moral consensus (if such it be) is clearly not working. Having abandoned all other criteria, in our collective hedonistic desire to justify whatever we feel like doing, we find ourselves exposed to base forces that we do not know how to deal with.
And notice how that came about. People always decry 'slippery slope' or 'thin end of the wedge' arguments. But the progression is fairly clear. Firstly, contraception which had always been attempted by the depraved, but always reviled by the majority, was deemed acceptable within marriage.
So the separation of sex and reproduction was begun. That has gathered pace, with abortion its natural consequence. That then, of course, opened the door to all sorts of other aberrant sex, including between people of the same sex, multiple partners, and so on.
But always in the name of love, of course. 'But if two people love each other...' was always the plea. But now even that pretence has gone. What's love got to do with it? If two (or fewer, or more) people desire physical gratification is all that remains: as long as there is consent, all is good.
And the results: physical sickness (soaring STDs, AIDs etc), mental sickness (it is no secret that those with aberrant sexual lifestyles are disproportionately high users of mental health services, and have high suicide rates), huge social harm, with broken families now so common that we have a growing and potentially catastrophic social problem on our hands, as we struggle to raise a civilised younger generation; and of course, worst of all, the carnage of the abortion industry, leading also to the barbarity of human embryo experimentation, the butchery of IVF pregnancy reductions, and the commodification of human life.
As we approach Passiontide, let us redouble our prayer, our almsgiving, and our sacrifices: for that is the only way some devils can be driven out.
Showing posts with label condom con. Show all posts
Showing posts with label condom con. Show all posts
Tuesday, 8 March 2016
Monday, 7 March 2016
The Flight from Reality
In Christopher West's introductory book on Saint John Paul II's Theology of the Body there is a memorable sentence, which I shall have to quote from memory, as one of the children (Bernie, I think) has the book at present. It says something like: 'The argument about abortion is not an argument about human rights, it is an argument about the meaning of sex: nobody arguing for abortion is arguing because they want the right to kill their offspring, but because they want to have sex free of any consequences.'
That, of course, is why contraception is so closely related to abortion; and why pro-life organisations that don't recognise that relationship are incoherent.
That is also why there is a connection between the LGBTQ+ movement and abortion.
That is why gender theory had to be made up.
Because the reality is that sex is about bonding and babies; that is an empirically verifiable fact. So in order to justify other uses of sex, and the ways in which the natural consequences of sex can be thwarted, elaborate theories have to be developed, to flee that reality.
The role of academia in this is truly shameful. Not only the social scientists, who have nearly all long since abandoned any notion of truth, but also the medics, whose training is rather more rooted in reality, have not only colluded with, but often led, the pseudo-intellectual justification of evil.
So we have gender theory, to deny the biological reality of the basic division of human kind into male and female, and the sexual complementarity inherent in that.
We have theories that deny the humanity of the unborn human child.
We have theories that see personal autonomy as the greatest human good.
We have theories that suggest that sex outside of marriage is a good; or that contraceptive sex is good.
We have theories that suggest that chastity is harmful.
We have theories that suggest that children do not need both their parents.
We have theories that suggest that it is good to create human beings in petri dishes.
We have a proliferation of theories, all of which are a flight from reality. As T S Eliot wrote, Humankind cannot bear very much reality,' - especially when it gets in between the individual and his desires. So we construct these elaborate tissues of lies, which we know in our heart to be lies, in order to justify ourselves in our sin.
And we know who is the father of lies...
That, of course, is why contraception is so closely related to abortion; and why pro-life organisations that don't recognise that relationship are incoherent.
That is also why there is a connection between the LGBTQ+ movement and abortion.
That is why gender theory had to be made up.
Because the reality is that sex is about bonding and babies; that is an empirically verifiable fact. So in order to justify other uses of sex, and the ways in which the natural consequences of sex can be thwarted, elaborate theories have to be developed, to flee that reality.
The role of academia in this is truly shameful. Not only the social scientists, who have nearly all long since abandoned any notion of truth, but also the medics, whose training is rather more rooted in reality, have not only colluded with, but often led, the pseudo-intellectual justification of evil.
So we have gender theory, to deny the biological reality of the basic division of human kind into male and female, and the sexual complementarity inherent in that.
We have theories that deny the humanity of the unborn human child.
We have theories that see personal autonomy as the greatest human good.
We have theories that suggest that sex outside of marriage is a good; or that contraceptive sex is good.
We have theories that suggest that chastity is harmful.
We have theories that suggest that children do not need both their parents.
We have theories that suggest that it is good to create human beings in petri dishes.
We have a proliferation of theories, all of which are a flight from reality. As T S Eliot wrote, Humankind cannot bear very much reality,' - especially when it gets in between the individual and his desires. So we construct these elaborate tissues of lies, which we know in our heart to be lies, in order to justify ourselves in our sin.
And we know who is the father of lies...
Sunday, 2 August 2015
Shooting Ducks in a Barrel
OK, I know I shouldn't. But this is the first time today (though I realise, that like cigarettes, it is the first Tina Beattie fisk of the day that is the hardest to give up).
Here is what the Professor says, in a comment on the Pill's rather prejudicial reporting of Edmund Adamus' reflection on the Westminster responses to the pre-Synod questionnaire.
My comments interpolated in Bold.
"Like most other Catholics I know, I respect the Church’s teaching on marriage and parenthood. (What do you imagine she means [or even thinks she means] by 'respect' in that sentence, given what follows?) I also know from experience that marriage and family life can induce agonies of guilt over our inevitable failures and shortcomings. However, I do not experience guilt (and that is the criterion...) over deciding in good conscience (What do you think she means by 'in good conscience' in this sentence?) to use contraception to limit the number of children we had. I do not feel ashamed of my adult children for cohabiting with partners who have enriched our lives by their friendship. (How, precisely, does the good Professor square this easy acceptance of adultery with Our Lord's very clear teaching on the subject, never mind the Church's?) I do not feel compelled to pass negative judgement on the loving relationships of my gay friends. (Note the circumlocution to avoid the real problem. It is not 'loving relationships' but 'sexual relationships' that is at issue.) I am glad that some of my divorced Catholic friends have found joy in second marriages, and I want to share the sacraments with them. (Where is the compassion for the abandoned spouses and children? How does this square with Our Lord's very clear teaching on the subject, never mind the Church's?) In other words, I’m like the vast majority of Catholics whose answers to the questionnaire have been made public. (Quite possibly so: in which case Adamus' analysis that we need better formation is spot on.)
