The object of Planned Parenthood


So what do you all make of the battle between the right and the left over the Planned Parenthood debate.  What are the “real” issues?

Are we talking about the debt or are we talking about abortion.

Let’s clear this up because someone’s not telling the truth here.  What do you say A-Holes?

Advertisements

About Lyn May

Designer, engineer, producer; I haven't really decided yet. Maybe I'll keep it that way - it's much easier to be undecided any way. I love graphic design, writing, photography, video production, animation, playing guitar, singing, engineering and pretty much any other medium that allows me to express my self artistically/logically.

Posted on April 15, 2011, in Lifestyle, Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 38 Comments.

  1. The social issues of abortion and gay marriage are a red herring that the right trots out to mask the fact that their aims are to destroy the middle class. They know that by talking about their view on government, that the working American will realize that the GOP is out to destroy their voice. This is not about the debt, and it is barely about abortion. It is about appealing to a fanatical religious base, so that they can guarantee their presence at the polls. This is really about Laissez-Faire economics, and we have seen how well this works. We need regulation, because in the current American climate, profit at any cost is the highest value, and that means checking your ethics at the door. This is what caused the economic meltdown, but the right is incredibly adept at making a substantial portion of Americans forget that.
    In conclusion, this debate is neither about debt, nor is it about abortion. It is about the role of government. Check out the article, “What Conservatives Really Want,” on the Huffington Post.

  2. Buddy, It’s simple to me, you just love government, big government, federal government, state and local government, government, government, government. You and your Huff-Post ideologues are nothing more than libturd fools worshiping at the alter of BIG GOVERNMENT. I believe this federal government is a complete failure at this point and it should not involved in about 85% of the stupid crap it is involved with and that includes Planned Parenthood. If you and yours want to kill your offspring at Planned Parenthood ( a disgusting, vile procedure ) feel free to do so, just use your own God Damn money, not mime.

  3. So typical of liberals, you use hate speech against those you disagree with. As a christian, I object to sending any money to Planned Parenthood. If Planned Parenthood really cared about poor women, why don’t they give free abortions to poor women, after all it only takes about 7 minutes?

    As to Women’s health, PP gives some minor women’s health to justify rheir aboriton mills. It is a duplication of efforts because we already have medicaid to allow poor women to have their health care needs to be met.

    Abortion is the law of the land, we just object to paying for it with taxpayer funds. That is what this country was founded upon, freedom of religeon. We allow concientious objector status to individuals who don’t believe in war, why not for the rest of us who don’t believe in killing innocent babies?

    By the way, why don’t you object to the federal government having a $10,000 fine and a 5 year jail sentence for destroying a bald eagle egg? Why don’t you object to fetal homicide laws where if someone kills a wanted unborn baby, and not the woman, then he is guilty of fetal homicide and goes to jail but if the woman wants to kill the baby then it is nobody’s business. You have to admit that it is not even intellectually consistent.

    John Wilder

  4. Here is a proposal, since abortion is a multi billion dollar business for PP, why not have PP abandon other health care services and just concentrate on killing babies and we remove federal funding for the organization. We can even take the funding that we give to PP and give it to organizations giving women’s health services. This resolves the problem for everyone involved.

    John Wilder

  5. I am for as much, and as little, government as is necessary to provide for a productive and responsible society. I think we could stand to take a look at a lot of programs, and cut out a bit of waste. I think we could put more emphasis on getting people trained for meaningful work. Meanwhile, the government that is there is one which serves corporate masters, at the expense of those scraping by. I agree on some levels that there is too much government. I’m all for ending the war in Afghanistan, for example. I also believe that the war on drugs is an incredible waste of taxpayer money. They should be legalized, regulated, and taxed. Any spending should be done on education and treatment. It’s a public health issue. It shouldn’t be a criminal issue.
    Also, unwanted pregnancies are a drain on the government as they lead to more dependence on entitlement programs, which I do believe you are against, right? They also may lead to greater crime, which requires more spending, still, in the prison system. Those who are unwanted don’t receive the care they need to thrive, and later will cost the taxpayer more, in the long run. That’s how I feel about it. I’m looking to save the taxpayer money, by making sure that abortions are safe, legal, and rare, and by making sure we all have access to the health services provided by Planned Parenthood, thereby hopefully preventing future abortions.

