Catholics for Choosing Moloch at it again
New York, December 1 - Two new radio advertisements for condom use began to target Catholics in the U.S. Hispanic community here today, World AIDS Day, with the message that "good Catholics use condoms" to protect the people they love.
The 60-second Spanish-language ads, which will air nationwide in 2009, "take on myths about condom use in Catholic and Latino communities," said a statement from the sponsors, the Washington-based nonprofit organization Catholics for Choice and the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health.
"Catholics use condoms because we know it is the responsible, loving and caring thing to do," said Jon O'Brien, president of Catholics for Choice. Catholicism "has not always been honest about sex," he said, adding that the spots will "break the silence" in the Latino community and encourage safer sex.
Hispanics now suffer 20 percent of new U.S. HIV infections and Latina teens are twice as likely to have an unintended pregnancy as their non-Hispanic peers, said Silvia Henriquez, executive director of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health. "It is time we protect ourselves and our partners."
One of the ads features a grandmother talking about her grandson, who is gay, and the other involves a couple discussing the importance of love, faith and condom use in their relationship. "We are Catholics and people of faith and we know sex is sacred and that we need to take care of each other. And this means using a condom every time we have sex," the second ad says.
Well if "good Catholics" use condoms, than Lord preserve me in being a "bad Catholic" in their understanding. This is certainly part of what Isaiah said "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil."
They also don't explain why a Catholic couple faithful to Church teaching would ever need a condom in the first place? Fidelity to the marriage covenant is a hundred percent effective on STDs. Though I guess there view of the world is that you can't trust your spouse. Or that fornication/adultery are acceptable choices anyway. But for them it is all "good." Plus they are using the old time eugenics policies of Planned Parenthood, that is going after minorities.
Known as 
Ah, the Good(TM) Catholics again... always branding themselves when they have to market a lie.
the other involves a couple discussing the importance of love, faith and condom use in their relationship.
Cf. 1 Corinthians 13:13.
"Catholicism "has not always been honest about sex,"
WHAT? Oh, I get it--Planned Parenthood & friends, who can't even be honest about the natural result of sexual intercourse (a child) and the risks involved in extramarital sexual acts is honest about sex and is the authority on "responsible" sex, is that it?
How do they get away with this stuff? More and more I wish we would be obligated to read the encyclicals and the catechism and sign a document saying that we understand and will conform to the teachings of the Church regarding marriage, sexuality and LIFE.(and the necessary gender of priests, while we're at it. :))
Amen, Joanne.
When I converted to Catholicism, I made the decision to do so fully accepting everything about the Faith - not just the parts I liked. This includes the teachings on contraception. It was hard for me, raised Lutheran and after living for several years as a fallen-away one at that, to wrap my head around the notion that I couldn't take the pill like everyone else and "plan" when I wanted to get pregnant.
I found the comment about the Catholic Church not being honest about sex laugh-out-loud hysterical. I'd really like to know exactly *what* about the Church's teachings is, in fact, a lie. Especially when I look at the history of the past 40 years or so, with the rise of "free love" and contraception, and that people are not only *still* unhappy, but dealing with disease, divorce, abuse, abortion, and all these other sins that Humanae Vitae accurately predicted would come to pass with the rise of contraception.
If this is what being a "good" Catholic means, then I'll stay bad, thank you very much.
Amy, I'm glad you're home! We need you!
Have you been able to share your story with other Catholics (in your parish, etc.)? It sure should make people think twice before they abandon the Truth!!!
I think the bishops should run a counter ad. Just make it quick and to the point: the Catholic Church is against abortion, contraception, fornication and sodomy. Always has been, always will be... and those who call themselves "Catholics for Choice" are misleading them.
The liberals would hate that... they don't generally like to talk about basic principles. Discussions are instead cloaked in talk of honesty, hypocrisy, fairness, oppression, etc. Which is doubly a shame because then those words become denuded of their actual meaning. Just look at words like "liberation".
Well said, Adeodatus!
No loopholes, no compromises, no wiggle-room for the cafeteria crowd. Quick and straight to the point.
Plus they are using the old time eugenics policies of Planned Parenthood, that is going after minorities.