I seek from the Church the formation I know I need most (because I am the ultimate judge, the ultimate authority on ME) – formation that has to do with love and generosity of spirit, with faithfulness and integrity, with wisdom and discretion, with prayer and discernment. (Quite a good list, actually...) The list is long, but it does not include learning to regard contraception, premarital sex and homosexuality as intrinsically evil, (Who says it should not include Catholic Moral Teaching? And on what authority?) nor does it include regarding divorced and remarried Catholics as people uniquely barred from the forgiveness offered by Christ in the sacraments. (This is either extremely ignorant or intellectually dishonest. All are offered forgiveness on the same terms: Sacramental confession, accompanied by repentance from sin, including making right what can be made right, penance, and a firm resolution of amendment.)"
All in all, a very poor apologia. I think that she should sit at Adamus' feet and seek a formation that has to do with love and generosity of spirit, with faithfulness and integrity, with wisdom and discretion, with prayer and discernment.
Here is what the Professor says, in a comment on the Pill's rather prejudicial reporting of Edmund Adamus' reflection on the Westminster responses to the pre-Synod questionnaire.
My comments interpolated in Bold.
"Like most other Catholics I know, I respect the Church’s teaching on marriage and parenthood. (What do you imagine she means [or even thinks she means] by 'respect' in that sentence, given what follows?) I also know from experience that marriage and family life can induce agonies of guilt over our inevitable failures and shortcomings. However, I do not experience guilt (and that is the criterion...) over deciding in good conscience (What do you think she means by 'in good conscience' in this sentence?) to use contraception to limit the number of children we had. I do not feel ashamed of my adult children for cohabiting with partners who have enriched our lives by their friendship. (How, precisely, does the good Professor square this easy acceptance of adultery with Our Lord's very clear teaching on the subject, never mind the Church's?) I do not feel compelled to pass negative judgement on the loving relationships of my gay friends. (Note the circumlocution to avoid the real problem. It is not 'loving relationships' but 'sexual relationships' that is at issue.) I am glad that some of my divorced Catholic friends have found joy in second marriages, and I want to share the sacraments with them. (Where is the compassion for the abandoned spouses and children? How does this square with Our Lord's very clear teaching on the subject, never mind the Church's?) In other words, I’m like the vast majority of Catholics whose answers to the questionnaire have been made public. (Quite possibly so: in which case Adamus' analysis that we need better formation is spot on.)
I seek from the Church the formation I know I need most (because I am the ultimate judge, the ultimate authority on ME) – formation that has to do with love and generosity of spirit, with faithfulness and integrity, with wisdom and discretion, with prayer and discernment. (Quite a good list, actually...) The list is long, but it does not include learning to regard contraception, premarital sex and homosexuality as intrinsically evil, (Who says it should not include Catholic Moral Teaching? And on what authority?) nor does it include regarding divorced and remarried Catholics as people uniquely barred from the forgiveness offered by Christ in the sacraments. (This is either extremely ignorant or intellectually dishonest. All are offered forgiveness on the same terms: Sacramental confession, accompanied by repentance from sin, including making right what can be made right, penance, and a firm resolution of amendment.)"
All in all, a very poor apologia. I think that she should sit at Adamus' feet and seek a formation that has to do with love and generosity of spirit, with faithfulness and integrity, with wisdom and discretion, with prayer and discernment.
Sunday, 26 July 2015
Here's where I have trouble...
Here's where I have trouble in following some of President Obama's reasoning.
I love my children. That love expresses itself in many ways: spending time with them, educating them, laughing with them, providing for them, listening to their piano practice. It also expresses itself in specific, and appropriate, physical ways: tickling them, hugging them, chasing them around the garden, and when younger, throwing them into the air and catching them.
For that, I should be judged - positively. These are good loving behaviours.
That love does not express itself sexually; and if it were to do so, I should be judged negatively: that would be bad behaviour.
The same is true, of course, mutatis mutandis, for many other relationships in my life: with my parents, my siblings, my friends and so on.
There is one relationship, and one only, in which love is expressed sexually, and that is with my wife. That fact, not least the exclusivity of that sexual relationship, is beneficial to me, to her, to our children and to wider society. From it flows the family itself, including its stability; and our commitment to each others ensures that we do not threaten the stability of any other relationships, which is also in wider society's interests; as is the fact that we do not contract or transmit STIs, nor require abortions to correct 'mistakes.'
So when Obama says that nobody should be persecuted because of whom he or she loves, I agree. But when he extrapolates from that proposition the idea that States have a duty to promote homosexual relations on the same footing as married relations, I cannot follow him.
And he says that in Africa: a continent plagued with AIDS that has been spread by sexual promiscuity, not least amongst practicing homosexuals.
Indeed, until relatively recently when they started to sanitise their image, part of gay pride for some homosexual men was a pride in promiscuity - and a promiscuity that reached staggering proportions. That is now not publicised: instead, a strategy was put in place which ensured we hear about the stable couples who have been together for 20 years. But who is to say which of these gay myths is nearer to reality?
What is clear is that Obama's only idea of controlling AIDS, swamping the population with condoms, is insufficient; and his promotion of a particular philosophy of how Africans should regulate their own affairs is both morally bankrupt and tainted by an American superiority that smacks of colonialism.
I love my children. That love expresses itself in many ways: spending time with them, educating them, laughing with them, providing for them, listening to their piano practice. It also expresses itself in specific, and appropriate, physical ways: tickling them, hugging them, chasing them around the garden, and when younger, throwing them into the air and catching them.
For that, I should be judged - positively. These are good loving behaviours.
That love does not express itself sexually; and if it were to do so, I should be judged negatively: that would be bad behaviour.