  6. Actually, if you want to get right down to the heart of the matter, we need to roll back to pre-WWII morality. Let’s get back to when sex outside of marriage was rare. Granted that humans are human and will make mistakes, but all an abortion is, in most cases, is a backup plan for failed birth control. We need to get back to the old standard of the two parent family, when kids get home from school, a parent is there to raise them, watch them, nurture them. Instead, today,we often expect video games and television to babysit our children. Well, that stuff just occupies for a while, and then they look for something else. If Mom is in the picture, kids are less likely to get into sexual issues, pregancy, etc.
    Abortions are neither safe, nor rare, with more than 50,000,000 doctor assisted abortions, and who knows how many by chemical. Even with legalized abortion, many women try to go the cheap way and find herbs or strong drugs, and even with legalized abortions, ambulances are regularly going to PP clinics to deal with abortions gone wrong.
    I say if you don’t want a pregnancy, whether you’re married or not, you should not be having sex. If you want to have sex, you should know that you will possibly be ‘inconvenienced’ for the next 18 years.

    Besides that, since when is it a doctor’s job to kill another life? Doctors are supposed to save lives, not destroy them.

  7. Abortions are not a red herring. They are not rare by any means, over 4 million a year. It is not about appealing to a religious base. I say again, let Planned Parenthood do what they do, kill innocent babies and leave the health care to doctors in medicaid.

    As to lassiez faire economics, that is what draws people to this country from around the world. It is only the government interfering with that and taxing the businesses out of existence or out of competition from the rest of the world.

    John wilder

  8. Unwanted by whom. Believe me there are a lot of childless couples out there who would gladly adopt unwanted babies. I have worked with clinics for crisis pregnancies and most of the women would rather kill their babies rather than to give them up for adoption. The reason that they most commonly give is that they dont want a kid out there and the mother does not know about it.

    Johhn wilder

  9. I have to agree with idealisticfool here. All you have to do is go to an orphanage to answer how many childless couples there are in comparison to the amount of kids being put up for adoption. I am pro choice all the way. No one knows better than the mother. Who are we to make choices for these mothers?

    There seems to be a conflict of interest here with what you’re claiming, John. On one hand you don’t want our tax dollars being used to abort children; but on the other hand you hate how many mothers/kids are on our welfare system, milking it for what it’s worth. Let’s make up our minds here. Let’s pick our poison.

    I can attest that everyone makes mistakes. I was young, I was foolish, and there’s a laundry list of things I would change if given that opportunity. I hear way too many people saying, “Well, if you don’t want kids, don’t have sex.” This is preposterous! Guess what. That misinformed, immature, child willingly opening his/her legs to have unprotected sex during a night of debauchery only lasts a few years. Then the rest of her life kicks in. I would guess that only 10 percent of the population’s immaturity lasts longer than ten years. I’m giving society from the age of 16 to 26. During that time, it might be hell to pay, but then you have the other 50+ years to contend with.

    What I’m trying to say is, should we allow that “kid’s” mistakes to carry with her/him for the rest of their life when there’s a simple solution to this? Is abortion murder? I don’t know. Maybe. But how far do we take it? Is masturbation murder? Is the steak you ate last night for dinner considered murder? When you brushed your teeth this morning, killing millions of bacteria, is that mass murder?

    Where do we draw the line on what’s moral? If murder is only for human beings, then where did this rule come from? The bible? What if the mother isn’t religious? Can she still be held accountable to the rules that Christians uphold?

    That’s the beauty of this country. We are free. We have options. And to push our ideals onto others is flat out wrong. It’s wrong no matter how you slice it. You can’t even justify pushing your ideals onto others. Especially with a decision as big as parenthood. And speaking from someone who feels they should have been aborted, I’m definitely not biased here. If you are an expecting mother and you know from day one that the child will have a “shitty” life due to you being unprepared, then abortion is the answer. Do not allow that child to share your burden.

  10. Lyn,
    The very fact that we have orphanages, and people who staff them and care for children, is a testament to what we should do. There have always been children who didn’t have parents, for whatever reason. In biblical times, they were left to fend for themselves and die. As were widows. The fact remains that there are still plenty of childless couples who want to adopt but can’t, whether because of some legal restriction or whatever.
    Next you want to say “Come on, why should we have to control ourselves? Why should we expect children to control themselves?” The fact is that we are required to control ourselves at all times by our legal system. You have to control your speed on the highway, if you don’t control what you eat you get fat, if you don’t control your spending, you become bankrupt. All of these are fairly remediable. We have to control our anger, as well, or we might end up in prison for the rest of our lives. This is permanent, and so is having sex when you don’t want or can’t handle children.