It is so blatant and "in your face" the way minorities are targeted, yet no one sees it. It is frustrating.
It's a business now. They want people to keep using condoms and being promiscuous, not because it's in the best interest of others, but rather because it makes money.
The rich man doesn't really care about how the rest of the world is fairing, just so long as he remains at the top.
I am going to have some bumper stickers made up that read:
"Contraception Is Not An Act Of Love"
"Abortion Is Not An Act Of Love"
"Sodomy Is Not An Act Of Love"
"Fornication Is Not An Act Of Love"
"Masturbation Is Not An Act Of Love"
Doesn't that drive home the truth very succinctly? (No pun intended on "drive")
I am going to have some bumper stickers made up that read:
"Contraception Is Not An Act Of Love"
"Abortion Is Not An Act Of Love"
"Sodomy Is Not An Act Of Love"
"Fornication Is Not An Act Of Love"
"Masturbation Is Not An Act Of Love"
Doesn't that drive home the truth very succinctly? (No pun intended on "drive")
I am going to have some bumper stickers made up that read:
"Contraception Is Not An Act Of Love"
"Abortion Is Not An Act Of Love"
"Sodomy Is Not An Act Of Love"
"Fornication Is Not An Act Of Love"
"Masturbation Is Not An Act Of Love"
Doesn't that drive home the truth very succinctly? (No pun intended on "drive")
"We are Catholics and people of faith and we know sex is sacred and that we need to take care of each other. And this means using a condom every time we have sex,"
Ewwwwwwwww... This totally trivialises sex, and far from reinforcing its sacredness throws it into the gutter. Catholicism is OK as a sort of badge I suppose but God forbid it should actually make demands of one, particularly demands about one's lifestyle choices. People of faith? faith in what? Whatever it is, it's not Catholicism.
"Catholics for Choice believe that sex is sacred.
"So never, never touch your spouse that way unless you're totally encased in rubber, because bodily fluids are dirty, and making babies is wrong. Especially if you're brown people who don't have big bank accounts.
"Also, unless you're doing stuff in a really kinky way, be sure to keep some daylight between your bodies at all times, and don't you dare hold hands in front of people!
"This has been a message from your free-thinking, free-loving friends at Catholics for Choice."
Matthew 24: 11-12
Many false prophets will appear and deceive many people, and because lawlessness will inÂcrease, the love of many people will grow cold.
There is a new organization that is so inclusive that anyone can join and embrace any ideas they want: Communist Japanese Jews for private ownership of uncooked pork. Wanna join?
Have you been able to share your story with other Catholics (in your parish, etc.)? It sure should make people think twice before they abandon the Truth!!!
Sort of. Some know about it, others not so much. I'm actually feeling very compelled to get into apologetics and I'm thinking of writing a book about Catholicism geared toward teen girls and young 20-something women for my graduate thesis project.
I can think of nothing better I'd like to do as a "career" than write about the faith, speak about the faith, and make a living sharing my love of the faith with people.
Oh yes.. "I love you so much, let's stick latex between us for protection from eachother." I'm just totally feeling the love here! I'm sorry, but you either love eachother with all that you have and all that you ever will be or you don't. End of story. You can't partially love eachother, and the idea that you need to "protect" yourself from eachother is completely antithetical to the nature of love. Love is as complete and as irrevocable as jumping off a cliff, or "as stern as death" if you want to get Biblical. You can't do it by parts.
Yeah, it does make one miss the old testament God. You know, the one who destroys cities of evil...things were much simpler before the incarnation. But wait, maybe we can. Maybe AIDS can do that for us if we successfully discourage the "safety" measures taken by these sinners.
Miked,
The Church's teaching on love, marriage, and sexuality (and against contraception) are not the cause of AIDS or abortion. Nor has the Church ever desired death by AIDS for anyone. Your prejudice is showing.
Amy,
While the book is cooking, how about an editorial, article, or simple letter to the editor in your diocesan newspaper? Making cradle Catholics a little jealous that you cherish what some of them don't sounds like a good idea to me! (The strategy has been used before with success. :))
Not the cause? Agreed. But, preference for strict adherence over saving the lives of individuals who engage in unsafe sex from AIDS is troubling.