The same is true, of course, mutatis mutandis, for many other relationships in my life: with my parents, my siblings, my friends and so on.
There is one relationship, and one only, in which love is expressed sexually, and that is with my wife. That fact, not least the exclusivity of that sexual relationship, is beneficial to me, to her, to our children and to wider society. From it flows the family itself, including its stability; and our commitment to each others ensures that we do not threaten the stability of any other relationships, which is also in wider society's interests; as is the fact that we do not contract or transmit STIs, nor require abortions to correct 'mistakes.'
So when Obama says that nobody should be persecuted because of whom he or she loves, I agree. But when he extrapolates from that proposition the idea that States have a duty to promote homosexual relations on the same footing as married relations, I cannot follow him.
And he says that in Africa: a continent plagued with AIDS that has been spread by sexual promiscuity, not least amongst practicing homosexuals.
Indeed, until relatively recently when they started to sanitise their image, part of gay pride for some homosexual men was a pride in promiscuity - and a promiscuity that reached staggering proportions. That is now not publicised: instead, a strategy was put in place which ensured we hear about the stable couples who have been together for 20 years. But who is to say which of these gay myths is nearer to reality?
What is clear is that Obama's only idea of controlling AIDS, swamping the population with condoms, is insufficient; and his promotion of a particular philosophy of how Africans should regulate their own affairs is both morally bankrupt and tainted by an American superiority that smacks of colonialism.
Sunday, 8 February 2015
Sexagesima
Our religion correspondent, Stephen Fry, writes:
I have just discovered that until very recently, the Roman Catholic Church called today Sexagesima.
This just proves what I have long known: that the Church is obsessed with sex.
You can tell this by all the monks and nuns and priests who take vows of celibacy, especially albino Opus Dei ones, who run the world behind the scenes.
This is not natural, in 2015, when we all know that sex is jolly, harmless fun, and that the honest, sincere and grown up way to find true love is to move on from one lover to the next whenever the urge takes us.
So free from any sexual obsession is our enlightened Enlightenment culture that pornography wanes as the Church's power declines; the harlot's cry has vanished from the secular world - and anyway we call them sex workers now and campaign for their right to earn their living just as they wish.
Whereas the Catholic Church's obsession with sex can be seen in the fact that that is all the media reports about it. And that it has an indoctrination manual written by its chief inquisitors, the sinister Catechism, which contains 2865 paragraphs, of which every single one is a rant against sex.
And I know a man who uses a condom every single time, and hasn't caught AIDS, which proves it.
--
Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible. BT.
I have just discovered that until very recently, the Roman Catholic Church called today Sexagesima.
This just proves what I have long known: that the Church is obsessed with sex.
You can tell this by all the monks and nuns and priests who take vows of celibacy, especially albino Opus Dei ones, who run the world behind the scenes.
This is not natural, in 2015, when we all know that sex is jolly, harmless fun, and that the honest, sincere and grown up way to find true love is to move on from one lover to the next whenever the urge takes us.
So free from any sexual obsession is our enlightened Enlightenment culture that pornography wanes as the Church's power declines; the harlot's cry has vanished from the secular world - and anyway we call them sex workers now and campaign for their right to earn their living just as they wish.
Whereas the Catholic Church's obsession with sex can be seen in the fact that that is all the media reports about it. And that it has an indoctrination manual written by its chief inquisitors, the sinister Catechism, which contains 2865 paragraphs, of which every single one is a rant against sex.
And I know a man who uses a condom every single time, and hasn't caught AIDS, which proves it.
--
Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible. BT.
Fry's Own Goal on Uganda
A priest I know has written to me about my recent posts on the lamentable Stephen Fry.
--
--
Dear Mr Trovato,
I have just read your latest posting on Mr Fry.
I did not see the infamous debate - but from what you write, his little burst of outrage was so predictable and quite inaccurate.
I have a confession to make.
After my A Levels in 1969 I went to Uganda & taught there for two years before returning to the UK in 1971 to go to Uni (& read Maths & Physics there).
Since 1971 I have tended to hoover up any news about Uganda.
And Fry's point number (7) about Uganda & AIDS is a real own goal.
Uganda is an outstanding example of how the scourge of Aids has been much reduced by abstinence outside marriage and faithfulness within marriage - and NOT by the use of condoms.
See "Fighting AIDS with Abstinence"
Sister Dr Miriam Duggan FMSA is a gynacologist who worked as a missionary doctor for over 30 years.
In 2005 she wrote: "The President (of Uganda) has always promoted abstinence and faithfulness".
"The use of condoms is not the ultimate solution in the fight against HIV/AIDS", said President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni at an AIDS conference in Thailand. He caused much controversy when he said the best ways to stop the spread of AIDS are abstinence and faithfulness in marriage.
"President Musevani's emphasis in combatting AIDS has been to address the behaviours and practices that lead to its spread. Programs have been set up and operated involving both the Church and the State. These focus on combatting peer pressure to be promiscuous, advising young people to abstain and encouraging the older to be faithful in marriage. The problems of alcohol and drug abuse are also addressed.
"Faith also plays a large part. "I believe that through the power of prayer, through praying with them, the addictions of these people can be broken, so we encourage them to pray when they feel their temptations", says Sr Miriam. Religious affiliation is not a factor here, since all faiths uphold that marriage is sacred and sex outside of marriage is wrong."
See too Sr Miriam Duggan: Combatting the spread of AIDS in Culture of Life – Culture of Death: Luke Gormally (ed.) ISBN: 0-906561-24-9
For details of this book see the Anscombe Bioethics Centre website
God bless you & your family,
--
I think further comment would be superfluous.
Thursday, 5 February 2015
Frying tonight...
I have been thinking further, since my recent comments on Stephen Fry, and reading what a few others have to say.
Some commentators (eg Mark Lambert, here) have speculated that for Fry to be so angry at God may suggest that he really, deep down, is on the road to belief in Him. They point, for example, to C S Lewis' anger (cf A Grief Observed).
I disagree. Lewis' essay, following the death of his beloved Joy, is marked by searing honesty and self-searching. I see none of that in Fry.