    I agree, we all make mistakes. It’s up to parents to teach their kids what’s ok and what’s not ok. And that’s part of the problem. Absentee parents. But if a teen gets pregnant, let the nine months be a penance for that one night of debauchery! Then, she can give up the baby. Free and clear, and conscience clear.
    Masturbation isn’t murder, but it is against God’s law. Having steak for dinner isn’t murder because a cow isn’t a person. Same for bacteria. Murder involves persons. Is a human fetus a person? If so, when does it become a person? If not, why not?
    The rule is natural law which is imprinted on us by God. The taboo against murder transcends religion. All societies consider murder immoral.
    For the record, I don’t think this is a legal/illegal issue. The decision has to come from the heart. And we should be able to give helpful information to people considering this road. Just as there are safety nets for those considering suicide, there should be a safety net for those considering abortion. I believe that, if you give adequate information (a sonogram shown to the pregnant woman can speak volumes), and alternatives, such as adoption, and info on places you can go where people will help you through your pregnancy, you can cut back on abortions without changing the law.
    As for welfare, I think it needs to be stripped and started from scratch. When only .25 of every $1 goes into the hands of the people that need it, it’s not very effective. If you let religious organizations do the distribution, for example the Catholic Church (:)), you will find that more than 80% of the money will get to the right hands of those who need the help. Welfare is a drug.

  11. Hey Lynn
    Why can’t I have both opinions that we have far too many women on welfare and thart abortion is murcer?
    The women on welfare did not make a mistake, they deliberately got pregnant to get welfare, food stamps and a secition 8 apartment and then have more kids to increase their income, often witih different fathers.

    Our Bill of Rights gaurantee us first and foremost the right to life.

    Then there is the age old definition of when life begins. It is simple really. You simply reverse engineer from the definition of death; the cessation of a heartbeat and brain wave activity. A baby has a detactable fetal heartbeat 18 days from conception and a detectable brain wave 6 weeks from conception.

    We have federal laws protecting unborn baby Bald eagles by a $10,000 fine and five years in prison. Why can’t we protect unborn babies the same way?

    John Wilder

  12. David:
    I am an ex catholic and can comment on catholic doctrine. In addition to degrees in psych I have a degree in Bible. I am no longer a catholic because 95% of catholic doctrine is in direct contradiction to bible teachings. There is no place in the old or new testament that says masturbation is a sin.

    I think for my next post I will do refutation of catholic doctrine from the bible. Every ex catholic who became a Christian has said the same thing that I did; the priests lied to us. I have no argument with catholics in general, they are sadly mislead by the leadership, but the priests, bishops and the pope.

    Blessings on you and yours
    John Wilder

  13. Actually, the sin of Onan that got him killed is the same thing as masturbation. I cannot wait for you to show me where Catholicism is 95% contradiction to the Bible teachings. That’ll be a nice long argument.
    I really believe that every ex-Catholic (Catholics are the proto-Christians, by the way-you all branched off from us) does not understand the most fundamental reason for being a Catholic. It has nothing to do with architecture, it has nothing to do with vestments, or popes. It has to do with the fact that Jesus is really there, in body, blood, soul and Divinity in every Catholic Church. That is based on his own promise which he spoke in John Chapter 6.
    I don’t have any issue with other Christians, either, until they start saying that Catholics aren’t Christian, or mis-stating our doctrine. But I’m ready for you, and I promise, we’ll stick to the issues.

  14. Hey David
    Onan was punished by death because of his refusal to follow God’s command to impregnate his brother’s wife and conceive an heir to his brother. This has absolutely nothing to do with masturbation. God forbade having sex with animals by men and women, don’t you think that if masturbation was a sin, He would have been explicit about it? All of the sexual sin is unequivocal. He was very graphic in forbidding homosexuality for example. He spelled out every possible family combintion defined as incest.

    Blessings on you and yours
    John Wilder

  15. We’re both obviously passionate about this topic, but from different sides of the fence. You are looking after the morality of preservation of life. I am looking at it from the side of the individual.

    I fully believe in being held accountable. Otherwise, where would our society be if there weren’t repercussions for our actions? And your analogy of right and wrong and justified punishment doesn’t really apply here. Sex is such a beautiful thing; arguably the most natural thing we human’s have. It’s not dirty. It’s not condemnable. Yet we preach abstinence. Sex has become “icky” somehow in this country.

    You can not compare the wrong of robbing a bank with having sex as an analogy for crime/punishment. They aren’t the same. I will agree with you, however, on the topic of education and the role of parents. Too many deadbeat parents out there leaving the educating up to the schools, clubs and Jerry Springer. But aren’t these parents the ones who should have had an abortion? Now these deadbeat parents are raising worthless children. The parents are on welfare; guess who sees lazy old mom and dad? What’s that teaching the kids? “Oh, it’s okay, Billy, just sit there on your ass. The government will pick up the tab.”