Miked: If the Catholic Church's prohibition on contraception is responsible for AIDS, can we blame gun violence on gun-control advocates?
Your position makes no sense. The Catholic Church teaches NO ONE outside the context of a heterosexual, sacramental marriage open to life should be having sex, as it is fornication and a sin. And, last time I checked, abstinence is the ONLY 100% effective method preventing the spread of AIDS, STDs and unplanned pregnancies.
Condoms are not 100% effective against AIDS (or other STDs or pregnancy); neither is the pill or other alternative forms of artificial contraception.
Reports have also indicated that encouraging abstinence and monogamy are also more effective that using condoms in curbing the spread of AIDS.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12226
Okay, I have to say I chuckled a bit at the gun/sex analogy :)
But seriously, thank you for the CNA link: The ABC (Abstain, Be faithful, use Condoms) model seems reasonable. I guess that's my point: I don't think the C should be abandoned.
I don't know how helpful the boolean, 100% or nothing, approach is. Not everyone believes that sex outside of a heterosexual, sacramental marriage is sin. Yet, there are certainly practical arguments for abstinence & fidelity.
And finally, I'd be cautious in praising the Church's treatment & honesty about sexuality given their history dealing with clergy sex abuse.
"I'd be cautious in praising the Church's treatment & honesty about sexuality given their history dealing with clergy sex abuse."
I used to think that the abuse of children by clergy and the ensuing cover-up had to be the worst thing that could happen in the Church. Now I'm not so sure.
When the majority of supposedly informed Catholics vote for a presidential candidate who has promised women the unrestricted right to kill their children, is that more excusable than the sex-abuse scandal?
As to being "cautious" about the Church's teaching, I disagree with you. Perhaps if we had not let ourselves be silenced by accusations every time we began to speak the truth about abortion, we would have saved millions of children. The truth is still true, despite our most horrible sins. The sexual abuses were a sin against the Church, no matter which members (or leaders) of the Church committed or hid them.
I liked Amy's analogy too. I was at a loss for a decent one.
Yeah...no system is perfect...neither political nor religious: Enter mercy.
Peace to you. I'm hittin' the hay for today. :)
Miked:
You are correct to mention boolean, 100% or nothing choices. Since that's what the afterlife is like... you go up or down (Purgatory is still up).
An act is either a mortal sin or it's not (if it's not it might either be good or a venial sin). If it's a mortal sin then it puts one in danger of eternal punishment. Eternity is a long time, Mike. So let us be charitable to our brothers and sisters and not tell them to do something that might land them in Hell.
A mortal sin is an offense to God. The Church doesn't need to tell anybody to go around offending God. It needs to tell people how to get closer to God and get to Heaven. That's the Church's main job... get people to have a right relationship to God and get them on the right road to eternal fellowship with Him. The Church is not a hospital.
I don't want anyone to get AIDS. But if you really believe all this Christianity stuff, I'm sure you'll agree that the amount of time they will spend having AIDS or not is infinitessimal compared to the length of eternity. Eternity is what we're all about. If you really believe in eternity then I think you'll see that it's the thing to be about, if you're about anything.
"They would not believe the truth, so God handed them over to the lie." Sounds like the lie is being cuddled and cossetted by these bad catholics who see the Papal axe of doctrinal authority falling on it.
Heard a quote once (don't remember from who), "Those who don't believe in the supernatural will be left with the unnatural."
hmmmm....was it G.K. Chesterton?
Fiat Voluntas Tua
Adeodatus,
It is our beliefs that condemn us. Eternity has no length, no time, and so can fit nicely into every moment.
I think the misquoted. Here's the corrected quote. :)
"We are Catholics and people of faith and we know sex is sacred and that we need to take care of each other. And this means BEING MARRIED TO OUR 'PARTNER' every time we have sex."
And finally, I'd be cautious in praising the Church's treatment & honesty about sexuality given their history dealing with clergy sex abuse.
You show me where in the Catechism it says sexual abuse is okay, and you've got an argument.