I have a different theory altogether: I think Fry is attacking God as a proxy for attacking Christianity, especially Catholicism. For that is an enemy he does believe in, and which he hates. His contribution to the debate on whether the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world was a vicious, and inaccurate and intellectually lazy, polemic.
So I want to spend a few minutes discussing his claims in that debate. He starts by saying he will 'marshal my facts as well I can'
They may be summarised as:
1) The Church attacks the Enlightenment: Galileo was tortured for trying to explain the Copernican theory of the Universe.
2) Many people were burned for reading the Bible in English.
3) One of the principal burners and torturers was Thomas More: whom the Church recently has declared patron saint of politicians. More put people on the rack for daring to own a Bible in English.
4) The Church is the only owner of the truth for its billions of adherents, because they are uneducated and poor.
5) 'It is hard for me to be told that, as a gay man, I'm evil, because I think of myself as someone who is filled with love; whose only purpose in life was to achieve love, and who feels love for so much of nature and the world and everything else. I certainly don't need the victimisation that leads to playground bullying when someone says you are a disordered morally evil individual.'
6) Systematic child abuse and rape in Catholic Education, the celibacy, the monks, the nuns, the priesthood... this is not natural and normal in 2009...
7) 'Nearest to my heart': Aids in Africa - the Uganda experience. Condoms WORK! But this Pope (Benedict XVI) 'spreads the lie that condoms increase the incidence of AIDS.'
8) Church obsessed with sex - not us, with our permissive attitudes: no we have a healthy attitude - we like it, it's fun, it's jolly, it's a primary impulse...'
9) the wealth of the Church, its power, and self-justification: the Gallilean Carpenter would be kicked out...
--
Where does one start? For someone who begins by saying he will marshal facts, I think Fry could have looked a little more carefully at his history, rather than swallowing whole whatever antiCatholic bile he can find. 1, 2 and 3 are, to say the least, over-simplifications, where they are not lying propaganda.
4 is ludicrous. But I think we get to the nub at 5. Here Fry is demonstrating both the roots of his hatred of the Church, and the tragic misunderstanding at the heart of it.
He fails to understand that it is sin that is condemned as evil and morally disordered, not himself. No wonder he is upset. But for someone standing on a stage and pontificating, he really should have been a little more careful in his research.
One of the more perceptive comments on all this, was one I received in a private email: 'He hates God (and especially the Catholic Church) because he hates the idea that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.
Some commentators (eg Mark Lambert, here) have speculated that for Fry to be so angry at God may suggest that he really, deep down, is on the road to belief in Him. They point, for example, to C S Lewis' anger (cf A Grief Observed).
I disagree. Lewis' essay, following the death of his beloved Joy, is marked by searing honesty and self-searching. I see none of that in Fry.
I have a different theory altogether: I think Fry is attacking God as a proxy for attacking Christianity, especially Catholicism. For that is an enemy he does believe in, and which he hates. His contribution to the debate on whether the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world was a vicious, and inaccurate and intellectually lazy, polemic.
So I want to spend a few minutes discussing his claims in that debate. He starts by saying he will 'marshal my facts as well I can'
They may be summarised as:
1) The Church attacks the Enlightenment: Galileo was tortured for trying to explain the Copernican theory of the Universe.
2) Many people were burned for reading the Bible in English.
3) One of the principal burners and torturers was Thomas More: whom the Church recently has declared patron saint of politicians. More put people on the rack for daring to own a Bible in English.
4) The Church is the only owner of the truth for its billions of adherents, because they are uneducated and poor.
5) 'It is hard for me to be told that, as a gay man, I'm evil, because I think of myself as someone who is filled with love; whose only purpose in life was to achieve love, and who feels love for so much of nature and the world and everything else. I certainly don't need the victimisation that leads to playground bullying when someone says you are a disordered morally evil individual.'
6) Systematic child abuse and rape in Catholic Education, the celibacy, the monks, the nuns, the priesthood... this is not natural and normal in 2009...
7) 'Nearest to my heart': Aids in Africa - the Uganda experience. Condoms WORK! But this Pope (Benedict XVI) 'spreads the lie that condoms increase the incidence of AIDS.'
8) Church obsessed with sex - not us, with our permissive attitudes: no we have a healthy attitude - we like it, it's fun, it's jolly, it's a primary impulse...'
9) the wealth of the Church, its power, and self-justification: the Gallilean Carpenter would be kicked out...
--
Where does one start? For someone who begins by saying he will marshal facts, I think Fry could have looked a little more carefully at his history, rather than swallowing whole whatever antiCatholic bile he can find. 1, 2 and 3 are, to say the least, over-simplifications, where they are not lying propaganda.
4 is ludicrous. But I think we get to the nub at 5. Here Fry is demonstrating both the roots of his hatred of the Church, and the tragic misunderstanding at the heart of it.
He fails to understand that it is sin that is condemned as evil and morally disordered, not himself. No wonder he is upset. But for someone standing on a stage and pontificating, he really should have been a little more careful in his research.
One of the more perceptive comments on all this, was one I received in a private email: 'He hates God (and especially the Catholic Church) because he hates the idea that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.
Like most self-styled atheists he still has not got over his adolescent rebellion against the Ten Commandments - especially commandment number six.'
I also think he reveals a degree of self-regard that is worthy of note: 'I think of myself as someone who is filled with love; whose only purpose in life was to achieve love...' I can't help but wonder if his former lovers, dumped in his search for new young love, would see it in the same way. He also has remarkable powers of self-forgiveness to sustain such a self-image after putting thousands of pounds in the hands of murderous cocaine barons, given how harshly he feels the injustices he perceives others to commit... Or does he protest too much? Is one of the roots of his hatred a projection of his own deep unease with himself?
6 is something of a tired trope. Of course, the sexual abuse perpetrated by a small number of Catholic priests and brothers is a grave and terrible scandal. However, to try to make some causal link between their wickedness and their vocation is increasingly untenable. As the BBC, the political classes, the educational establishment, and so many other spheres start to yield their terrible secrets, it becomes clear that the problem lies elsewhere. Fry doesn't rant about how the BBC is corrupt, despite the huge number of cases of abuse involving BBC presenters and DJs, and the fact that the culture was collusive of abuse. Why? Because he approves of the BBC.