    Yes, abortion is barbaric; but isn’t it a crime to not listen to a woman with the foresight to know if she’s ready to be a mother or not? Yes, she could have used the foresight the night before her romp in the hay; but that goes back to my comment about making mistakes. And then hopefully, she’ll learn from that lesson and mature a little in the process.

    Okay, let’s meet in the middle. I think it should be pro-choice no matter what, you claim not at all. Here’s my proposal: What about giving all women a “get out of jail free” card? Just one, though. They get one opportunity to say, “Wow, what was I thinking? I almost ruined my life.” Now, if she “messes up” again, it’s on her dime. No more freebies on the government’s tally.

  16. You’re right about Onan’s punishment, but wrong about masturbation. In both cases we’re talking about the wrongful use of the sexual act. God created sex for a reason. Masturbation takes an act that is supposed to be bonding and procreative, and makes it self-centered, and non-procreative.

  17. You see that is part of the problem, you just go interpreting God’s will. It says in the old testament as well as the new testament not to add anything or take anything away from the Bible. That means that you can’t decide for God thast He slipped up and forgot to spell out a sin and you are correctly interpreting His will. God is extremely explicit over sexual sin. He does not need you to add to His word. I can give you chaptrer and verse on it if you like. It even says in Reveleation that your name will be stricken from the Lamb’s Book of Life if you add to or take away from His word.

    John

  18. Hey Lynne
    I don’t think that sex is icky at all. If you read my blog, it is mostly about having a better sex life. You are confusing me with Davidf who thinks that masturbation is a sin which it is clearly not.

    I don’t mind meeting you in the middle, I just have a dfifferent definition of what the middle is. My definition is that a woman should not be forced to mother a child that was an accident. She should have every right and does have every right to give it up for adoption. That is her get out of jail free card.

    Do you have any kids>? How would you feel about somebody just killing just one of them?

    Blessings
    John

  19. Hey Lynn
    By the way, for your argument to have intellectual honesty, then you must be against the punishment for killing an unborn baby eagle as well.

    John

  20. Where does it say not to add or take away anything in the Bible? Who decided what’s in the Bible, John? If it says that in the Old Testament, didn’t Christians contradict the Old Testament by writing the New Testament? The chapter and verse you’re talking about in Revelation do not speak of the Bible. The Bible wasn’t written yet, at least not completed, and certainly not compiled for a couple hundred more years. John also said, in his Gospel, that if all that Jesus said and did were written down, all the books in the world could not contain it. Besides, the Christian faith was a spoken faith first, a written faith second.

    The sin in masturbation is taking something God created and doing something he didn’t intend with it. That’s why murder is a sin, and adultery, and stealing, too.

  21. Hey David
    If I did not know better I would say that you are trying to obfuscate the issue.

    Here are but a few examples from the bible. I know that priests don’t emphasize the authority of the bible. You sound just like the catholic priest who sexually abused me who said that you have to make up your own rules and disregard any biblical teaching.

    Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put thier trust in Him. Do not add to His words lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar. Proverbs 30:5-6

    You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take away from it that you may keep the commandment of the Lord Your God which I command you . Deut 4:3

    Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it. You shall not add to it or take away from it. Deut 12;32

    Christians did not contradict the Old Testament by writing the New Testament. The New Testament was a new covenant with God and a testimony of the work of the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Again, I would recommend that you study the biblical references to sexual sin and see if you can decide that God did not do a good enough job in explaining what sexual sin consisted of.