Otherwise, it will be helpful and more than a little insightful to know that the people who committed the abuse, and the bishops who covered for them, were all inimical to Catholic teaching.
I highly recommend Goodbye, Good Men by Michael S. Rose. It explains in great detail the conditions that led to the abuse scandal.
It has nothing to do with the teaching on sexuality, and EVERYTHING to do with what happens when persons hostile to Church teaching inflitrate the Church and obtain power.
Amy-- Excellent point on church teaching. Still, as the cliche goes...actions (can) speak louder than words. I'll take a look at Rose's book, though, from what I'm reading so far there appears to be a bit of controversy around its potential lack of ideological balance & credibility. Although understandably tempting, it might be overly simplistic to lay the whole problem at feet of liberal theology. Also, the homosexual>pedophile connection lacks unified scientific support.
I'll take a look at Rose's book, though, from what I'm reading so far there appears to be a bit of controversy around its potential lack of ideological balance & credibility.
And I'd like to know who is causing the controversy. There cannot be an "ideological balance" when one side respects and understands Church teaching and the other holds it in contempt.
My money says those criticizing the book are the ones who hold the most blame. My husband has personally met the author a few times and would be the first to discredit Rose's work if he felt Rose were somehow dishonest.
By and large, the victims of the abuse were adolescent males, a clear indication of EPHEBOPHILIA, as opposed to pedophilia. And most of the clergy perpetrators were homosexual. I fully understand that this may not translate into the general population, b ut weren't not talking about the general population.
You say it's "overly simplistic" to lay blame at the feet of theological liberals. I think this is a case where the simple route is the correct one.
I've heard all the arguments: that the all-male, celebate clergy "rule" is to blame; that the heirarchy of the Church is to blame; that the repressive sexual morality of the Church is to blame. Each of these can easily be debunked:
Teachers can be male or female, can marry, and there is still many instances of sexual abuse and misconduct in public schools; likewise, the hierarchy of the schools has allowed for easy cover up of such behavior; non-Catholic clergy have also engaged in abuse; conservative Catholic religious orders and parishes have thriving numbers and the instances of abuse in more conservative parishes/dioceses is next to nothing as opposed to more liberal diocese like Boston or Milwaukee.
But the fact of the matter is that what's in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is IT when it comes to Church teaching and doctrine (outside of the Bible). Sexual abuse is not condoned nor taught; in fact anyone not bound to a spouse by sacramental marriage is to abstain from sex and all individuals are to avoid lustful thoughts and actions.
Rose's book makes the most compelling case for laying the blame with those who held the Church's teachings in contempt and made a genuine push to overthrow the most fundamental rules of the priesthood and sexual morality.
And either they are to blame, or their attempts to blame Church teaching are responsible for the abuse.
"Although understandably tempting, it might be overly simplistic to lay the whole problem at feet of liberal theology. Also, the homosexual>pedophile connection lacks unified scientific support."
Answering that would take a book, but I'm also not sure that Rose's book is the one. From what some trustworthy priests have told me, its facts aren't entirely straight, and Rose's view is not objective. So maybe have the salt shaker nearby when you read it.
What about "The Faithful Departed"? I haven't read it, but I have heard good reviews.
Anyone read both? Care to offer a comparison? Or suggest something better?
Amy, Thank you for the detailed & thoughtful response. I'm hoping for some common ground rather than schism. btw: What do you mean by *sacramental* marriage?
joanne, thank you; i too would like to educate myself from multiple sources
What do you mean by *sacramental* marriage?
I mean a marriage as the Church teaches it, from the Church's perspective. While it is preferable that couples who are non-Catholic are married and engage in marital relations under that binding unity, the Catholic Church believes marriage is a step up and a sacrament, and therefor indissolvable by man.
Well, it's not exactly 100% preventative against STDs. A partner could bring in an STD which preceeded the marriage, say HPV, HSV, or HIV. They could live perfect marital fidelity, and infect their spouse. This is the reason why 9-12 year olds need the HPV vaccine. They can live percect chaste lives, then marry and become infected with their spouse's HPV, and contract cervical cancer, and die.