In fact, the common factors in the abusers across all these organisations is that they were raised precisely in the sort of culture that Fry wishes to establish and perpetuate: a permissive culture that views sex as 'fun, jolly, a primary impulse.'
Which leads me on to 7 and 8. Fry does not correctly present, still less engage with, what the Pope Emeritus pointed out. Whilst acknowledging that abstinence and fidelity are effective in the fight against AIDS, he claims that Condoms work; and that to deny that claim is a lie. But the evidence is against him. Condoms have a known failure rate in preventing pregnancy. Given that conception is possible only for a few days of a woman's cycle, we can reasonably expect the failure rate for AIDS prevention to be significantly higher, as AIDS can be caught on any day. Further, condoms are particularly poor protection in the case of homosexual anal sex. There is research data on all this, but Fry ignores it.
So who is lying? The Church that says that abstinence and fidelity are the right way to combat AIDS - methods that have 100% success rate? Or Fry, who promotes a method that is known to fail, and that also, and this is the Pope Emeritus' point, contributes to a culture of promiscuity which is the sole reason for the AIDS epidemic. How fun and jolly promiscuity is, when it costs millions of lives...
His peroration that the Gallilean Carpenter would have been kicked out was also baseless. He rants against the wealth of the Church, but has given equally little thought to this. Does he campaign that the BBC should devote its vast resources to feeding the hungry? Or that the treasures in all the museums in the world should be sold to fund healthcare? No - because he approves of what they do.
The wealth of the Church, in terms of its buildings and art, are for the glory of God. We believe that to be important. Moreover, that worship of God in His glory has inspired more people to go and tend the poor and the sick than any other force in history.
Further, much of the wealth of the Church is not hers to dispose of in a cavalier way. As a small example, when my mother died, we gave the Oratory a silver Ciborium in her memory; with the understanding that it would be used in the Mass, and that she would be prayed for each time it was used. The Oratory would be quite wrong to sell that and give the money to the poor or the sick. We are quite capable of giving to the poor and the sick in our mother's memory, and indeed have done so, substantially. But such reasoning is too subtle for Fry.
In short, what we have here is a man, once bright, who has allowed his prejudices and his success and popularity to prevent him engaging intelligently with a subject on which he clearly feels passionately. The sin of the Church is to tell him that he shouldn't live for hedonism alone. His response is to stamp his feet and throw things.
Thursday, 1 August 2013
Safe sex: the truth
After reading my previous post, on the tragic case of Daniel Pelka, and the questions that almost certainly won't be asked about it, Fr Paul Noble, an Anglican, drew this report to my attention.
It is about a piece of research conducted at Oxford University, that postulates that monogamy in primates evolved, and is necessary, to protect the young of the species from infanticide.
Will anyone put the pieces together?
Instead of teaching young women that safe sex is making sure he uses a condom, we should be teaching them that the safest sex is marital love in a lifelong, monogamous marriage.
Why? Because that is what the evidence proves.
It is about a piece of research conducted at Oxford University, that postulates that monogamy in primates evolved, and is necessary, to protect the young of the species from infanticide.
Will anyone put the pieces together?
Instead of teaching young women that safe sex is making sure he uses a condom, we should be teaching them that the safest sex is marital love in a lifelong, monogamous marriage.
Why? Because that is what the evidence proves.
Saturday, 30 June 2012
The Great Condom Con (again)
I have just found the 1flesh website, which has a good infographic on condoms...
It's a while since I blogged about this, but rather than repeat myself, I refer you to previous posts tagged 'condom con', especially this one, this one and this one. Also, this one, this one and this one.
These were a series of posts on the subject which I wrote back in 2009, when fewer people read this blog than do now - so unless you are one of my old faithful readers, the odds are you won't have read them.
Needless to say, I think they are worth reading!
H/t @blondpidge for pointing out the 1flesh infographic
It's a while since I blogged about this, but rather than repeat myself, I refer you to previous posts tagged 'condom con', especially this one, this one and this one. Also, this one, this one and this one.
These were a series of posts on the subject which I wrote back in 2009, when fewer people read this blog than do now - so unless you are one of my old faithful readers, the odds are you won't have read them.
Needless to say, I think they are worth reading!
H/t @blondpidge for pointing out the 1flesh infographic
Wednesday, 14 December 2011
Sex Ed: hazardous to your child's health
National Review Online carries a fascinating interview with Dr Miriam Grossman, about her new book: You’re Teaching My Child What?: A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Ed and How They Harm Your Child.
It includes, inter alia:
All of it is worth reading, so go and have a look.
H/t Challenge Team UK on Facebook
It includes, inter alia:
When teens are questioned about their last sexual encounter, more than half admit they did not use a condom. This will not come as a surprise to anyone who is aware of the insights this new century has brought us about adolescent brain development. Neither should we rush to increase the truckloads of free condoms delivered to our schools. Biology is saying the answer isn’t latex, the answer is time.Towards the end, she comments on National (US) guidelines on sexuality for teenagers:
Later, readers are advised, “It is up to you to determine how much risk you are willing to take.” And: “Many teens choose to be sexually active and many choose not to. You have the right to decide exactly what behaviors, if any, you are comfortable participating in.”
Imagine if a nutritionist taught your child: “There are many types of diets. A diet low in saturated fats, carbohydrates, and sugars helps prevent obesity and cardiac disease. Some kids try to keep a healthy diet, others don’t. You have the right to decide what to eat.”
I don’t think this approach would be well-received. Yet this is what passes as sex education in our country.
All of it is worth reading, so go and have a look.
H/t Challenge Team UK on Facebook
Saturday, 30 July 2011
Uncapped
Is there anyone out there who can design a cool logo of some sort for men who have never used a condom to put in their blogs or www sites?
It's a serious question, as I think we need to bear witness to the fact that there are many of us, that we are healthy, and that we stay that way (and if married respect our wives that way) by the simple (though difficult) practice of chastity.