    John Wilder

  22. Well, first of all, to say that priests don’t emphasize the authority of the Bible is a mistake. The whole mass is full of scripture, and not just the three readings each Sunday. If a priest told you that, he’s not a very good priest, and yes, we have some pretty sorry priests, no doubt. That he abused you proves it pretty well. I’ve heard Old Testament speakers try and teach that manna was a secretion of ants or aphids, or some other bs, myself. It helps to know your faith. And I do.
    So, as I said, does Proverbs 30 mean that Christians are wrong to add the New Testament? We believe it means don’t add anything to the Bible and call it scripture.
    Regarding Deuteronomy 4:3, if you take this to be the truth, why do Protestants remove 7 books from the Bible?
    I agree that Christians did not contradict the OT by writing the NT. But it seems that it flies in the face of the meaning you attach to Proverbs 30, Deuteronomy 4, and the reference in Revelation Protestants usually refer to.
    As for studying Biblical references, this is where you may have misunderstood that priest. I believe that you wouldn’t really hear anything, thinking what he did to you…Catholics believe that Christianity was a religion of the word before it was a religion of the book. There was a lot said in the first 100 years of Christianity that didn’t make it into the canon of scripture, which was decided by Catholics. We have some of those writings from Clement, Origen, Iranaeus, and so on, who were disciples of the disciples and apostles. We also have what we call ‘Apocrypha”, which is usually shown on History Channel being expounded by Elaine Pagels as “Should be Biblical”. These books are useful, but they are not scripture. But these writings put the scriptures into context. They color how we understand the Bible. So Catholics are not bound to just the 72 books of the Bible for our dogma and doctrine. We have Sacred Scripture, but we also have Sacred Tradition and Sacred Magisterium to fall back on. And from that, we know that masturbation takes an act given by God which was meant to be conjugal, giving and procreative, and makes it non-conjugal, selfish and non-procreative. And this is why it is a sin.

  23. David
    Your tone comes across as you speaking ex officio for the catholic church. I challenge you to provide documentation for your ridiculous assertion that masturbation is a sin. Give me a papal encylical or excerpt from the Baltimore catechism.

    Little girls before they are of the age of consent routinely masturbate. All of my daughters did. How can you say that it is sin?

    Masturbation is nothing more than self pleasuring. Eating chocolate is self pleasuring for girls and women.l Are you prepared to say that is sin as well. Perhaps you ascribe to the false doctrine of asceticism.

    As I said, God was VERY EXPLICIT in describing sexual sin in the bible. Some of it was Old Testament which was done away with in the New Testament. The Old Testament was based upon law and the New Testament was based upon grace.l For example we are no longer required to bathe multiple times before going to church after sex and wash our sheets multiple times. That was based upon ceremonial law. We are no longer bound to avoid sex during a woman’s period becasue again it was based upon ceremonial law. This is documented in Hebrews 13:4 where it says that the marriage bed is undefiled in all things.

    Then there are laws which we are still expected to obey from the Old Testment, incest, adultery, homosexuality, sex with animals for men as well as sex with animals for women and lusting or coveting.

    In all of the laws both ceremonial and laws today from the bible, masturbation is not mentioned.
    At least you did not try to and throw out that old supposed scripture quote that I get from a lot of catholic guys; “that it is better to cast your seed into the belly of a whore than to spill it on the ground”

    Give me some documentation. You are like so many catholics who make it up as they go along which the bible forbids in the previous mentioned scriptural quotes.

    John Wilder

  24. http://ccli.org/oldnfp/b2010morality/b-martino.php

    There’s your ‘magisterial teaching’. Happy, John? Is it a sin for a child to do it? No, because a child doesn’t know better until he’s been taught. The sin there is the parent’s. You can sin by doing nothing to prevent a sinful action, did you know that? But if you didn’t know it’s a sin, it’s not a sin. This is why mentally defected people aren’t usually held accountable for capital crimes. They may go to prison, they won’t be put to death.

    If I sound like I speak with apparent authority, it’s because I know my faith. Your lack of knowledge of Catholic faith shows how it was so easy for you to leave it. Personally, I wouldn’t let anyone take me away from my faith, because my faith is Jesus. No bishop, priest or lay person will sway me from receiving the real food Jesus gives.

  25. David
    You give me a letter from a bishop as defining sexual sin. The bishop can’t speak ex officio for the church only the Pope is allowed to do that according to catholic doctrine.

    You have bishops willfully covering up sexual abuse by catholic priests and complicit in a felony coverup and reshuffliing them off to another parish where they can do it again.

    My faith is in Jesus Christ and His teachings in the bible.

    Masturbation is not a sin according to the bible.l I will stand on that.

    Just out of curiosity, where do you stand on oral sex between a husband and a wife? I suspect that you would say that is a sin as well.

    John Wilder

  26. Coming from an ex-Catholic that doesn’t know his faith, I’m not surprised you said that. Bishops speak for the Church and are protected from error when they are in communion with the Holy Father, and thus are magisterial. The magisterium is defined as “the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him.” If a bishop says something regarding faith and morals that doesn’t agree with Church teaching, then he’s not in communion with the pope, and thus does not speak for the Church.
    As for what bishops have done regarding the priest sex abuse scandal, that’s a whole other topic, we’re getting too far afield here. But I’m willing to battle you on that topic, too-not to sweep it under the rug, it’s a real problem, or was. Some bishops made mistakes, very human ones, as did some priests. No doubt. I don’t think there was felony involved, but they listened to bad advice for sure.
    To your next statement, I’d want to ask you if you believe in the Bible literally? That masturbation is not specifically mentioned in the Bible is agreed, but that disordered use of our sexuality is. Sex is, according to Bible teaching, to be used in the bonds of marriage, to be between a man and a woman to form a union. Masturbation is sex that is not between a man and a woman, so by definition, it is disordered. Which means it’s a sin. Oral sex does not defeat the purpose of sex unless it comes to completion for the man. There’s an aspect to sin that you’re forgetting. If you don’t know it’s a sin, then it’s not a sin. Also, if you did something and didn’t intend to do it, it’s less of a sin. For example, if you intend to go out drinking, and give your keys to someone so you don’t have to ‘drink and drive’, and you get drunk, it was a deliberate act, and is sinful. If you go to a party, have a couple too many and ask someone to drive you home, it wasn’t a deliberate act, and was a less serious sin. In the case of oral sex, the intent is important. If the man ejaculates in the act of oral sex, but the couple’s intention was to switch positions and have regular intercourse, it’s not a sin. Sin is always a deliberate act, especially for it to be a ‘mortal sin’. It must be known to be a sin, it must be done deliberately.

  27. David:
    First of all, I would appreciate it you would drop the condescending tone. I went to catholic school was taught the Baltimore catechism and know more than most Catholics on the issue. I was also an altar boy. Perhaps not as much as you about the nuances of catholic faith but definitely about the doctrines. Your constant refrain about me not knowing the catholic faith is judgmental and very off-putting.

    “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness; considering yourself, lest you also be tempted.”
    Galatians 6:1

    You have to be kidding about a man ejaculating into a woman’s mouth. You are such a legalist. Surely if masturbation is such a sin, the Pope would have rendered an edict on it and not simply left it up to the bishops. Now you are making up even more new rules that a woman can give a man oral pleasure but not allow him to ejaculate in her mouth. I need to see some written confirmation for that from the catholic church.

    And Jesus said as to tradition and the commandments of men: “Thus you have made the commandment of God of none effect because of your tradition. You hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me, But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. ” Mathew 15: 6-8

    That just about wraps up the biblical admonition for your magesterium and tradition. You are exceeding the biblical admonitions about sexual sin. Apparently you don’t trust God to get it right and you have to go back and clean up after His mistakes. Now you contradict the scripture in Hebrews 13:4 where is says the marriage bed is undefiled in all things. You contradict the bible by adding additional sins of masturbation and oral sex with a husband and a wife.

    You make a sin out of masturbation and oral sex and let bishops off because of their felony collusion with the priests. They are first responders and are legally required to report the crime to the police. It is pedophilia and statutory rape. Not of mention homosexuality which is forbidden in the old and new testaments. Your priorities are screwed up.

    Not only was I sexually abused by a catholic priest, but a priest impregnated my mother while my dad who was in the Navy was out to sea.

    John Wilder

  28. I’m not condescending, I’m responding to your supposition that a bishop doesn’t speak with authority. And knowing you’re not Catholic now, even if you were at one time, you don’t know the Catholic faith. I’m just telling you like it is. The fact is, you don’t know the faith. I’m not judging you because of that, I’m just saying…
    Next you scoff at what I say. I’m presenting the legalistic to you-that’s what rules are. The truth is that anything that takes away from the unitive and procreative aspects of sex is objectively sinful. But things happen unexpectedly and accidentally, and those are not wrong. To be mortally sinful, it must be known to be sinful by the person or persons, it must be grave matter, against God’s law, and done with free will. If you do it accidentally, and only you and God know that, it’s mortally sinful. You can do a google search to find out what the Church teaches are the conditions of sin. What did they teach you in Catechism???
    Actually, I don’t listen to ‘traditions of men’. I listen to Jesus, who promised that the Church would be free from error in what it teaches on faith and morals, protected by the Holy Spirit. Or don’t you believe that? Jesus said it, I believe.
    If you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, you should read the Pope’s encyclical Humanae Vitae, and maybe go further and read Theology of the Body.