Condom-free zone?...
It's a serious question, as I think we need to bear witness to the fact that there are many of us, that we are healthy, and that we stay that way (and if married respect our wives that way) by the simple (though difficult) practice of chastity.
Condom-free zone?...
Saturday, 12 March 2011
Lying - removing the taboo
Lying is perfectly normal, and all the evidence shows that nearly everyone does it. So it is inappropriate to make children feel guilty about this completely normal human behaviour, merely because of some fantasy Victorian code.
Of course, some people may choose not to lie, for religious, ethical and other reasons, and that's perfectly OK too - nobody is suggesting that lying be made compulsory. But for those who choose not to lie to try to impose their morality on others is completely unacceptable in a democratic secular society.
For the majority, lying is an enjoyable activity, and the repressions of a few fanatics should not make the rest of us feel guilty about it.
I'm thinking of organising Lying Education for primary schools, Lie with Pride marches, and a complete ban on any negative stories in the media about lying (given how many journalists lie, surely that is the ultimate hypocrisy.) We will present the public with a range of really tough choices and hard cases to help to educate them about this (not all of which need be true of course, as we lie with pride...)
Sunday, 16 January 2011
Non Praevalebunt
Every now and then, I am tempted to despair. Naturally optimistic by nature, I look around and it sometimes seems too much:
The CES Scandals, taking the Catholic out of Catholic Education, and promoting the culture of death;
The various CAFOD Scandals, including but not limited to condomania and bankrolling dissent
The Soho Masses Scandal
The Vaughan School Scandal
The Birmingham Oratory crisis
Connexions in Catholic Schools facilitating abortions for our children,
The widespread capitulation on contraception
The closure of seminaries, religious houses, parishes
The lack of the most rudimentary education and formation in the Faith in so many areas
The inability or worse of the bishops to address these and other issues effectively
...and so on.
And then I look in the mirror: at my own inadequacies in addressing any of these issues, or even addressing the basic obligations of my state of life; my habits of sin and reluctance to go to confession, ... and so on.
At such times all I can do is throw myself back on the promises of Our Lord, in particular those in the Tu es Petrus:
Et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam.
And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her (The Church).
The CES Scandals, taking the Catholic out of Catholic Education, and promoting the culture of death;
The various CAFOD Scandals, including but not limited to condomania and bankrolling dissent
The Soho Masses Scandal
The Vaughan School Scandal
The Birmingham Oratory crisis
Connexions in Catholic Schools facilitating abortions for our children,
The widespread capitulation on contraception
The closure of seminaries, religious houses, parishes
The lack of the most rudimentary education and formation in the Faith in so many areas
The inability or worse of the bishops to address these and other issues effectively
...and so on.
And then I look in the mirror: at my own inadequacies in addressing any of these issues, or even addressing the basic obligations of my state of life; my habits of sin and reluctance to go to confession, ... and so on.
At such times all I can do is throw myself back on the promises of Our Lord, in particular those in the Tu es Petrus:
Et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam.
And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her (The Church).
Thursday, 13 January 2011
Churching queers or queering the Church?
The scandal over the Soho Masses will not go away. Now, as James Preece has highlighted, we have the extraordinary phenomenon of a Mass being advertised on the Durex www site (By the way, remember that line from the Beatles song: Love is all you need? The Durex slogan is ‘Durex all you need.’ What’s love got to do with it...?)
To the uninformed, there may be a reasonable case for the gay masses: to reach out to people of a homosexual, lesbian, or other disordered sexual orientation and lead them back into the church. In fact that is the gloss put on them in comments on blogs by someone signing himself Terence or Terry.
Strangely a character called Terence runs a blog called Queering the Church. This Terence is involved in organising the Soho Masses, and a quick glance at his blog reveals that his agenda is not at all about bringing queers (his word...) back to Church so much as making the Church queer. Hence the title and content of his blog.
Archbishop Nichols said, referring to critics of the Soho Masses:
What he doesn't get is that it is his policy we are criticising: this whole debacle is causing grave scandal and risks losing souls.
To the uninformed, there may be a reasonable case for the gay masses: to reach out to people of a homosexual, lesbian, or other disordered sexual orientation and lead them back into the church. In fact that is the gloss put on them in comments on blogs by someone signing himself Terence or Terry.
Strangely a character called Terence runs a blog called Queering the Church. This Terence is involved in organising the Soho Masses, and a quick glance at his blog reveals that his agenda is not at all about bringing queers (his word...) back to Church so much as making the Church queer. Hence the title and content of his blog.
Archbishop Nichols said, referring to critics of the Soho Masses:
and anybody from the outside who is trying to cast a judgement on the people who come forward to communion really ought to learn to hold their tongue.
What he doesn't get is that it is his policy we are criticising: this whole debacle is causing grave scandal and risks losing souls.
Tuesday, 21 December 2010
Extraordinary!
The Vatican (to be more accurate, the CDF) has issued a clarification. And guess what: the Pope wasn't saying condom use is OK - in any circumstance.
Strangely, what he said was... well, what he said.
I hate to say told you so, but I did
Strangely, what he said was... well, what he said.
I hate to say told you so, but I did
Monday, 22 November 2010
Holy Father: more Christ-like than Blair-like (Deo gratias)
The BBC and others are grossly misreporting what the Holy Father has said about condoms. Some of this is doubtless a result of ignorance and laziness, some wishful thinking and some deliberate pursuing an agenda of their own.
What he actually said was very specific: in the case of somebody who is in a very bad place, then the intention of minimising harm to others might be the start of a moral awakening.
Thus as a pastor, and following in the footsteps of his Lord, he is always looking for signs of hope, for the potential redemption of every sinner - indeed of us all. With the eyes of faith he can see even in the most depraved situation that there may be the first quickening of moral awareness in a small shift of intentions.
That is what he said and I believe is what he meant.
Of course the media twisted it. But he is not there to be a spin doctor. He models himself on Christ, not Blair. Ands just as Christ was often wilfully misunderstood by his hearers, so is the Holy Father.
What he actually said was very specific: in the case of somebody who is in a very bad place, then the intention of minimising harm to others might be the start of a moral awakening.
Thus as a pastor, and following in the footsteps of his Lord, he is always looking for signs of hope, for the potential redemption of every sinner - indeed of us all. With the eyes of faith he can see even in the most depraved situation that there may be the first quickening of moral awareness in a small shift of intentions.
That is what he said and I believe is what he meant.
Of course the media twisted it. But he is not there to be a spin doctor. He models himself on Christ, not Blair. Ands just as Christ was often wilfully misunderstood by his hearers, so is the Holy Father.
Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Contraceptives
I recently received this email from a reader:
It was signed, but as it was not put in the combox, I won't give the name...
--
To this, I wrote the following reply:
--
To this, I received the civil reply: Thanks
I can see your stance on abortion but most contraceptives do not end lives. The birth control bill can cause an early abortion so I am against that but what is wrong with others. Most catholics support Natural Family Planning and the rhythm method so what is the difference if a couple decides to use something like spermicide or a condom? I am a protestant by the way. I believe premarital sex is a sin but contraceptives are not necessarily the reason for the rise of unwed pregnancy and stds. It's because are so careless. If you are going to have premarital sex all you have to do is to get your partner tested for stds and don't have sex with anybody else. As far as pregnancy is concern don't have sex during ovulation and use a condom as back up. It's just laziness.
Also abstinence is the ideal and is what God wants but is it realistic to think everybody will abstain. Even before sex ed premarital sex was more of a problem than people wanted to admit. If a woman got pregnant she often walked down the aisle pregnant. This happened to my grandmother. If a girl could not get married she was sent away to a home for unwed mothers to give up her baby. These women were unfairly labeled sluts even though most of these girls were not anymore promiscuous than women who experienced shotgun weddings. Boys were not condemned at all.
References
The Girls Who Went Away- Google Books
http://www.exiledmothers.com/babies_taken_for_adoption/karenwb.html
http://www.exiledmothers.com/adoption_facts/adoption_damage_to_children.html
http://www.exiledmothers.com/adoption_facts/mothers.html
My point is to ask you which is worse Some girl using birth control or Girls secretly sent away to some maternity home, coerced by society into giving the bay, and then suffering emotional damage for decades while the father moves on with his life?
It was signed, but as it was not put in the combox, I won't give the name...
--
To this, I wrote the following reply:
Dear (...)
Thanks for your email.
I think with regard to pre-marital sex, you are quite right: abstinence is the ideal and is what God wants. To ask if it is realistic seems to me to miss the point. We could equally well say that people are going to assault each other - it is not realistic to expect that nobody will. But that doesn’t make it right or acceptable, and certainly doesn’t mean that we should make it easier for them to do so (which is what contraceptives do with regard to pre-marital sex).
And that is my whole point: our job is to discover God’s will, and then carry it out. It is clear that his will for human sexuality is that it is for reproduction and for the expression of mutual love and self-giving within marriage.
It is interesting to note that until less than 100 years ago, all Christian denominations were united on this issue. It was only in 1930 that the Lambeth Conference of Anglicans decided that contraceptives might be permissible within marriage - and look where that has led.
One of the other problems with contraceptives is that when they fail, (and they do - ask anyone involved in pregnancy counselling!) then abortion is the back-up - so contraceptives and abortion are closely linked in fact, if not in theory.
You raise another couple of interesting questions. One is:
Most catholics support Natural Family Planning and the rhythm method so what is the difference if a couple decides to use something like spermicide or a condom?
There are in fact many differences:
In NFP, the couple are enjoying a God-given facet of biology; they are not doing anything, except abstaining from sex for certain periods of time;
In NFP, the attitude is different: it is fundamentally one of obedience (NFP is not easy!) which means if a child is conceived, the parents will not abort it; in artificial contraception, the fundamental attitude is 'My will be done...'
In NFP, the effect is to encourage the couple to restraint and mutual respect; whereas artificial contraception tends in the opposite direction;
In artificial contraception, a barrier is placed between the couple, either physical or chemical, at the very moment that they are united: they are giving themselves to each other - yet with-holding a fundamental part of themselves, the capacity to give life.
Couples who use NFP have a remarkably low divorce rate, compared to the rest of the population (including compared to Catholics who use artificial contraception). By their fruits...
The other interesting question was this:
Which is worse: Some girl using birth control or Girls secretly sent away to some maternity home, coerced by society into giving the baby, and then suffering emotional damage for decades while the father moves on with his life?
Both of these are bad: therefore we should choose neither. But girls (or others) using artificial birth control fuel the problem, they don’t solve it.
When contraceptives were being promoted, we were promised 'no more unwanted pregnancies; more stable marriages; happier people.' But they have failed to deliver on those promises, and as far as I can see work drectly against them - and that is because they work directly against the will of God.
But I realise that it is most unlikely that I will convince you. Instead I would urge you to pray and study the Bible and the historic teaching of all Christianity.
Best wishes
Ben Trovato
--
To this, I received the civil reply: Thanks
Thursday, 1 April 2010
Nichols v. Pepinster
Despite the BBC's typically misleading headline on its www site (Archbishop says contraception 'attractive') Archbishop Nichols is reported as saying that although he can see why the promotion of condoms etc appears to be an attractive idea to reduce 3rd world poverty, his message really was:
"If we solve the poverty then consistently we know that the birth rate comes down.
"If we provide people with security, then consistently birth rates will come down. And they're the radical issues that we should be addressing, not short term intrusive fixes."
But Pepinster, editor of the Pill, used her interview on the Today programme (about 07.20 - can't yet post link as programme still on air) to undermine Church teaching: 'many Catholics don't even know about Humanae Vitae..., I can't remember hearing it preached from the pulpit,... most Catholics have no issue with contraception,... many priests and some cardinals and bishops say in the case of AIDS when condoms are used to preserve life then that's a good thing,' and so on.
How long can this disgraceful woman be allowed to run what is alleged to be a Catholic paper?
But perhaps she has over-stepped the mark this time: if it comes to a straight fight, I'd back Archbishop Nichols every time, both on principle and in practice!
"If we solve the poverty then consistently we know that the birth rate comes down.
"If we provide people with security, then consistently birth rates will come down. And they're the radical issues that we should be addressing, not short term intrusive fixes."
But Pepinster, editor of the Pill, used her interview on the Today programme (about 07.20 - can't yet post link as programme still on air) to undermine Church teaching: 'many Catholics don't even know about Humanae Vitae..., I can't remember hearing it preached from the pulpit,... most Catholics have no issue with contraception,... many priests and some cardinals and bishops say in the case of AIDS when condoms are used to preserve life then that's a good thing,' and so on.
How long can this disgraceful woman be allowed to run what is alleged to be a Catholic paper?
But perhaps she has over-stepped the mark this time: if it comes to a straight fight, I'd back Archbishop Nichols every time, both on principle and in practice!
Saturday, 11 April 2009
The Great Condom Con Part Six: Victory!
The good news is that the victory has already been won. Easter is the anniversary of that victory. There are still skirmishes, and these are literally of vital importance, but there is no doubt which is the winning side.
This is borne out in experience. Pope Paul VI in his role as universal pastor, published the counter-cultural and truly prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae. How much more accurate his prophecies have turned out to be than those of the Condom lobby and the associated abortion advocates.
Young people can be chaste, despite the pressures under which they are placed. More and more are seeing chastity as a positive virtue, and recognising the lies of the condom propagandists.
In Uganda, the message of abstinence and fidelity has been heard and heeded, and the relentless march of HIV in sub-saharan Africa has been drastically slowed there, compared to their condom-promoting neighbours.
Hope indeed: but there are still many battles to fight, and we need to be fit to fight them: spiritually and mentally, armed with truth and charity.
Regina Caeli:
Ora pro nobis Deum.
Alleluia!
This is borne out in experience. Pope Paul VI in his role as universal pastor, published the counter-cultural and truly prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae. How much more accurate his prophecies have turned out to be than those of the Condom lobby and the associated abortion advocates.
Young people can be chaste, despite the pressures under which they are placed. More and more are seeing chastity as a positive virtue, and recognising the lies of the condom propagandists.
In Uganda, the message of abstinence and fidelity has been heard and heeded, and the relentless march of HIV in sub-saharan Africa has been drastically slowed there, compared to their condom-promoting neighbours.
Hope indeed: but there are still many battles to fight, and we need to be fit to fight them: spiritually and mentally, armed with truth and charity.
Regina Caeli:
Ora pro nobis Deum.
Alleluia!
Friday, 10 April 2009
The Great Condom Con Part Five: the Need for Blood and Death....
Some two thousand years ago, on this day, God’s blood was shed as the price of redeeming humanity from death.
On Palm Sunday two children viciously attacked two others, leaving them, stripped and dangerously wounded, for dead (fortunately they have not died).
This Holy Week, thousands of unborn children have been killed.
Satan always needs blood: he hates life, he hates love, and he particularly hates life-giving love.
For some 1900 years after Christ’s sacrificial death, there was unanimity amongst Christians on the evils of contraception.
The Church of England, in unbelievable and cataclysmic folly, broke that unity at the Lambeth Conference in 1930.
For let us consider the heart of the contraceptive act. At the moment when a couple are giving themselves to each other in the sacramental way designed by the Creator to share in His creative act, they say Not Thy will but my will be done. And at that moment of self giving, they are saying ‘I give myself to you (but not fully.)’
Such desecration and lying has consequences. It damages us. Most particularly it damages our capacity to love. It also damages our capacity to sacrifice our immediate desire for more noble aspirations.
The link with the dreadful attack on Palm Sunday may not be immediately clear, but I believe there is likely to be one. That dreadful attack had chilling echoes of the murder of james Bulger by two ten year old boys some 16 years ago.
His killers were the children of women who had been unable to hold their own lives together. Alcoholic, addicted to drugs, their relationships failing, they were unable to raise their children in love and security and James Bulger paid the price. These mothers were victims of the condom culture; that culture which says I want what I want, regardless of the consequences for myself and others. Such a culture is incapable of instilling character in an individual.
When such tragedies happen, the cry often goes up: ‘blame the parents.’ For of course they have a heavy responsibility. But perhaps the cry ought to be: ‘blame the grand parents.’ For the parents often turn out to be victims too. And the truth is we should blame ourselves: all who collude with this culture of death.
And Satan laughs.
On Palm Sunday two children viciously attacked two others, leaving them, stripped and dangerously wounded, for dead (fortunately they have not died).
This Holy Week, thousands of unborn children have been killed.
Satan always needs blood: he hates life, he hates love, and he particularly hates life-giving love.
For some 1900 years after Christ’s sacrificial death, there was unanimity amongst Christians on the evils of contraception.
The Church of England, in unbelievable and cataclysmic folly, broke that unity at the Lambeth Conference in 1930.
For let us consider the heart of the contraceptive act. At the moment when a couple are giving themselves to each other in the sacramental way designed by the Creator to share in His creative act, they say Not Thy will but my will be done. And at that moment of self giving, they are saying ‘I give myself to you (but not fully.)’
Such desecration and lying has consequences. It damages us. Most particularly it damages our capacity to love. It also damages our capacity to sacrifice our immediate desire for more noble aspirations.
The link with the dreadful attack on Palm Sunday may not be immediately clear, but I believe there is likely to be one. That dreadful attack had chilling echoes of the murder of james Bulger by two ten year old boys some 16 years ago.
His killers were the children of women who had been unable to hold their own lives together. Alcoholic, addicted to drugs, their relationships failing, they were unable to raise their children in love and security and James Bulger paid the price. These mothers were victims of the condom culture; that culture which says I want what I want, regardless of the consequences for myself and others. Such a culture is incapable of instilling character in an individual.
When such tragedies happen, the cry often goes up: ‘blame the parents.’ For of course they have a heavy responsibility. But perhaps the cry ought to be: ‘blame the grand parents.’ For the parents often turn out to be victims too. And the truth is we should blame ourselves: all who collude with this culture of death.
And Satan laughs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