  29. By the way, I did no such thing, ‘let the bishops off…’ And as soon as you want to attempt to hold other institutions that are responsible for children to the same standards you want to hold the Catholic Church, we can talk. The fact is that if you were a victim, the rate is 100%, and I understand your anger, but statistically, the Church is far safer place for children than the public schoo system, or any other religious organization. If first responders were required to report to the police, how come public schools don’t when an incident occurs? As I said, this is another topic far from the one above, and if you want to make your accusations in another post on the subject, we’ll debate that there. Regarding homosexuality and priests, priest are supposed to be asexual, not homo or hetero.
    I am not condoning the actions of some men in the Church. Christ chose men to be his Church, and all were sinful. Peter deniedHim, and Judas betrayed him, just to name a couple. So the body of the Church contains 100% sinners. Pope down to the worst rapist/child molester. All sinners. Yep. I dare you to tell me you don’t sin….

  30. You just blow off the scriptures that I quote to you as if you did not even read them. You sure are not commenting on them. Then you tell me to read a papal encyclical. I have no desire to read the whole thing, just the part that says masturbation is a sin and a wife giving a man a blow job and him ejaculating in her mouth is a mortal sin. That is not even intellectually honest. A husband can go down on his wife and bring her to orgasm but she can’t return the favor. I assure you that there are a whole lot of catholics not following this commandment but you have yet to provide any written backing for this other than a letter from a bishop mentioning masturbation. You have provided no written proof for the no blow jobs.

    John Wilder

  31. Yes we are all sinners. The bible also tells us to not to become a stumbling block for our brothers. The bible says that the bishop shall be the husband of one wife and rule his children well. It does not say that priests shold be celibate. Sex is a very powerful drive and no one is asexual. They take the path of least resistance and have sex with kids or women in the church. It is a world wide problem. The church is doing nothing about it but trying to cover it up. They are more concerned for protecting the church than protecting the kids. If the bishops did their jobs and reported the priests to the police and aided the family in pressing charges, kids would be protected. instead they pay off people and still don’t rectify the problem.
    In my next post I will give the scripture about what Jesus says about anyone who hurts a child.

    John Wilder

  32. I had a thought over the weekend. Speaking of ‘condescending tone’. You should look in the mirror, John. Any Protestant who thinks or says a Catholic is ‘not Christian’ is, by definition ‘condescending’. I have done nothing but talk to you man to man, and your attitude is like I’m beneath you because I’m Catholic. You don’t even describe your faith as far as I know. So until you get that crud out of you, forgetaboutit.

  33. I didn’t blow of the scriptures, either. There’s nothing there to comment on regarding masturbation or oral sex.

    John, you can go do what you want. I really don’t care. It’s too much information for me. I described what is and isn’t sin. I showed you where to go to read it. If you want to take the time, you’re welcome. As the old saying goes, you can lead a jackass to water, but you can’t make him swim in it.

    Regarding who follows it or not, the same thing applies. Wrong is wrong, regardless of how many people are doing it. Right is right, regardless of how many aren’t doing it. Truthfully, I’m sure there is nothing written about oral sex, but when you stop and think “Why did God make sex?” and look at the animal kingdom, where it’s purely procreative, that answers part of the question. “Why did God make sex pleasurable for mankind?” is the next question, and the answer is ‘to make us want to procreate”. Well, neither oral sex, nor masturbation is procreative. So by definition, just as seriously as Eve eating the proverbial apple, subverting the will of God is a sin. It is valid to ask if a husband and wife giving each other pleasure is licit. It is licit. But there is a line to be crossed when it could be considered not licit. I’ve defined that for you.

    Again, John, you can say what you want, and do what you want, as can every one of us. The question is not to be definitively answered here in this life. But when you go to meet your Maker…

  34. Paul also tells us that it’s better for a man not to marry, but if he’s going to sin sexually, then better to be married. So far from “commanding” marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” (7:8-9).

    The theory that Church leaders must be married also contradicts the obvious fact that Paul himself, an eminent Church leader, was single and happy to be so. Unless Paul was a hypocrite, he could hardly have imposed a requirement on bishops which he did not himself meet. Consider, too, the implications regarding Paul’s positive attitude toward celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7: the married have worldly anxieties and divided interests, yet only they are qualified to be bishops; whereas the unmarried have single-minded devotion to the Lord, yet are barred from ministry!

    The suggestion that the unmarried man is somehow untried or unproven is equally absurd. Each vocation has its own proper challenges: the celibate man must exercise “self-control” (1 Cor. 7:9); the husband must love and care for his wife selflessly (Eph. 5:25); and the father must raise his children well (1 Tim. 3:4). Every man must meet Paul’s standard of “managing his household well,” even if his “household” is only himself. If anything, the chaste celibate man meets a higher standard than the respectable family man.

    Clearly, the point of Paul’s requirement that a bishop be “the husband of one wife” is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married).

    The truth is, it is precisely those who are uniquely “concerned about the affairs of the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:32), those to whom it has been given to “renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom” (Matt. 19:12), who are ideally suited to follow in the footsteps of those who have “left everything” to follow Christ (cf. Matt. 19:27)—the calling of the clergy and consecrated religious (i.e., monks and nuns).

    Thus Paul warned Timothy, a young bishop, that those called to be “soldiers” of Christ must avoid “civilian pursuits”: “Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him” (2 Tim. 2:3–4). In light of Paul’s remarks in 1 Corinthians 7 about the advantages of celibacy, marriage and family clearly stand out in connection with these “civilian pursuits.”

    In fact, the Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They “renounce marriage” (Matt. 19:12); no one forbids it to them. Any Catholic who doesn’t wish to take such a vow doesn’t have to, and is almost always free to marry with the Church’s blessing. The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood (or, in the Eastern rites, for the episcopacy) from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage.

  35. I realize that this is the catholic teaching but you have lost thousands of priests over this requirement and leaving the homosexual pedophile priests in their wake. It is time for the church to wake up and change the celibacy requirement for thier own good.

    As I stated previously, the bishops are much more concened with protecting the church and the priests than protecting the children. Even you must admit that it has risen to epidemic proportions becuase people are now coming forward.

    John Wilder

  36. The point it that the catholic church is contradicting scripture to make up their own rules. Sex was not just given for procreative use. Are you telling me that you only have sex with your wife when you want to conceive a child? Proverbs 5 states that “let her breasts satisfy thee at all times and be thou always ravished in her love.”
    Ravished is a biblical term for great sex for sex sake. You are taking the position that God did not do a good enough job explaining what is sexual sin so you and the catholic church have to clean up behind God. The argument is not about sex but how the catholic church contradicts the bible to make up their own rules.

    You have not commented on the scripture that I gave you that negates your tradition and magesterium.
    d Jesus said as to tradition and the commandments of men: “Thus you have made the commandment of God of none effect because of your tradition. You hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me, But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. ” Mathew 15: 6-8

  37. My argument is not with you per se but with the leaders of the church. My frustration is that I have given you scriptures which negates catholic teaching and you tend to ignore those. The only thing that I can say that I said that i believe is condascending is describing your description of oral sex and masturbation as ridiculous. For that I apologize.

    John Wilder

  38. John,
    Catholic teaching comes from God, and God cannot and will not change. If he did, he wouldn’t be God. When someone decides to become a priest, he gives God, as a gift, his sexuality. Therefore, there are supposed to be no ‘heterosexual’ priests, nor ‘homosexual’ priests. If a homosexual becomes a priest, he’s supposed to be celebate and chaste. If he cannot be, he should realize he’s not called to be a priest. Same is true for a heterosexual. But let’s turn it around a bit. Elite sports figures give up countless hours of their lives, some using drugs to enhance their performance which render them impotent. Isn’t this the same thing? Voluntary celibacy? So, if the requirement is that you have to work out 6 hours a day 6 days a week, then go out and perform for three hours at your highest level, and if that means you have to use substances which remove you from having sexual activity, it’s ok. But to choose to do so voluntarily as a gift to the one you profess to love so much…is not?

    Regarding bishops, it’s nice of you to put them all in one pool, but they aren’t. There are many, many, many bishops who did not do what you’re saying was done, in any way, shape or form. One of them was beatified yesterday, and another presided over the ceremony, just to name two. But there are thousands of bishops who are absolutely innocent of what you’re saying. Secondly, you really are talking out of your backside, because you don’t have a clue why or what really happened behind the scenes. In most cases, the hierarchy chose to listen to secular experts and attempted to rehabilitate priests. It was believed, wrongly, at the time, that rehabilitation could take place, and the person could be placed in the same situation. Just so you know, the numbers of actual cases is really small-numbers of priests involved, number of children victimized. While I understand that ANY cancer must be removed and destroyed, and that this was a cancer (note the WAS???), the abhorrent crap you’re talking about infects ALL institutions where adults are in charge of children, most especially, public school systems, and Protestant-run schools and churches. I read one statistic that, when done anonymously, polls of Protestant pastors and staffs reveal that 10% of them have had sexual relationships with parishioners and that most of them were under age. So marriage really doesn’t matter.
    I admit there was a problem. The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a country club for saints. I admit that there will always be problems on God’s green earth, from the time of Adam and Eve until the day Jesus comes again. But we are not to throw out Peter because of Judas.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: