R.I.P. Pope John Paul’s “Contraceptive Mentality”: 1979–2014

The biggest news to come out of the bishops’ synod in Rome so far is the acknowledgement that when it comes to talking about issues of family and sexuality, language matters.

Among the examples of “harsh” rhetoric that bishops discussed as doing more harm than good in terms of “invit[ing] people to draw closer to the church” were “living in sin” for cohabitating couples, as well as calling homosexuality “intrinsically disordered” and references to a “contraceptive mentality.”

The rejection of this last phrase is especially significant because it’s not merely an outdated expression like “living in sin”—it was Pope John Paul II’s seminal contribution to the church’s theology of women and reproduction over the last 35 years.

John Paul’s “contraceptive mentality” conflated abortion and contraception, laying the groundwork for much of the anti-contraception mentality that exists on the right today, while his other great rhetorical sleight-of-hand was to place both abortion and contraception under what he labeled a “culture of death” that valued expediency and personal fulfillment.

“[C]ontraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree,” he wrote in Evangelium Vitae, saying, “such practices are rooted in a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfillment.”

The suggestion that women who used contraception were selfish, rejecting the will of God that they be mothers and instead pursuing their own pleasure and self-fulfillment, helped alienate a generation (or two) of Catholic women from the church.

Not only were women who used contraception selfish harlots, but the very use of contraception was leading them to have abortions:

It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the “contraceptive mentality”… are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. … The life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes the only possible decisive response to failed contraception.

This is the thinking about women and contraception that has guided the Catholic Church since Ronald Reagan was in office and explains much of the bishops’ irrational hostility to contraception—John Paul taught that it was “abortion lite.”

It stands in sharp contrast to the attitude toward contraception taken by the American bishops in the decade after Humanae Vitae, when they urged the church to take a graduated approach toward contraception that maintained the teaching that it was wrong but adopted a pastoral approach that was more in keeping with the real-life experiences of Catholics. Following the tumultuous release of Humane Vitae in 1968, they told Catholics that if they tried to follow the teaching in good faith and found they couldn’t, “they may reasonably decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible.”

At the 1980 bishops’ synod, the last time the church officially grappled with “family” issues, Archbishop John Quinn, head of the U.S. bishops’ conference, urged a more nuanced approach to the contraception teaching that emphasized “greater pastoral insights” but was rebuked by John Paul.

Now, it appears that “graduality” is back in, as is the idea of using pastoral practices to soften the real-world application of doctrine. The bishops are talking about the need to meet Catholics where they are and guide them toward a vision of “perfect” practice that they may or may not reach. Pope Francis already demonstrated this by marrying couples who were “living in sin”—welcoming them to grow into the church’s vision of the marriage ideal rather than turning them away for not having met it as a precondition of a church marriage.

This approach, however, may have more doctrinal significance than it appears. It may be a matter of the pastoral cart leading the doctrinal horse, as Thomas Reese notes:

[T]he only way the synod is going to change anything is for the bishops to first convince themselves that they are not changing doctrine, only the way they are expressing it. … Perhaps bishops, guided by the Spirit, should just discern better pastoral practices and then leave it to the theologians to explain why they are OK.

If this is the case, then the Francis revolution will be less a revolution and more an evolution, which may be the only way to change a church that can’t bring itself to admit it needs to change.

 

 

  • AugustineThomas

    Apostates and heretics like yourself need change. The Church is fine, even if we’re dealing with a bad pope.
    The Church has survived bad popes before and it will survive this one, thanks to the protection of the Holy Spirit.

  • bpuharic

    Only someone who thinks human beings are puppets created by god would say such a thing

  • cranefly

    You forgot. Men who sleep with the women on birth control are “using” them. Unless a man insists on making you carry his babies, run the other way. He’s a player.

  • Nine churches and their schools are shut down in Philadelphia. As the RCC sows and sowed, so the RCC reaps.
    Good.

  • Vigilant2

    So, ‘graduality’ does not equal ‘ambiguity’? The last thing we need is more ambiguity.

  • SisterLea

    Thank you, Patricia. Excellent article! I agree with you and Thomas Reese wholeheartedly about the “pastoral cart leading the doctrinal horse”. Doctrine is the substrate of all pastoral, spiritual and ritual practice. Doctrine must EVOLVE or it will crust over into a museum piece taking the Church with it, both quaint but totally irrelevant.

  • mikehorn

    Yes, married couples that want to space children for the health of both mother and child, those that want to have an income that can provide for their child, feed and educate that child so they can grow into productive adults, yes they are so selfish.

    How bout those hundred thousands of priests and nuns who don’t have any children at all? As soon as priests and nuns have to raise their own kids, I’ll take their ideas of marriage, family, and contraception seriously. I have friends, married and single, with no children for different reasons. They are smart and deal with my kids relatively well. I am not remotely interested in their notions of how I should raise my kids or make decisions about whether I should or shouldn’t want more kids. Priests aren’t even married.

  • Andre M

    The Church is so obviously not fine. Where have you been the last 10 years?

  • bdlaacmm

    Pope Francis a “bad” pope? Are you nuts?

    May he live to be 100!

  • Jhawk77

    The great prairie dioceses are building churches and schools. There are plentiful seminarians, vibrant social help networks and active parish life. A visit to a fall festival of one Wichita parish showed a crowd of young families and many little children. The liturgies are reverent, and even the music is getting a bit better. What the RCC sows in this area, the RCC reaps.

  • Interesting. Link me to one of their newsletters, if you can. I would appreciate that. Things are pretty depressing for Catholics here in Philly.
    We inherited Chaput from the West. He was sent to us because he has experience resisting the political/legal push to change the statutes of limitation on child sexual abuse and handling the blowback that results from child sexual abuse prosecution.

  • Pope Frankie makes me feel hope. And lessens my shame. Go, Pope Francis!

  • Ex Nihilo

    Just like the law of gravity we will not break the natural or divine laws… we can however break ourselves against them.

  • apotropoxy

    AugustineThomas wrote: “The Church has survived bad popes before and it will survive this one, thanks to the protection of the Holy Spirit.”

    ______________________________

    The Church Militant (those people still processing oxygen) has always been conflicted over its leadership. After nearly 2,000 years of roiling and theological parsing, the RCC is staring at its own irrelevance in reality’s mirror. I welcome AugustineThomas’ furtherance of his religions demise.

  • FrJesusGaylord

    I love it when catholics do everything in their power to shrink the church. It’s an intrinsic moral good.

  • FrJesusGaylord

    My guess would be on an altar with an 8 year old.

  • Ex Nihilo

    How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!

  • FrJesusGaylord

    How boring are the “righteous”, and how happy we will be when they are gone.

  • Ex Nihilo

    I am not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.

  • Ex Nihilo

    “It is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate. It is the truth revealed through Scripture and Tradition and articulated by the Church’s Magisterium that sets us free. Cardinal Newman realized this, and he left us an outstanding example of faithfulness to revealed truth by following that ‘kindly light’ wherever it led him, even at considerable personal cost. Great writers and communicators of his stature and integrity are needed in the Church today, and it is my hope that devotion to him will inspire many to follow in his footsteps.”

    Pope Benedict XVI’s address to the Bishops of England and Wales

    “ad limina apostolorum,” January, 2010

  • FrJesusGaylord

    That’s one massive ego you’ve got going on there, bud. Might wanna have it checked out before you do something horrible like join the world’s largest pedophile ring.

  • Jim Reed

    So in other words he was saying, “I’m right, and those who disagree can be dismissed”. But he says it with flowing language, so I guess that is why they made him pope.

  • Ex Nihilo

    I’m sorry. I was quoting Jesus. Should’ve made that clear.
    Pax vobis Gaylord my friend. I wish you the peace that surpasses all understanding. That’s not mine either that’s St. Paul.

  • Ex Nihilo

    The truth isn’t up for debate.

  • Jim Reed

    So he quit.

  • Ex Nihilo

    He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.
    Isaiah 53:7

  • Jim Reed

    Running the office of the Inquisition takes its toll on a future pope.

  • Ex Nihilo

    At that season Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes:
    Matt 11:25

  • Jim Reed

    And with the power of his voice Jesus commanded Lazarus who had been dead for 3 days to come back to life, and come out of the grave. That was Jesus’ most impressive miracle, and it was recorded in the gospel of John, the last one written. The earlier gospels didn’t know anything about this miracle, and Saint Paul who was writing the earliest Christian documents decades earlier didn’t know anything about this. But then Paul didn’t know about any of the stories from any of the gospels. In later centuries, after the church finished making the story up, they spread it to all nations and became the church.

  • FrJesusGaylord

    No problem! I’ve been around people like you a lot so I know y’all sometimes have difficulty telling the difference between God and yourselves.

  • Ex Nihilo

    St. Apollinaris is one of the first great martyrs of the church. He was made Bishop of Ravenna by St. Peter himself. The miracles he wrought there soon attracted official attention, for they and his preaching won many converts to the Faith, while at the same time bringing upon him the fury of the idolaters, who beat him cruelly and drove him from the city. He was found half dead on the seashore, and kept in concealment by the Christians, but was captured again and compelled to walk on burning coals and a second time expelled. But he remained in the vicinity, and continued his work of evangelization. We find him then journeying in the province of Aemilia. A third time he returned to Ravenna. Again he was captured, hacked with knives, had scalding water poured over his wounds, was beaten in the mouth with stones because he persisted in preaching, and then, loaded with chains, was flung into a horrible dungeon to starve to death; but after four days he was put on board ship and sent to Greece. There the same course of preachings, and miracles, and sufferings continued; and when his very presence caused the oracles to be silent, he was, after a cruel beating, sent back to Italy. All this continued for three years, and a fourth time he returned to Ravenna. By this time Vespasian was Emperor, and he, in answer to the complaints of the pagans, issued a decree of banishment against the Christians. Apollinaris was kept concealed for some time, but as he was passing out of the gates of the city, was set upon and savagely beaten, probably at Classis, a suburb, but he lived for seven days, foretelling meantime that the persecutions would increase, but that the Church would ultimately triumph. It is not certain what was his native place, though it was probably Antioch. Nor is it sure that he was one of the seventy-two disciples of Christ, as has been suggested. The precise date of his consecration cannot be ascertained, but he was Bishop of Ravenna for twenty-six years. – Catholic Encyclopaedia
    Yes, it’s obvious by the hundreds of thousands of Martyrs (people who died witnessing to their encounter with the risen Jesus) that they made up the stories because it brought them fame and fortune and could be used to control the brainless masses thousands of years into the future. Sorry for the sarcasm. Your idea that this was made up and spread is unreasonable. No one dies for something they know is a lie.

  • Andre M

    That doesn’t mean that what they’re dying for is true, though.

  • bpuharic

    If passion were a measure of truth, then we’d all be Muslims because Islam has people willing to strap bombs to themselves and walk into hospitals.

  • Andre M

    What the truth is will always be debated.

  • Jim Reed

    The hundreds of thousands of martyrs sounds made up.

  • Dedangelo

    Why anybody would rely on a group of (supposedly) celibate men to decide upon
    sexual ethics for the rest of the world is beyond me.

  • Ex Nihilo

    And you will know them by their fruit. The Martyrs gained nothing in this life for their witness… they died that you would know they believed in what they professed.
    Muslims who blow themselves up do it to gain something for themselves. Their fruit is rotten.

  • Ex Nihilo

    The martyrs had an encounter with Christ. You must believe that at least they believed they had. What you do with that is between God and you.

  • Ex Nihilo

    Not by disciples of Jesus.

  • Ex Nihilo

    They were in all the papers. The Martyrs were written about by non-Christian sources up and down the centuries. You can Google them.

  • Jim Reed

    I think the record has been compromised. There is the record of Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, and the reference in his writings to Jesus. But everything about it sounds like exactly what a 4th century Christian would write in, and exactly not like what a 1st century Jewish historian would write. That might explain why this part was never referenced by anyone else including by Christians referencing Josephus until the 4th century. There is also the missing history in the ancient libraries of the years around when Jesus was supposed to be born and die. Apparently the books didn’t mention the miraculous star or the hours of global darkness that are described in the later gospels, so those later Christians solved the problem by checking out those volumes and not returning them.

  • Frank6548

    No truer words have been spoken as those of John Paul on the subject.

  • Frank6548

    When you are a woman I’ll start to take your views on women seriously.

    You see how bad your logic is?

  • mikehorn

    Not at all. Some things I’m simply not equipped to understand. I wouldn’t for a second consider a celibate adult as a resource to understand marriage, childbearing, or long-term sexual relationships. Even if the priest has a long term mistress, that relationship has repression and secrecy aspects that would distort understanding beyond anything helpful. If a priest or nun hasn’t raised their own child from birth, they have no idea the time, effort, and exhaustion even one child implies. Yes, they’ve seen parishioners, but until they have harder experience there, they have no business dictating family planning and contraceptive issues, or gender roles.

    If the Church is serious about asking the right questions and getting informed answers, family planning needs to be staffed with a majority that is married and has children. Priests should be a distinct minority. The church isn’t set up for that. Canon and dogma come from males only who have been at least publicly celibate for multiple decades. Usually with zero input from anyone that has to live with whatever rules are dictated. Bass ackward decision making, exhibit A.

  • Andre M

    And Joseph Smith was visited by an angel. He died a martyr too. Christian apologists like to justify belief in Christ by breaking it down into Jesus not being crazy (because no one would follow him), not being a liar (because he wouldn’t die for a lie), or telling the truth. If only truth and history and belief and written accounts could be so easily broken down.

  • Andre M

    That’s debatable.

  • Ex Nihilo

    You have no evidence to support your very broad stroke claim that ‘religions fake the evidence to get people to believe…’. First you’d have to identify some mastermind overseeing the whole thing that was pulling the strings and creating this imaginary narrative.

    If you want to be scientific lets examine how other historical documents are verified for authenticity and see if the Bible stands up. Using the Historical Critical Method we consider the date written, earliest copy known, timespan between original and copy and the number of copies to derive it’s accuracy. Homer’s Iliad was written in 900 B.C., the earliest copy is from 400 B.C., there were 500 yrs between the original and the first copy and we have 643 copies to base this on. Scholars regard this as 95% accurate.

    The New Testament was written A.D. 50-100, the earliest copy we have is from 2nd Cent. A.D. (c. A.D. 130 f.), there were less than 100 years between the original and the first copy and we have 5,600 manuscripts to base this on. This means the consistency of the New Testament is 99.5% pure. That is incredible accuracy. There are more than 19,000 copies in the Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total number of copies supporting New Testament manuscript base is more than 24,000. If you want to disregard the Bible you have to throw out a lot of other things that historians take as true.
    It sure makes it impossible to believe there was some person or group of people faking evidence. They’d have to be all over the know world, fluent in every language, writing hundreds of documents a day in every language and were incredibly persuasive.
    Jim, there’s more evidence the New Testament is accurate than many things you learned about in Western Civilization.

  • Ex Nihilo

    Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the life…
    He established a group of apostles to tell the world that.
    Those apostles told other people and long story short… they became the church who have been the defenders of that faith since Jesus corporately left the earth.
    Its the same truth now as it was then.

  • Andre M

    If it is the truth.

  • Frank6548

    Your logic is still bad. Terrible actually.

    They are upholding Gods Will for these things. They don’t have to experience them personally to understand Gods Will and speak it boldly.

    You just don’t like Gods Will.

  • James

    The Diocese of Wichita provides Catholic education for all, regardless of ability to pay, doesn’t it?

    This may explain the growth.

  • Frank6548

    Indeed there seems to be no one more passionate, and wrong I might add, than atheists.

  • Frank6548

    You mean the church acting like the church is why there is growth? Yes exactly.

  • Jim Reed

    That is the church marking its territory.

  • Ex Nihilo

    Joseph Smith taught his own gospel in addition to Christianity. The Gospel cannot be added to.

    “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
    ― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

  • Jim Reed

    I guess you are saying the New Testament is accurately the New Testament. It was written over a span of 50 years or more, and those years are all decades after what it is supposed to be talking about. It is a record of the evolution of the development of those stories over time. We still have the issue of Lazarus, Jesus’ greatest miracle. It is a story from John. The earlier gospel writers didn’t know of this story, and they certainly would have used it if they did know about it. Maybe it is part of the stuff the writer of John was adding to his book. We also still have the issue of Paul. He wrote a lot of the New Testament. These are our oldest Christian writings, decades earlier than the gospels. Paul didn’t know any of the stories from the gospels, he didn’t know about any of the miracles, he didn’t know anything about actual sermons from Jesus, he didn’t know about any of the details of the life of Jesus. The Christianity of Paul was from pieces that those early Christians were pulling out of the Old Testament, plus what Paul and others imagined in their visions of the heavenly Christ Jesus figure that they believed in. Gospel details about Jesus the man were added later, so they weren’t available in the time of Paul, and he was the earliest record of Christinity that we have.

    Part of the problem is hundreds and thousands of years of Christian apologetics has added a web of confusion (mystery) to cover over inconvenient details and create a religion worthy of belief like what we have today.

  • Andre M

    If you are actually trying to argue with someone, to convince them of your point of view, then you need to step outside of your bubble for a moment to understand where your interlocutor is coming from. You claim that because the gospel cannot be added to, Joseph Smith is not trustworthy. The problem with your argument for most of the people reading this is that no one here is going to even agree with your basic premise: that the Gospel cannot be added to. So what is the point of what you’re doing here? Are you talking just to hear yourself talk? Are you trying to convince yourself of something?

    You may think your worldview is coherent, and that’s fine, I don’t really care, I’m not interested in convincing you otherwise. What I have a problem with is the people who come on here and start yelling at people that they’re wrong about things and won’t even bother trying to communicate to them. People who just want to talk to everyone in their own language, without bothering to offer reasoned arguments that are authentically intended to persuade. If you think the people you’re talking with are such a lost cause that you can’t be bothered to try to convince them in any meaningful way, then get lost.

  • Andre M

    Do you even know what logic is, Frank? You’re ridiculous.

  • Jim Reed

    Actually the more you look into it, the more it becomes clear, there wasn’t actually any Jesus. The contradictions that have appeared are just the result of the church marking territory. Apologetics is only a way for people to be happy deceiving themselves. It doesn’t really mean anything beyond that. Read anything from C.S. Lewis and it becomes clear.

  • Jim Reed

    This is a deadly serious issue. There are problems, and the world needs to pull together and start working to solve some of them. Meanwhile, the church sees itself as in a position of authority from God, and has a priority of trying to get people to line up and follow. The church has to reject progress the rest of the world tries to make because it sees itself through its divine guidance as better than the rest of the world, and therefore the one who should be showing the way for the world to solve problems. Their belief in their own diving guidance becomes an anchor on the rest of the world, and as the centuries pass, that anchor becomes heavier and roots deeper. The church has no divine guidance, but their major purpose in being becomes to cover that up.

    Why we discuss.

  • Ex Nihilo

    Jim, a sincere thanks for your correspondence. It seems we’re re-covering recent territory (in our discussion).

    Using historical critical method the New Testament passes the test for historical reliability that other books do (in fact it far exceeds any of them). Don’t forget the Bible came out of the church (not the church out of the Bible). Christianity had already spread thoughout the entire known world (Roman Empire) before a single word was written. Jesus sent his apostles and disciples to proclaim the Good News. He never said anything about ‘write this down’. The reason the canon (Bible) was ever settled was so that there was consistency in what was read at Mass in every place.

    St. Paul never had to know any of the stories (he wasn’t present). He did know Christ though… through an encounter with him. He died proclaiming so (likely by beheading).

    I will leave you with a quote from C.S. Lewis (that I used elsewhere here):

    “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
    ― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

    Jesus’ earthly life is a fact. His earthly existance split time in two… AD and BC.
    He is the author of your life. He loves you. He loves you so much he gives you what you want. If you don’t choose him you can have that…
    I pray that you will re-consider.
    Pax Vobis.

  • intellectone

    So you do not want your children to remain virgins before they get married? To save themselves for the sacred bond of marriage? Is that why you are pushing birth-control pills and abortions onto society?. You must think that the sacred sexual act is a recreational sport. Is that why you think that celibate Priests, Bishops, and Cardinals, and the Pope does not know about sexual ethics? In order to teach ‘sexual ethics’ you have to live them.

  • A nice view from within the bubble of superstition and mythology.

    It is prefaced on the belief that the question as to the existence of a god or deity and that if it exists it has some investment in the Catholic Church, Catholics and its hierarchy.

    The only question for the Catholic Church is for it to ask itself what real evidence does it have in support of its acceptance of a notion that at the end of the day is wishful thinking by some and a manipulation and control by others.

    All the implied trauma bonds implicit in the Catholic religion are simply assumed to exists for every person (or should) when in fact more and more followers of the Catholic Church have been forced to acknowledge that the hierarchy of the church continually display a serious lack of human maturity and development.

    Once those aspects are cleared up then perhaps the many points made from the Catholic perspective suddenly have a different light shining on them.

    One of the benefits of these contorted writings that simply overlook the need to validate the premise or origins of the entire religion. It seems that no matter how many aspects of the belief system are whittled away by science some remain steadfast to a belief system that is a psychological hell that relies on emotional blackmail and the perpetual threat or insufferable torture as a punishment for some perceived indiscretion – the mind games of Catholicism are endless in that regard and will remain so until they can come up with something of evidence.

    Until they we should expect more and more sophisticated arguments from Catholics saying that they know how to make these eluded and misogynistic superstitions would in a way that suits them.

    Those sorts of bubbles don’t usually burst, they just melt away when directly compared to the facts and reality of the world we live in. Learning to be a good Catholic is in no way related to learning about what it is to be a normal natural human being.

  • intellectone

    You cannot remain a normal natural human being without sexual ethics. Besides man is created to be with God. If man uses his sexual organs for a recreational sport when, in fact, he was warned that he will remain too human. The bar is too low and you will spend the rest of eternity in the underworld.

  • bpuharic

    A god who is obsessed with sex is a pervert

  • Everything they claim as proof for their beliefs and their existence is based on the acceptance of a yes answer to a question that is impossible to answer.

    In every other endeavour in life human beings when faced with the requirement of making a decision if they were presented with such spurious evidence they would choose not to follow the guidance of those who exploit them.

    This can be achieved when you fracture their mind and the natural bonds to parents, siblings and extended family. The first fracture of this kind is the insertion into the mind of a child at around 3 or 4 years of age of an insurmountable unanswerable circumstance that no child is able to surmount – they must cede or die.

    This duplicitous event coincides with the time that human beings develop theory of mind. It is a time when the personality of the child begins to blossom and to take shape – this sets the way this child will develop and will establish their world view for the rest of their life.. This is unlike the development of children raised in a non religious environment as they never have to face the horrors of the things a Catholic child simply can not avoid or escape.

    That entrapment last for a lifetime for many although the millions leaving the Church is also clear evidence that it does not have to hold a permanent bond of control over an individual human being – it can be surmounted and is on a daily basis by millions who have had to face the reality that their clergy are responsible for the greatest degree of the worst possible crimes that can be carried out against defenceless children – it takes that sort of circumstance to help people break out of the traumatic bonding that the Church inflicts on every child that it can lay its hands on.

  • “Besides man is created to be with God”

    Where is your evidence to support this assertion?

  • Jim Reed

    Thanks. I think I now understand my childhood.

  • intellectone

    If you are not with God you are against Him and you will loose.

  • Dedangelo

    Oh, I am deadly serious, trust me.

  • Dedangelo

    Boy you sure love to assume, don’t you? A group of (supposedly) celibate men knows nothing of the lives of women, which is why the church is destined to fail. They are group of humans who make as many mistakes as any other humans. you know the difference between the Pope and God? God doesn’t thinks/he’s a pope.

  • intellectone

    You sound like the pervert. Obviously, the Americans have as their god, which is sex. That’s why they need their condoms and birth-control pills. A woman can only get pregnant (3) Three Days in a month. Are the men and women so uncontrolled that they need all these contraception methods? Yet they take Viagra? What about pornography how stupid is that, because these idiots are addicted to evil. Same with homosexuality. People identifying themselves with their sexual proclivities?.

  • intellectone

    The gates of Hell will not prevail against the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Obviously, you do not know that a real woman and a decent man can control themselves. After all, a woman can only get pregnant (3) days in a month. How many days do you need?

  • Jim Reed

    The reason the canon (Bible) was ever settled was so that there was consistency in what was read at Mass. This seems to be agreeing, the Bible is not the word of God. It is what was settled on for reading in church. This conforms with the issue of the writer of John making up stories for the book, and hundreds of years later his book got selected. It is not God’s word, it is what was selected by the church.

    The statement about Paul died proclaiming so, that sentence shows this is not the writings of Paul. It was Acts or something else that was from 50 or 100 years later, and so had nothing to do with the Christianity that Paul was writing about in the middle of the first century. Those writings by Paul are still the only early written record we have of Christianity, and the fact that they don’t show anything from the later gospel stories should tell us something. Jesus was invented later than the middle of the first century.

  • Dedangelo

    Oh yes, I’m a whore destined for the depths of hell, while you won’t have to even make a pit stop in Purgatory. What a charmer you are!

  • intellectone

    What is your purpose for existing? To Love God with your whole heart, your whole mind, your whole body, and with your whole Soul.. Pushing and supporting birth-control pills and abortions and stating that The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church must change to accommodate you and everybody’s evil deeds is absurd. The Truth is necessary. Who cares about being charming, because it takes Holiness to get into Heaven.

  • intellectone

    There was a Judas at the Last Supper.His name was Judas of Iscariot. One out of twelve that betrayed Jesus Christ. He went out into the darkness and hung himself (committed suicide) So what’s your point?

  • The only reference to this comes from the bible and its origins are doubtful, selective and the result of the writings of men – putting all those issues of credibility aside I am left to ask where is there verifiable evidence to support the claims made in the bible?

  • First you need evidence that can be backed up when you make the claim that your god exists.

  • jam

    Rhetorical sleight-of-hand? This author does a great job of that.

  • AugustineThomas

    And your belief is that I would have learned more at the bar with you?

  • AugustineThomas

    My point is that the Church, its liturgical rites and its teachings, are still correct.
    The problem is with those who make up the clergy and the laity.

  • intellectone

    There is plenty of evidence because it is part of history that the Apostles spoke about long before the bible was put together. This is passed on by the eye witnesses the Apostles. It comes from Sacred Tradition. The Apostles were told by Jesus Christ go and preach to all nations what I have taught you. He who hears you hears Me. The Apostles were spreading the word and celebrating the liturgy long before any words were written down. There is nothing doubtful about the Last Supper’s origin. Ask yourself this. Why would Saint Peter subject himself to be martyred if he did not witness Jesus Christ’s Last Supper, the Death, and the Resurrection. All the Apostles subjected themselves to martyrdom, because the knew the Truth. Saint John the Evangelist.was the only one not martyred, because , as Jesus told him to take care of his mother while He was dying on the cross. Saint John the Evangelist and Jesus’s Mother went to Ephesus ,Asia Minor, today’s Turkey. Later Saint John the Evangelist was exiled to Patmos and that is where he wrote The Apocalypse. He was in his 90’s so he is also a great witness, there is no doubt about the account of the Last Supper and the betrayal of Judas of Iscariot..

  • intellectone

    Where is your evidence that He does not exist? So what is your point?

  • Obvious that you could not understand what I was asking for – the bible is a log of claim – it simply is not evidence. If it were to be considered evidence it would be the most illogical form of evidence available – to think that a claim is evidence leaves so many of us speechless when you come back citing more claims as evidence – just not going to work now or any time in the future.

  • The ability to not be able to prove a negative is seen as evidence – sure there fore you should be able to provide proof that elephants do not make good stenographers?

  • TheRealReginaPhalange

    Yes, the same way heterosexuals identify themselves with their sexual proclivities. Every time a straight person mentions their spouse by name or has a photo of their spouse on their office desk, or mentions the words wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend when they are the opposite sex to that gender-identifying word, they are declaring to the world that they are heterosexual. Yet we never hear from the likes of you about how straight people are ‘shoving their sexuality in our faces’.

    As to what I’m assuming is your NFP advocacy, not everyone can track their menstrual cycle since it is irregular for a lot of women. Using NFP is still engaging in sexual activity with the intention of avoiding pregnancy, so it is ridiculous that it is seen as the only ‘moral’ method of birth control.

    And pornography has nothing to do with this conversation, so try to stay on topic.

  • intellectone

    Just for your information, God does exist and Jesus Christ is the proof that God the Father exists. He is God the Son the Second Person of the Trinity and God the Holy Spirit. Three Persons in One God. How is it that you exist from nothing? Look around and see the proof that God exists.

  • intellectone

    It has become clear that you do not even know what you are asking. Sacred Tradition was long before the Bible’s New Testament.. You are trying to ignore history and deny events that really happened. The Romans and the Jews were very good at record keeping of historical events..

  • bpuharic

    Boy you really hate the fact people enjoy sex, don’t you? And women can get pregnant any time. Your knowledge of biology is shockingly ignorant, but typical for a religious fanatic.

    And what is ‘uncontrolled’ about sex? As I said, if god is obsessed with sex maybe he should stop peaking in people’s windows.

  • intellectone

    No that is not true. When you see a man you know that he was born a male and accepted to be a man because that is what the Creator meant for him to be. When you see a woman you know that she is a female and that she has accepted what the Creator meant for her to be a woman. It is a Given. The opposite sex is a Given. There is no other human species, other than, male or female. Transsexual? Homosexual ? Bi-sexual? what is that all about, except to say, that these could only be objectively disordered.. If you posses male sexual organs then you are a male. If you posses female sexual organs you are a female. It is as simple as that and if the person accepts God’s Will and not insert their own Wills society is orderly. However, when people want to do their own thing they become lost and society becomes disordered. As.for the NFP the couple is open to Life. That is what it is all about. To be open to Life when you engage in the gift of the sacred sexual union of marriage… Pornography has everything to do with the filth of hopping beds and perverted sexual acts and this so-called free “Love”. The women thought that the contraceptives liberated them, when in fact, they are now slaves to sex and men do not respect them. Example:Notice how the NFL players treat their women. Like the cave men treated their women. These are million dollar football players.This is happening in America?. The Contraception mentality is in play..How stupid are the women?

  • Still waiting for something that could be called evidence.

  • intellectone

    Not true. The sacred gift of the sexual union between the opposite sex is reserved for the bonds of marriage. Any thing else is fornication or adultery. If you are married and the woman uses contraceptive pills and you the man uses a condom that is not a sacred union because you have something between you. Of course that is nothing more than masturbation. A woman can only get pregnant (3) days in the 30 day period. Of course if you have sex during those (3)Three days, then yes ,the woman can get pregnant…

  • Suffering, more suffering – aaaah now that is Catholic.

    Biology = Fail BIG TIME
    Logic = poor
    Reason = devoid
    Evidence = none offered

  • TheRealReginaPhalange

    ‘There is no other human species, other than, male or female.’

    There are people who are born with both male and female sex organs, they are defined as intersex. Furthermore, you were not discussing identifying the sex of random people walking down the street. You asked why people identify themselves with their sexual proclivities, implying why gay people identify themselves publicly with their sexual orientation. I merely pointed out that straight people do that too.

    Using NFP is still done with the intention to avoid pregnancy. And like I said, it is not suitable to women who have irregular menstrual cycles. Not to mention women whose health/life would be in danger if they were to get pregnant, so they cannot afford to take that kind of risk. Additionally, birth control is used to treat a wide range of medical issues.

    ‘The women thought that the contraceptives liberated them, when in fact, they are now slaves to sex and men do not respect them.’

    Oh right, because women’s sexuality is determined by what men think of them? According to you, if women don’t have access to birth control, it will guarantee that men will respect them. It doesn’t – just look at history. And according to you, if women do have access to birth control, then men won’t respect them. And why won’t they? There may still exist double standards in society, but at least we are working towards diminishing them. You honestly think that society treats women better by withholding access to birth control? Lets see: when birth control was illegal in the West, women were denied the right to vote, to own property, to work in certain sectors. It was also legal for a man to rape his wife until very recently. Does that sound respectful to you?

    And I don’t see any sex slaves beholden to men because of birth control. Sex slavery exists, but it is done so by holding women as hostages and forcing them to have sex against their will. Can you explain to me how birth control is the root cause of sex slavery without changing the actual definition of sex slavery?

    Also, no clue what you are going on about re: football players. They get away with their behavior because there exists a hero-worship of athletes in our culture. Its got nothing to do with birth control. Oh, and it may interest you to know that there are theories which purport that cavemen actually treated women quite equally. At the time, men hunted and women gathered. Since they both worked outside the home and contributed to the household ‘income’ (food that is), then they were each respected for their contributions and were therefore more egalitarian.

    Another thing you may be interested to know is that birth control is not a recent invention that emerged in the 20th Century. It has been practiced one way or another since the ancient times so you may want to widen your understanding of gender relations throughout history.

  • fredx2

    Creepy article. Look at the quote of Thomas Reese that is approvingly used. What that quote means is that people should all just do what they feel like doing, and then the church should just approve of it, regardless of the words of Christ, That is perhaps the lamest thing that Reese has ever said.

    The Episcopal church is doing everything you recommend. They are collapsing. The Catholic church should not follow in their footsteps.

  • fredx2

    That is utter stupidity. You have no idea why he was sent to you.

  • fredx2

    The growth is explained by being the Catholic church, not some sloppy media driven get together where everyone just sort of does his own thing.

  • I read the news. I think I read it in a RC publication. I will go look and let you know.

  • fredx2

    Your own comment contains evidence of the selfishness. You suppose that the parents must, must, must have a certain amount of money before their children can grow into productive adults. Nothing is more insulting to human beings. But are they avoiding children so that all of their beloved money can go to those children? No, they are avoiding children so they can have two new cars, a McMansion in the suburbs, and fly off to the Bahamas and Disney World with Precious Child One and Precious Child Two.

    They have chosen materialism and job advancement over the joys of family. They want things for themselves. They want computers and Iphones and 42 inch TV’s over more children. They have chosen nice clothes and bank accounts over life. Don’t pretend that it is all for the children, it is not. It is about maximizing their personal situation in material terms, not about expanding the world of love and caring.

  • fredx2

    Your logic is porous. They are not giving you parenting advice. They are telling you what Jesus Christ taught. You are free to ignore Christ’s teaching at will. For some reason your thinking believes that a judge who is single cannot be a judge in a divorce court, since he knows nothing of marriage and children. The church is not giving you advice about how to be a better mommy or daddy, they are telling you what Christ demands. They ARE experts in that field. And it is not the parish priest that makes those rules, it is some of the finest theologians in the world, over the course of centuries of examining what Christ said and what it means.

  • fredx2

    Thanks for the intellectually stimulating comment.

  • fredx2

    Because left to many people, sexual ethics would consist of rutting around like animals because they felt like it. The fact is, there is a more excellent way of living. We have been handed down rules for a better life, which have stood the test of time and have proven, over and over again, to contribute to the maintenance of healthy societies.

    The church has thought about all these things with great care, Infinitely greater cane than the average person. So when Paul VI said that contraception was wrong, he knew what he was talking about. With Contraception there is no need for people to be sexually faithful to their spouses. Contraception tempts so many to be unfaithful. It tempts people before marriage to enter into sexual bonding – which is very strong – when the couple has only minimal common interests. As a result, they think they are more compatible than they are. Much damage and heartache results. If the couple had focused on the things they really had in common rather than the animalistic bonding power of sex, they would have chosen a more perfect partner.
    On the pragmatic level, those nations that contracept have trouble mainlining social security systems. Those people with few children are lonelier in their old age, and get dumped into nursing homes more often.
    The pill itself is a carcinogen – the World Health organization has warned us of this. So doctors reduced the dosage levels. OK, so millions of women are ingesting only a small amount of a carcinogen. is that a good thing?
    It seems those celibate men have a better idea. It requires some discipline, however, to lead a better life, and this age looks down on discipline, even it it would make them happier.

  • God is not your bullyboy. The Asexual must not presume to make rules for the normally sexed.
    Sex is to the RCC as food is to bulimics. RCC sexual pedagoy is intrinsically disordered. That is why sane Catholics ignore it.

  • You contradict Jesus. Everybody goes to Heaven.

  • fredx2

    Example: the “world” decided that the savior of Africa from AIDS was pushing condoms. The church said no, there was a better way. The world said no, no, no we must have more condoms in Africa.

    Result: The world killed millions of Africans. The church was right. Google “the Pope was right ” and you will find an article from the Washington Post in which a top AIDS researcher from Harvard admits that the church was right, and the world was wrong.

    Who is the anchor on true progress?

  • fredx2

    You have got to be kidding. Do a little serious research on the bible – not the dismissive sort of research that is flawed and is so popular now – and you will answer your own question. This will allow you to get away from your pop psychologizing.

  • fredx2

    That is another ignorant comment. You obviously have no idea what evidence is, how to weight it, etc. You have come to the conclusion before you have seriously examined the evidence, That is your main problem.

  • fredx2

    Well, you have jokes and bumper sticker comments. But that seems to be it. So, the church, which has lasted 2000 years, and is growing around the world, and has the most popular man in the world, is bound to fail? Get serious.

  • fredx2

    Another example of atheist lack of reasoning powers.God is a being that exists apart from the physical world. You want evidence from the physical world that he exists in the physical world. Do you see the problem? Do you even know what a God is? Or do you conceive of him as just some Martian, riding high in the sky? Ask serious questions, please.

  • fredx2

    You are the one making the assertion. You say God does not exist. Now, go out there and prove it. No one came to you and said “I demand that you acknowledge that God exists!. No, you came here and started insisting that we give you evidence that God exists. We take it as a granted based on faith, and the internal process that discerns what is true and what is not. We are satisfied with “the evidence” which may come in many guises and accumulates internally over a lifetime. We are not going out to you and demanding anything. You should do your own work, not foist it off on us. You, like a child, want some hard, cold thing you can hold in your hand. But we are not talking about that sort of thing.

  • fredx2

    No one is trying to convince you. You came here and suddenly started demanding evidence for our personal belief in a God. But this is a personal belief, not a school science project. You are asking us to do the hard work of discernment that you have failed at.

    We have been convinced, based on what we know about the world, the way things unfold, our amassed experiences over decades. This is a sort of internal accumulation of evidence, but it is a very personal one. You apparently do not know what a God is, because you keep treating him as if he were simply another object in the material world. You then demand that we use science – a system that has been designed to explain the physical world, to give you evidence of God’s existence. Since the system of science has not been developed to detect supernatural beings, of course it cannot detect something that, by definition, is not of the physical world.

    You are mixing apples and oranges, and yet you think this makes you a better thinker than all the rest of us. Trust me, Thomas Aquinas, John Henry Newman, Isaac Newton, are not idiots. So stop with the childish, pretentious questions and get back to us when you have become a serious person. Good luck to you.

  • fredx2

    Your extraordinarily long rant only shows that you have almost zero understanding of religion, except in the most biased manner. You are exactly like those who reject evolution, when they really don’t understand the fine points of the theory at all. You make certain wild assumptions (all the ones that atheists are prone to) about all the supposed evils of the church, when in fact your very writing shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Keep on with your investigation, you may eventually understand that you are like a football fan standing on the sidelines yelling at far greater athletes than you are, who know exactly what they are doing.

  • fredx2

    Again, your comment indicates pure ignorance. Celibate men are not “Asexual”. And no one ever said God was his bullyboy. The Catholic church has a very deep, true and beautiful idea of sexuality, one that elevates people, not drags them down to being servants of their inclinations. The church realizes that sex is about love, not taking advantage of others, or of pleasuring yourself. Many often rage against the true and the beautiful.

  • fredx2

    Really?

    Jesus speaks on Hell and Destruction in Forty Six versus in the Bible.

    Matthew 5:22
    22But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

    Matthew 5:29-30

    [27″You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery;’ 28but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. – editor]

    29If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to becast into hell.

    30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to becast into hell.

    Matthew 7:13,19
    13“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. …

    19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

    Matthew 8:12
    12But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will beweeping and gnashing of teeth.”

    Matthew 10:28
    28And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

    Matthew 13:30
    30Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”

    Matthew 13:40
    40Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age.

  • fredx2

    It is always amazing when people try to brand anyone who discusses something as “obsessed” with it. Yet I have never heard a priest give a sermon on contraception, or gay marriage, or homosexuality. Not once. It is those who accuse the church of being obsessed with sexual matters who want to browbeat the church into letting them get away with all sorts of perversion by calling the church “obsessed”when it is they who are obsessed. The church is fine with going about its business, but the media insists on talking about this stuff, because to their mind, no one is allowed to be or do anything they disagree with.

  • Jim Reed

    The existence of God is not really the question any more. The better question is did Jesus exist? There we have the evidence, and we can show there was no Jesus. With no Jesus, God might not even matter. The evidence that there was no Jesus is the Bible itself. It is an early record of Christianity from Paul that had no Jesus the man. Paul knew nothing of any of the gospel stories, or the sayings of Jesus, or the miracles. Paul wrote a lot, and these are all things he would have included if the stories were out there at the time. There is no Jesus the man, only the old testament references that this new Christian religion was finding, and their visions. Visions were more popular in that day. Then later the gospels were written, one copying from another, and each one adding more to the story. They are telling a story that developed over time, and was not there at the beginning of the religion. That is how we can know there was no real Jesus. When the church starts dealing with that, they will most likely also destroy the concept of God.

  • fredx2

    Mr Evidence – what evidence do you have that the church wants to keep people full of guilt and loathing? No, see you are not scientific in any way, You are a typical emotional person who has deep biases that you want confirmed.

  • fredx2

    The haters of the Catholic church always are reduced to saying blatantly false things about it in an effort to disparage it, because they have so much trouble when they face the truth of the Church. No, the church does not hate the fact that people enjoy sex. Nor does it hate the fact that people overeat – but overeating is not good for you, so gluttony is a sin. Merely having sex with anything that moves is not good for you.Sex can be good or bad, depending on how it is used. The church has a brain and realizes this.

  • Jesus was a devout Jew. Jews do not have a Hell. Christians created Hell and you can burn in it.
    I believe in Jesus’ God. Your god can go suck eggs.
    “… your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”

    Everybody goes to Heaven.

  • I meant that you are asexual.
    And as an Asexual, you need to STFU. You no play the game, you no make the rules as my Uncle Marco used to say.

  • fredx2

    Again, blatant misunderstanding
    Having items on your desk or speaking the English language to convey the circumstance of your life are not shoving your sexuality in others faces.
    Gay pride parades, talking about your gayness all the time is.
    Your knowledge of NFP is limited. There are systems of accurately tracking the menstrual cycle. So much ignorance of what the church actually teaches. Such a shame. Try learning about the facts of NFP, you might be surprised.

  • fredx2

    Scientific American: Does the pill cause women to choose the wrong men?
    World Health Organization: Birth control pill is a carcinogen.

  • fredx2

    Earth to apotropoxy: the Catholic church is growing, both in the US and around the world. It has the world most looked up to man, Pope Francis. John Paul II, who helped defeat communism, just was made a saint.

    Some irrelevance!

  • The RCC despises and abuses women both in their pedagogy and in their behavior. Women, of course, ignore them. And we will go on ignoring them. RCC ideas about sexuality are disgusting and pro death not pro life.
    Point of information – I am a Catholic.

  • fredx2

    No, see, in order to argue with the church, you had to misrepresent what he said.

    “In a social milieu that encourages the expression of a variety of opinions on every question that arises, it is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate. It is the truth revealed through Scripture and Tradition and articulated by the Church’s Magisterium that sets us free.”

    He is saying that dissent is often just mindless babble, as it is shown to be by the comments by many on this site. They are not advancing a serious discussion, they are expressing mindless noise, nothing more. They are expressing their hatreds, their prejudices, but very few dissenters dare to take on the church on a true intellectual level – because they will lose. They eagerly feed on emotion, and they want to stoke the emotional side of all issues. That’s why you get so many over the top comments that try to present the church as the ultimate evil of mankind. Because to face the church truthfully, openly and honestly will mean they have to give up the emotional kick that they get from hating the church.

  • fredx2

    Not true. The disciples of Jesus themselves often disagreed about what Jesus meant. So there is always room for debate and discussion. However, after 2000 years of debate of these questions, most of them have been answered and settled on. But there will always be debate in the church, and that is healthy.

  • The men of the RCC are neither celibate nor asexual. These are some of the things they did to children in my diocese below. Perverts are not fit teachers of love or sexuality. By their fruits we know them.:

    These are the kinds of things that Archdiocese priests did to children:

    ► A girl, 11 years old, was raped by her priest and became pregnant. The Father took her in for an abortion.

    ► A 5th-grader was molested by her priest inside the confessional booth.

    ► A teenage girl was groped by her priest while she lay immobilized in traction in a hospital bed. The priest stopped only when the girl was able to ring for a nurse.

    ► A boy was repeatedly molested in his own school auditorium, where his
    priest/teacher bent the boy over and rubbed his genitals against the boy until the priest ejaculated.

    ► A priest, no longer satisfied with mere pederasty, regularly began forcing sex on two boys at once in his bed.

    ► A boy woke up intoxicated in a priest’s bed to find the Father sucking on his penis while three other priests watched and masturbated themselves.

    ► A priest offered money to boys in exchange for sadomasochism – directing them to place him in bondage, to “break” him, to make him their “slave,” and to defecate so that he could lick excrement from them.

    ► A 12-year-old, who was raped and sodomized by his priest, tried to commit suicide, and remains institutionalized in a mental hospital as an adult.

    ► A priest told a 12-year-old boy that his mother knew of and had agreed to the priest’s repeated rape of her son.

    ► A boy who told his father about the abuse his younger brother was suffering was beaten to the point of unconsciousness. “Priests don’t do that,” said the father as he punished his son for what he thought was a vicious lie against the clergy.

  • Jim Reed

    Religion runs more on apologetics. That means the most important thing is the work that the group does to cross convince each other, and apologetics can be a replacement for would be considered scientific style evidence. They don’t have to convince you if they can keep convincing themselves, and you can be a rallying point for them go look down on someone that can’t see things their way. I know these concepts might take a little time to get used to.

  • You use the idea of god as a club to beat people with. God is not your bullyboy. And you are no one’s teacher. You do not possess what you profess. You have nothing to teach.

  • fredx2

    Cheap shots are not argument. You can argue with the Inquisition, but to claim that Pope Benedict ran the office of the Inquisition before he became Pope is just a cheap shot. There has been no Inquisition for hundreds of years, yet the church haters continually come back to that one note. They have one note to play, and they play it over and over again.

  • fredx2

    Once again, you have to distort things and make up your own personal bible facts to argue with the church. Your assumption that because something was in one gospel but not others means that the other disciples knew nothing of it is simply childish and tendentious. ‘There are those who study the bible to seek the truth about it and there are those who study the bible to try and construct criticisms of it. Any fool can do the latter, the challenge is to come to a real, balanced understanding of it.

  • Jim Reed

    The evidence is the lifetime and many lifetimes of belief. In ancient times this was the strongest evidence you could ever have of things that were not real. Humans can’t just change because times are changing. It has more of a generational shift quality.

  • Jim Reed

    It did work in the past, and you might be at least partly wrong about it not working now.

  • apotropoxy

    1. The RCC is shrinking throughout the globe except in Third World areas that have had minimal exposure to its message. The societies that have had familiarity with it have been turning away from it.
    2. I admire F1, too, but the institution is fading away. This is a very good thing for mankind.
    3. No one “defeated communism”. The Soviet Union, having been locked in an economic death match with the USA for a generation, finally went bankrupt. It was a defeat of a capitalist country over a communist one. Russia has returned to Czarist kleptocracy under Putin.

  • fredx2

    You have a one sided understanding of the reliability of the Gospels. There is a whole industry out there, trying to give people false ideas. These are cheap books easy to write and guaranteed sure sales. Because stories of UFO’s and the Loch Ness Monster always sell. These books sell not be cause they are accurate, but because they challenge truths about the reliability of the Gospels that have been established many ways. These books are easy for serious bible scholars to refute, but it’s like the government trying to refute UFO stories.

    You seem to believe that a simple preacher from Judea would have been instantly mentioned in all the books published at the time. This betrays an incomplete knowledge of how the world works.

  • Jim Reed

    Actually sex was set up by nature as a way to force us to propagate the species. You should study evolution if you want to understand it.

  • fredx2

    And the first account we have of Alexander the Great was discovered in the year 600. Therefore he did not exist? You read crank scholars who ASSUME because this or that happened therefore this or that can’t be true, and it is all obviously hogwash. All the items you cite are cited by the unserious, popular crowd. Try reading serious bible scholars who don’t so desperately want to bash Christianity to advance their favorite political causes. You will be further ahead.

  • fredx2

    Yes, all the crank theologians rely on that type of argument. But it is easily dismissed by serious bible scholars, because you ASSUME so much. I like this one: Jesus was a male in Jewish society. Males in Jewish society were almost always married, therefore Jesus must have been married. This is another one of their ASSUMPTIONS.
    So, using the same logic, we can say: “Almost all American Presidents have been white men. It would be unusual for an American president not to be a white man. Therefore Barack Obama is a white man.”

  • fredx2

    Keep telling yourself that stuff.

  • fredx2
  • fredx2

    That;s right! Like those old crusty contentions in the Constitution, for example. Freedom of Speech? Get with the times.That doctrine must evolve or be abandoned by our rapidly moving world. We have no need of things written by old men from hundreds of years ago. Things are always changing. Change or die, I say, and death to all those ideals that those Founding fathers instituted.

    Or …maybe some things last precisely because they are true for all men at all times. Naw, never mind.

  • LOL. Thank you for that.

  • John Paul aided and abetted the rape and torture of thousands if not millions of women and children.
    I find it disgusting that they made this misogynist and pervert a Saint.

  • You have your ‘truth.’ Only God is The Truth.

  • Here is the fruit of the RCC’s sexual pedagogy – mass graves of unshriven children:
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/13/mother-behind-galway-childrens-mass-grave-story

  • We should honor Judas. Without him no one would be saved by your lights.

  • Andre M

    There is a zone of indistinction between the Church as a system and the people who comprise it. That zone is probably pretty large, but it’s fantasy to think that you can somehow unwind the two when they have been influencing one another for millenia.

  • mikehorn

    Very few people can afford large houses even without kids. But I’m not talking wealth. I’m talking diapers and food. Clothes and running water. A roof and a place to sleep that isn’t infested with mold or pests. A job that won’t fire you if you have to take your kid to the doctor, will let a woman take a few weeks off after giving birth. Many people simply cannot afford to have even one child, much less kicking out a litter.

    As recently as 100 years ago the leading cause of death for women in the USA was childbirth. Still true in much of the world today, still dangerous in America. Add that to poverty, and you have a high percentage of children dying before they grow up. A famous example: JS Bach had 3 wives and 22 children. Two wives died in childbirth. Only 7 children grew up. Only 3 children were alive when their father died. I take that chilling survival rate as an indication of what history can teach. If women and children die at a high rate, you need to crank out kids for humans to survive. But if you keep women and kids alive and healthy, couples can aim for 3-4 kids and be just fine. I say higher than the replacement 2 because kids still die, and many adults are infertile by nature or by choice.

    Has a priest seen his wife barely survive a difficult birth, or even go through a normal one? He might have a different notion on spacing out children through human genius (the Pill) if he did. If he had to spend most of his money raising two or three or four kids, he might rethink the notion of 6 or more kids.

    I’m not talking selfish. I’m talking humane. Healthy kids and wife. Clothes and food. And a place with running water and possibly heat in the winter. This is not selfish. This is good parenting.

  • intellectone

    Put your hand in front of you mouth. Do you feel the breathing, air going in and out. Oh, you do?. Well than there is a God, because He is the only one that can keep you alive. You will die a physical death and it can happen like a thieve in the night. You do not know when were or how and that is a good thing. The point is that the only reason you are alive is because God is keeping you alive..

  • intellectone

    Not the clergy’s dogma. Are you not aware of Jesus Christ’s dogma.
    You will have to complain to Him.

  • Nine RC churches and their schools are shut down this year in Philadelphia. I am a Roman Catholic. I did not give my children a Roman Catholic education nor baptize them Roman Catholic. I am not alone.

  • You need to get out more. I love Pierson. He is a good priest.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXB8eACUwjM

  • I agree with him. I am Catholic. I volunteer to be evidence.

  • Citations needed. Sounds like BS to me.

  • And his act is precisely why the RC is failing.
    Pope Frankie told him not to do this. His prurient fantasies and obsessions about sex compel him to do what our Papa told him not to do.
    Man is a parrot with a hardon. Hmmm. Think he is a priest?

  • Well said.

  • intellectone

    How many babies are born that way? That is very very very rare. They can wait and have their sex organs repaired before they get married. Get real! Are there so many cases that it would require to ‘Redefine’ marriage? No. absolutely not. Also, The Father is the natural protector and provider. That is embedded. The Mother is the natural nurturer of children. That is the way God programmed things. You are professing that society should return of the cave man era with birth-control pills?
    When a man and woman are in the sacred union without all the garbage, such as, birth-control pills or condoms, they are giving of themselves completely and are open to Life. To give ones self completely there cannot be anything obstructing mentally or physically.
    Any failure of giving of oneself completely is not the perfect sexual .sacred union gift that is possible. Danger to the health? Abstain. Sex is not like food. You are not forced to have sex. The True measure of Love is what you would give-up for Love. For the Definition of Real Love one must just look at the Cross with the corpus. No man has a greater love than to give his Life for another. That goes for a woman that dies during child-birth..

  • sudmuf

    The feeling of shame is your conscience talking
    to you. Obviously you recognize some sinfulness
    in your life.

  • Quote Jim: When the church starts dealing with that, they will most likely also destroy the concept of God.
    ………….
    That is the fear.
    I think that fear means you have no real God, no real commitment to The Divine in any aspect of your life.

    The concept of The Divine, which is unique to each individual man, may be a natural and constant part of man’s psychological makeup the cannot be destroyed.

    No supernatural being to be worshiped is required to have a sense of awe and a sense of what is sacred = The Divine.

    I do not know what to say about a man who claims to speak for an unnecessary, elusive and perhaps nonexistent supernatural being except “RUN!”
    I hope I am making some sense. I am rambling. And ever seeking.

  • Condom use prevents the spread of HIV. That is a fact.
    Stop teaching RCC lies that they told to folks who are so culturally simple they believe in witchcraft and collect body parts of albinos for good luck. The RCC is directly responsible for the deaths of many Africans.

  • intellectone

    That is your homosexual in action for you, that infiltrated the priesthood. The priest must not have the mindset of a homosexual and if he does he is a fraud when he presents himself at the ordination. Your complaint is with the homosexuals and or the bishop that knowingly ordained a homosexual, not The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.
    You better tell the school systems not to teach, your children and other people’s children that homosexuals are normal and admirable ,because you already have many abusing children in the public schools, as well as, private school. As you have just laid out so clearly above of what happened to these young innocent boys is a tragedy.

  • I am ashamed of what the RCC did to children for decades all over the world. The RCC did their best to teach me shame and sinfulness.
    I have no shame. Thank you, God.

  • Frank Natoli

    One can make a reasonable argument that contraception prevents nature from creating life. What one cannot do is make a reasonable argument that preventing nature from creating life is morally equivalent to intentionally and unlawfully killing, i.e., murdering, existing life, which is what abortion does. They’re morally different. Whether the Almighty cares about the difference, I suppose quite a few of us will find out on our individual judgment days.

  • sudmuf

    If your referring to child molestation, which is not germane to this discussion, The Roman Catholic Church did not do that to children all over the world and you know it to be a lie. If you have no shame than you are full of pride.

  • Most pedophiles self identify as heterosexuals. It is not that there are not homosexual pedophiles, it is that they are few compared those that are heterosexual.
    The RCC is attempting to blame the results of their sexual dysfunction and poisonous pedagogy on gays and when they are not doing that they are blaming the ‘counter culture.’
    You are an apologist for monsters and you skeeve me. And I would say that to your face in church.

  • Pazzo.

  • intellectone

    To love one another of the same-sex is called a ‘Good Friend’. Not a couple for marriage. What is the implication? That two people of the same-sex that love each other are sexually committed and must Redefine marriage? Or are they good friends. The Word Love would have to be defined correctly.
    This priest is giving his own opinion and is not representing Jesus. His
    “conscience’ has to be well formed to speak for Jesus’s Bride ,The One Holy Catholic Church. Jesus is the only High Priest and every priest is a representative of Jesus Christ the High Priest. A priest dies unto himself, empties himself, and fills himself with Christ. Therefore, this priest should be defrocked sooner than later. Cannon Law has never allowed a bishop to ordain a homosexual . Period! But this priest is insinuating that this was a recent ‘Rule’ and that ain’t so. The homosexual mindset can never have the proper disposition to be a Priest. Because the priest has to think like a Man, because he is married to the Bride of Christ.

  • I like what Pierson has to say. I hate what you have to say.

  • intellectone

    And then you woke-up in hell? You have no clue. Ignorance in this case is not bliss. Wake-up and be alert! Because hell would be forever, forever, and forever. forever never ending……..forever….

  • intellectone

    Of course you would because you are objectively disordered just like the pseudo priest.

  • intellectone

    Did you marry in the Roman Catholic Church?

  • intellectone

    The ‘Contraceptive Mentality’ is the destructive one also. Even then all birth-control pills kills too. It prevents the sperm from embedding into the egg. There are no arguments for contraceptive either because it supports and promotes permissiveness. Promotes sexual activity outside of marriage, perverts the sacred sexual act in marriage. It is not only physically damaging but mentally. All of it is ‘Disordered’.

  • intellectone

    The gates of hell will not prevail against The One Holy Catholic Church.

  • cranefly

    Lol. What a delightful witticism. It turns out that various forms of birth control, like pretty much all drugs in the world, have side effects. Pregnancy still kills more women than birth control.

  • intellectone

    That is because you are not an ‘authentic Catholic’ , Just like the priest that is following his malformed conscience. When Ratzinger spoke of following your conscience, he no doubt, was referring to the people that should not have followed Hitler, the Nazi, which many men followed Hitler blindly. To put it into the context that this priest did, without saying that Ratzinger was speaking of a ‘well formed conscience’ not an objectively disordered mind, such as this priest, was disingenuous and very insidious..

  • cranefly

    You sound like you’re talking about someone specific. I agree, that person is a jerk. Especially for not having more kids.

  • intellectone

    It has been documented by an outside group that 85% of the abuse in the Roman Catholic Church in America were homosexual priest abusers.
    Homosexuals are not to be ordained. Their mindset is disordered and certainty not for the priesthood. That has been Cannon Law from the beginning of the Church.

  • Citation needed. I think you are disordered.

  • Only God gets to decide what kind of Catholic I am. You are not God.

  • Have you ever actually had sex?

  • Sticks and stones …

  • I wish you what you wish me.

  • cranefly

    Pedophelia and homosexuality are two different things. Homo means “same.” A child is not the same as a man.

    Discrimination against gays is actually prohibited by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. IF homosexuals are not to be ordained (which is not doctrine), then the Catholic Church has officially rejected them as marginal human beings with no role in their church and no sacrament of vocation available to them. That is not the way Christ treated anyone.

  • Rape apologists are the scum of the earth.

  • cranefly

    This comment is utterly abusive. You are disgracing my church.

  • Jim Reed

    What if instead of it being a man who claims to speak for an unnecessary elusive and questionable god, it is a church? Where do you run? They are trying to block every path, and they are good at it.

  • Andre M

    It wasn’t for your benefit, it was for Frank’s. Frank has a history of declaring that other people’s arguments are illogical when he spews tremendous amounts of illogic. So, I think it’s fair to say that Frank doesn’t understand what logic really is.

    Also, no one asked you, you miserable cloaca.

  • Jennifer Prestash

    The “contraceptive mentality” is indeed destructive. The Synod on the Family in Rome will not change teachings that are unchangeable. It is certainly necessary to present the truth in a manner that people can understand, and the Church has failed at at that.

    I would recommend anyone who is truly interested in understanding the problems with the ‘contraceptive mentality’ should study “Human Vitae” by Pope Pius VI. He predicted everything that would happen and offered the cure – faithfulness to the Gospel.

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

  • intellectone

    You are the one that is ‘Choosing’ hell. What is the word that the women use ‘Choice’ to kill, isn’t that the feminist’s favorite word..

  • intellectone

    Your church? What kind of “community” are you speaking about?

  • intellectone

    You are not answering the question. Did you marry in the Roman Catholic Church?

  • You first.

  • intellectone

    You are wrong. Of course it is doctrinal to prevent a homosexual to be ordained into the priesthood, just like a woman cannot be ordained. A homosexual, that identifies himself to be a homosexual has the wrong mindset to be a priest. If he doesn’t identify himself, but persists to condone the homosexual mindset, he should be defrocked because he is a fraud. A priest is the representative of Jesus Christ and Who is Jesus?True man and True God. So therefore, a Homosexual’s mindset does not fit into the picture of priesthood, because the priest is married to The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church which is the Bride of Christ. The doctors of the Church made it very clear. Example: Saint Thomas Aquinas contends that any sin “against nature” debases man to a level beneath that of an animal. So if you are a male and sexually attracted to a male , even though, you do not act upon it, it is against nature. Where as, if you are male and attracted to a female that is not against nature. Sins that are acted upon against nature are different than sins that are not against nature..

  • bpuharic

    The kind of creepy theology that makes one go…..”Ewww”….just plain weird.

    Homosexuality isn’t ‘against nature’….whatever that means. Homosexuality is fairly common in nature…and religious belief is a poor guide to ‘nature’.

  • intellectone

    Be specific, where is there homosexuality in nature?

  • Is the the same passive aggressive Jesus who advocates hatred for all your family members and the forthright one that has no problem with slavery and the abuse of children – your god and your Jesus set an abysmal example for humanity via its misogyny and its ignorance

  • cranefly

    I am Catholic and I can’t believe the disgraceful way you talk.

  • cranefly

    You have not been paying attention to the Church in the 20th or 21st century. I rest assured that you’re very misinformed. Not everything Thomas Aquinas wrote is Church doctrine, and policies about the sexual orientation of priests is certainly not. Pope Francis has said as much very clearly.

  • intellectone

    Get real. The homosexual activity is not a ‘Civil Right’. It is quite on the contrary. The homosexuals have no ‘Right’ to display their filthy actions in public nor teach this filth to innocent children. The audacity to draw children to themselves using the ‘Rainbow Flag’? Why do the homosexuals have a Flag?. Since they want special ‘Rights’ , do you mean that the American Flag is not good enough? To expose this activity and example to children is ‘Criminal’, besides being intrinsically evil. You have no ‘Right’ to even suggest that this lifestyle falls under the Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act was to protect people of color not objectively disordered lifestyles. Jesus would say Begone Satan!
    Jesus did not mince words. He said what He meant and meant what He said.

  • intellectone

    Be specific. What do you find disgraceful? The Truth?.

  • intellectone

    What? Where? did Pope Francis say anything very clearly? He has only been Pope since 2013 and has not spoken Ex Cathedra. Certainly not about allowing homosexuals to becoming priest or that homosexuality was not an intrinsically evil.. He said this “Who am I to judge”. He did not say that the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church does not have the ‘Right’ to judge that homosexuality is a sin against nature. An ‘authentic’ Catholic better stick with Saint Thomas Aquinas..

  • cranefly

    What an arrogant thing to say. This kind of arrogance drives people from the Church.

    Obviously, you do not know that a real woman and a decent man can
    control themselves. After all, a woman can only get pregnant (3) days
    in a month. How many days do you need?

    If you can’t win without reducing another commentator to the status of non-human, or making callous insinuations about her sexuality, you’re disgusting and a poor representative of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. You wield that phrase like a weapon against your fellow children of God, and conflate their expressions of lived experience with “the gates of Hell.” You should be ashamed.

  • TheRealReginaPhalange

    ‘Gay pride parades, talking about your gayness all the time is.’

    Gay pride parades are held for different reasons: because gay people have a history of being oppressed (arrested, thrown into mental institutions, lobotomized, forced to undergo ECT, chemically castrated in the cases of gay men, raped, murdered), because they are still denied certain legal rights, because there are many gay teens killing themselves after being mercilessly bullied at school and rejected by their families. The gay pride parades are one way of telling them that there is nothing wrong with them. They are held to show solidarity, and that after many years of discrimination, they will not be ashamed of who they are.

    Again, I suspect that by ‘talking about your gayness all the time’, you and the original poster are holding gay people to a standard that you wouldn’t hold straight people to. If a gay person discusses their partner the same way a straight person does, you think that they are ‘shoving their sexuality’ in your face, but that a straight person is merely discussing what they did on the weekend.

    ‘Your knowledge of NFP is limited. There are systems of accurately tracking the menstrual cycle.’

    Instead of posting these comments that imply I must somehow be ignorant, why don’t you actually address exactly where my ignorance lies? Go on – address what I said about irregular menstrual cycles and women whose lives would be at risk if they were to get pregnant. If you have such confidence in NFP, you would address what I actually wrote and not post some non-response wherein you get to make remarks about my so-called ignorance all the while dodging the holes in the NFP argument.

  • cranefly

    Neither has anyone ever said ex cathedra that gay men are not to be ordained. In fact, relatively little has been said ex cathedra, compared to the volume of Church teaching, so there’s no reason to fear the traditional practice of developing doctrine at Synods like one currently taking place.

    The Pope said “Who am I to judge” referring to gay priests who are living celibate lives according to their vows. If there was a doctrinal problem with the mere existence of gay priests, he would be one to judge. Furthermore, the Catholic Church has long since rejected the Donatist heresy that the righteousness of the priest has any impact on the validity of the sacraments he performs, so it is functionally immaterial whether the policies against gay priests are “doctrine” or not.

    I am a baptized practicing, struggling, studying Catholic. You are not one to judge.

    2358 The number of men and women who have
    deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.
    This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

    You may not realize this, but your words regarding gay people are not respectful, compassionate, or sensitive. I would rather describe them as gloating, cruel, and dismissive. Please try harder. There are gay people in your Church community that you may be alienating, and someday you may stand accountable for the way you treated them.

  • intellectone

    When someone wants to insist that The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church ‘must change’ to accommodate the oversexed society with all of its vulgarity. You Betcha they will get the Truth.

  • Have fun

    Since I don’t want to waste hours of my time finding you evidence backing the bible, I did a quick search on wikipedia for you. I also did a quick search on google, but most of the evidence came from christian sources so to be impartial I have only listed the wiki sites for your read in your spare time.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_figures_identified_in_extra-biblical_sources

  • TheRealReginaPhalange

    ‘How many babies are born that way? That is very very very rare.’

    What you are doing here is called ‘moving the goalposts’. It means that you make a remark or ask a question, someone addresses it, and then instead of conceding or at the very least sticking to the point, you bring up a whole other issue into it to try and give your argument more sway (it doesn’t, by the way). You said nothing of making babies, you stated that there are no other sexes other than male or female in humans. I pointed out that there are intersex people and you responded with a ‘so what?’ remark instead of admitting that male and female are not in fact the only sexes in the human species.

    ‘Are there so many cases that it would require to ‘Redefine’ marriage?’

    Marriage has been redefined since its conception.

    ‘The Father is the natural protector and provider. That is embedded. The Mother is the natural nurturer of children.’

    Tell that to Susan Smith or the numerous other women who have murdered their children. Tell that to the numerous children who have been abused by their mothers and fathers. Tell that to men who are sick or disabled and are therefore unable to be the ‘protector and provider’ for their children in the traditional sense of the words. Tell that to the men who seek and/or gain custody of their children that they cannot be nurturing to them, in fact, tell that to any dedicated father that he cannot be nurturing to his child. Tell that to the numerous mothers who work as the sole or dual income provider for their families.

    ‘That is the way God programmed things.’

    Again, how do you explain intersex people? Wait, let me guess – God works in ‘mysterious’ ways?

    ‘Danger to the health? Abstain.’

    Oh right, so people are told to abstain until they are married and then once they are married, they’re not allowed to have sex? Funny how you leave out hysterectomies tubal ligations and vasectomies as suggestions. People can’t even prevent pregnancy in a life-threatening situation according to you.

    ‘You are not forced to have sex.’

    Many women are victims of rape, including marital rape.

    ‘No man has a greater love than to give his Life for another. That goes for a woman that dies during child-birth..’

    Men do not have to sacrifice their bodies or health to bring a pregnancy to term so your little analogy is mute. Furthermore, if an embryo/fetus is going to die regardless, then it is absurd to expect women to sacrifice their health/bodies/lives in the process.

    You can be a martyr all you want but the rest of us have no such interest. Trust me, no one is going to beatify you once you’re dead.

  • TheRealReginaPhalange

    If you are not going to add anything of substance to this conversation then I suggest you stay out of it. @intellectone is bad enough with their barely coherent ramblings, but this latest comment from you is beyond ridiculous. I believe @cranefly and @Plum Dumpling addressed the issues with your comment already. I will add though, this discussion was about morality, not side effects to birth control. Something tells me that if there were absolutely no side effects to birth control, you would still have a problem with it, so what you see as a ‘gotcha’ remark is irrelevant to this discussion anyway.

  • TheRealReginaPhalange

    Wow, the first thing you think of when a priest molests a young boy is ‘homosexuality’, not ‘pedophilia’?

    Do you refer to priests who molest little girls as ‘heterosexuality in action’?

  • intellectone

    And any sign of one of these homosexuals ‘that insist’ to an innocent child that homosexuality is a normal lifestyle will have a mill stone around his next and it would be better that he was never born. Nobody has a ‘Right’ to teach in a public school or public square , or anywhere else for that matter, that homosexuality is to be celebrated. Making banners and carrying them in ‘Pride’Parades?. Get real! ‘Pride’ is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. There is nothing to be proud of being sinful and being sinful against nature is even worse. Also, they have no ‘Right’ to insist on ‘Redefining Family’. So what, if they are an active homosexual being alienated from the church. They alienated themselves. To accept homosexuality is not Love, but a dangerous game that people are playing.. Souls are at stake! Especially, the staining of innocent children’s minds, hearts, and bodies..

  • intellectone

    Nobody is moving any goal posts. Men are suppose to be the protector and the women the nurturer ‘motherly’. That is a fact. Just because circumstances does not allow for that perfect situation , that does not mean that it is not the Truth. You site all these different circumstances, which most of them are caused exactly by the sinful actions of people.
    If someone is disabled is he or she going to have a need for sex? Who knows. They have need for food, but sex?
    If someone is disabled from war, yes that is tragic or even an accident, however, it still does not change the fact that the man would not want to protect and provide for the family. Many disabled men are able to provide for the family, even though, they have gone through much hardship. The point is that men are different from women and women are different from men. They are equal, but different. Even a child knows instinctively that a Father’s care is different than a Mother’s care.
    The circumstances that you cite about the killing and abuses of children are self evident that these people are very sick and have been taken over by some evil thoughts and in most cases on drugs or alcohol and totally irresponsible and incapacitated. If the woman is raped and she ends up being pregnant, it is still a child that she is carrying in her womb. Scientifically proven that it is a human-being.
    Not tomato or anything else.
    As far as wanting to be Holy, what is wrong with that? Nothing.

  • intellectone

    When the boys are the altar boy ages, 8 yrs on up, that is homosexuality. You can try and whitewash the intrinsically evil of homosexuality all you want, but it ain’t flying..

  • intellectone

    You better look further into the history of the Roman Catholic Church because the Doctors of the Church clearly condemned homosexuality.
    Saint Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas. Also, better read what Saint Peter Damian said about the sin of sodomy. “even the Devil flees in horror”. That would tie into what Thomas Aquinas said, that ‘the sin against nature debases man to a level beneath that of an animal”.

  • TheRealReginaPhalange

    I love how you don’t actually address the comments that poke holes in your ridiculous arguments, so I’ll ask again:

    Do you refer to priests who molest little girls as ‘heterosexuality in action’?

    And people who are attracted to children older than 8 (9, 10) are still pedophiles. People who are attracted to children between the ages of 11 and 14 are called hebephiles. Try understanding the basic definition of words before you respond. It doesn’t take that long to Google things.

    You also need to understand the difference between consensual sexual activity (whether between people of the opposite sex or the same sex) and sexual activity that is non-consensual. The fact that you view a priest molesting a young boy, whether 8 or 14 as ‘homosexuality in action’ rather than molestation is really disturbing and insulting to the victims.

  • TheRealReginaPhalange

    You completely gloss over the definition I provided for the term ‘moving the goalposts’ and surprise, surprise, you go on to move the goalposts yet again.

    ‘You site all these different circumstances, which most of them are caused exactly by the sinful actions of people.’

    Men become disabled because of sinful actions? Nice, stay classy. What about men who seek full custody because the mother of their children is unable to provide proper care for them, is maybe abusive or neglectful? Or what about men who simply wish to have joint custody? What about widowers? Are these men incapable of being nurturing? What about women who must be the sole providers because their husbands are sick or disabled? Are they incapable of being providers?

    ‘Just because circumstances does not allow for that perfect situation , that does not mean that it is not the Truth.’

    You said nothing of circumstances in your previous post, you stated quite clearly: ‘That is the way God programmed things.’ If God supposedly programmed people to be certain ways then circumstances would not so easily cause women like Susan Smith to murder their children. If people are so clearly programmed to behave a certain way then it would very difficult to go against that programming.

    ‘If someone is disabled is he or she going to have a need for sex?’

    Why can’t you stay on topic? You weren’t talking about the need for sex when you brought up men being providers and protectors. You were discussing their roles as fathers. And FYI, yes – many people with disabilities can enjoy healthy sex lives.

    ‘Many disabled men are able to provide for the family, even though, they have gone through much hardship.’

    And many men with disabilities may not be able to provide an income for their families, at least not as sole providers. That does not mean that women are incapable of being providers.

    ‘Even a child knows instinctively that a Father’s care is different than a Mother’s care.’

    No, many children are socialized to view the roles of their parents as different. If a child were raised in an environment where their mother worked and their father stayed at home and they didn’t know any different, they wouldn’t ‘instinctively’ know that something was up.

    ‘If the woman is raped and she ends up being pregnant, it is still a child that she is carrying in her womb.’

    Actually, I was talking about birth control which can prevent pregnancy. If a woman is in an abusive relationship where she is routinely forced to have sex against her will, she can take birth control to avoid getting pregnant.

    ‘As far as wanting to be Holy, what is wrong with that? Nothing.’

    And as I said, just because you have a fetish for martyrdom doesn’t mean that the rest of us do.

  • cranefly

    I’m sorry you live in such a dark little world, and I worry about your apparent deep certainty of being among the elect.

  • cranefly

    Sweetheart. “Condemning homosexuality” is not the same thing as banning gay people from the priesthood. Stop changing the subject. For that matter, Thomas Aquinas was never a pope and your idolatry of him is unsettling. The Catholic Church has called for gay people to be treated with dignity and compassion, not judgment and revulsion.

  • intellectone

    Do not call me sweetheart, that is just babble It is Cannon Law and as said before that it is Doctrinal. As a mater of fact, Saint John Paul II and Benedict were discussing the idea of defrocking the homosexual priests, because they came to the conclusion that they should be null and void. These priest were ordained ,so once you are ordained a priest ,you are always a priest. However, the priests that go around in homosexual parades and insist on identifying themselves as homosexuals should be defrocked. There are bishops that are not in Union with the Magisterial mandates and that is what happens when there are bishops who think they know better. Just like Judas of Iscariot .Or the candidate lied to the bishop at the time of entering the seminary. You have no understanding of the True Faith of the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church. Nor do you have the True understanding of what the Priesthood represents.

  • intellectone

    Of course, you have no understanding of what Faith is, or you would understand that there is a reason for what you believe in and you stay faithful. ‘Being Holy’ has never really been a Protestant idea.They do not have the fullness of the Faith. However, it appears they have much more understanding of Faith than you do. Hope you get there someday sooner rather than later. Because you never know when the thief will come in the night and you won’t see morning.

  • intellectone

    Your logic is very unsettling and would escape any normal mind.. If homosexuality is condemned by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; do you think for one minute the church would allow to ordain active homosexuals to the priesthood?
    What kind of fuzzy thinking is that?

  • Jim Reed

    We have pretty much filled the world with our species. We have fished out much of the ocean, converted most all of the land to farms and lumber, and now we have to set aside small areas to be left natural so we don’t completely eliminate everything outside our farms. A contraceptive mentality is critical to implement now, and as we stress the planet even harder it will become so critical even the Catholic church will have to change. They have a good idea about heavy reproduction to increase the global percent of Catholics, but that can’t last forever. It will draw increased feedback.

  • Abortion is legal.
    Murder is illegal.
    That which is legal cannot also be illegal.
    Ergo: abortion is not murder.
    It is worth noting that abortion was not murder when it was illegal.
    Refute me – if you can.
    Flagged and down voted for egregious abuse of men and women in favor of reproductive privacy and autonomy for women.
    I AM TIRED OF THIS HOARY LIE.

  • I will never be ordered.
    I will have sex.
    I will use contraception.
    If I become pregnant, I will give birth or abort as I see fit. Not as YOU see fit. Not as a church sees fit. Not as the state sees fit.

  • Nonsense. You do not know any feminists.

  • cranefly

    Sexual orientation is not a choice, nor does the Church pretend it is a choice, nor does Church condemn it. It only condemns sexual actions of a homosexual nature. Priests are consigned to celibacy. Holy orders would seem to be the most natural choice for people called to celibacy.

    In any case, your own reasoning is not enough to determine Church doctrine for the rest of us. Either the Church has a doctrinal prohibition against gay priests, or a policy prohibition. I maintain that a doctrinal prohibition is impossible and makes so sense, because the sexual orientation of the priest has no impact on the validity of the sacraments.

  • cranefly

    Canon Law can change. It has changed many times. It is not doctrine just because it’s Canon Law. Go ask a Canon Lawyer. Ask the most conservative Canon Lawyer you can find. You are so woefully misinformed.

  • Smknws

    all this talk about HELL can someone who has proof that it exists please explain .. which part of me would go there ? the human body or the dust it returns to .
    I know for sure the image of god I am made in WON’T GO .

  • Jim Reed

    Hell doesn’t seem reasonable if you try to overanalyze it, but without the possibility of hell you won’t have the possibility of heaven.

  • refruits

    Abortion = self-defense. Women are not incubators.

  • I will stand beside you to protect your right to choose what you do with your own body and your right to own the ability to reproduce or not.

    That is a basic right that every human has. It becomes more necessary when some claim that as a result of their wishful thinking, their superstitions, their mythology or their stupidity or their belief that they have a right to control the right of reproduction of other people. It becomes egregious when these unreasonable people then declare you as insane or threaten your life, block or impede your ability to earn a living or make threats against the life of your friends or family as a way of blackmailing you into submitting to their obscene demands.

    Thankfully there are only a few of these primitive cultures left in our society who claim ownership of knowledge handed to them as a birth right that gives them the right to use their mythological beliefs to control the minds and the bodies of others as these practices are outside the modern day understanding of human rights.

  • The claim to have a right to over-ride your right to act as you want in your sexual relationships is a matter of serious concern in regards to the psychological makeup of the person making such a claim.

    It is bizarre enough that anyone should make such a claim over the sexual activities of others; it moves beyond that when it moves into the area of character assassination, denigrates the individual in an open form of psychological manipulation and blackmail.

    When you add the toxic nature of a litany of unfounded mystical claims to the bizarre there is a need to find a more descriptive adjective. Perhaps obsessively bizarre desire to control the sexual activities of others due to their own personal delusions about their own status within their culture – as I said bizarre simply does not do these primitive obscenities justice.

  • I find it to be an ugly circumstance when Christians across the globe understand that the world is facing its greatest crisis of global warming and a need for non polluting energy.

    Hell has been in existence for millenniums as I understand it from the religious.There are no signs that it has caused pollution of any kind other than in the minds of believers.

    The global energy crisis can quickly be resolved with a simple disclosure by Christianity as to the location of Hell so that we can tap its endless heat and energy and put it to work for the benefit of mankind. It is an incredibly mean and selfish stance to take by Christians in not disclosing it’s location to the world; that adds a sense of horror as it seems some wish to retain it for the exclusive use of maintaining human torture and suffering of those who do not believe in the Christian version of a god.

    It truly is a cruel, childish and selfish act that is designed to cling to the ability to inflict eternal punishment and torture on to others rather than being productive and proactive towards humanity and fellow human beings.

  • Are you claiming that Cannon Law should over ride the law of the land. According to the Vatican Cannon Law is pertinent only to the residents of the city state. Those laws do not apply outside of that country. ref Vatican response to the UN re torture 2014

    Where do you get this obsession that others in their own country should abide by the laws of a foreign nation.

  • Well and truly said.

  • These practices are ‘outside the modern day understanding of human rights.’ The WHO has stated that in position papers quite clearly. I am waiting to see how women vote this election. I think it is going to be a bloodbath for Republicans.
    Real men love their Sisters, Mothers, Daughters and Wives. Real men are pro reproductive autonomy and freedom for themselves and their beloveds.

  • Link me to the documentation. Should be easy.

  • LOL. ‘… a very Protestant attitude.’

  • Prove the pill is a carcinogen. Citation needed.
    This is the second request for you to prove what you are spreading about does not stink.

  • If you approve of Pope Frankie, why don’t you do what he told you to do?

  • Are you still citing poor old passive aggressive Jesus? Jesus Christ was the passive aggressive scum bag who claimed it was reasonable and rational to hate everyone else in your family – that is insanity and it takes no intellectual gigantism to understand that.

    Once we get over that little hurdle about the world view of your Jesus we can then move on to his outstanding work in regard slavery and the ownership of people – all of which you would approve of. Of course once you water it down, twist it, turn it inside out and then try to use guilt or threat to back that up with simply to help you face down your own personal fears of a psychological threat that was placed in your mind by people wanting to control you. Seems you have missed out on doing a review of the way you were brought up.

  • Jim Reed

    From the church’s point of view, the most important thing is survival of the church. It comes down to a choice, do you want a scientific world that doesn’t need the church, or a non-scientific world where the church has authority. You need to make a decision because we are dividing the world into two groups based on this question, and that will determine your mythical destination.

  • “a scientific world that doesn’t need the church” is a sound starting point so that humanity can step out of the bonds of religion that have impeded human progress for so long.

    My heart would sing for the first time in a while to know that the children of the future no longer faced the risk of being traumatically bonded to a religion without ever realising that their right to have made that choice was stolen from them by the religion they feel obligated and pushed by fears to fight for insane control of the lives and the rights of other people.

  • Jim Reed

    I think the process of humanity stepping out of the bonds of religion will be a process that takes some time, and will happen a step at a time. The good news is I think we have come a long way, even if things now seem more divided than ever. That is because a few decades ago we were not so divided, and religion had control. Even 5 or 6 years ago discussions along these lines were more difficult. At least there was a concern that they would be difficult, but maybe it was easier than expected. The side of the church assumed they were dominate, and they could shut down disagreement. But that period seemed to me to be short lived. You could question the church, and things like the reality of Jesus, and even though there was resistance, there was also a surprising amount of silence. There is just a feeling that the world knows there are problems, and they would rather not get into it, but at some level they know if they resist they will only be making things more difficult for religion. It can be a fun process to work through as long as you don’t get too impatient.

  • intellectone

    The results are startling. This is why it is a ‘Doctrine’,, of the One Holy Catholic Church, not to ordain a homosexuals..

    Everybody can look up the report which is “A Research Study By The John Jay College of Criminal Justice”. The city University of New York. This report is for The United States

    The results of our study indicated that of all victims whose gender was reported, (Table 4.3.1) page 69
    81% were male and 19% were female.
    Table 4.3.1 GENDER OF ALLEGED VICTIM
    Gender Count % of Total
    Male 8,499 ………80.9%
    Female 2,004…… 19.1%
    Transsexual 2 .0%
    Total 10,505 100.0%
    98.5% of surveys reported the gender of the alleged victim.
    Males ages 11-14 85.2 %
    Males ages 15-17 85.4 %
    You can find this breakdown on page 53
    ……………………………………
    Nobody can deny that these abuses were committed by homosexual priests. Why else would the victims be male and in that age group.
    Again, it is the ‘Doctrine’ of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church not to ordain a homosexual knowingly. The Bishops ordain men for their diocese. They have to be more careful and they themselves better not have a homosexual mindset.

  • intellectone

    It is called Freedom of Religion. When a man is ordained to the priesthood he needs to follow ‘Doctrine’ of The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. It is a Doctrine that homosexuals cannot be ordained to the priesthood. Period!.

    The following is directly from The Doctrine of Faith..
    Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is obliged to declare for the good of the Catholic faithful that the positions advanced by Sister Jeannine Gramick and Father Robert Nugent regarding the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts and the objective disorder of the homosexual inclination are doctrinally unacceptable because they do not faithfully convey the clear and constant teaching of the Catholic Church in this area.3 Father Nugent and Sister Gramick have often stated that they seek, in keeping with the Church’s teaching, to treat homosexual persons “with respect, compassion and sensitivity”.4 However, the promotion of errors and ambiguities is not consistent with a Christian attitude of true respect and compassion: persons who are struggling with homosexuality no less than any others have the right to receive the authentic teaching of the Church from those who minister to them. The ambiguities and errors of the approach of Father Nugent and Sister Gramick have caused confusion among the Catholic people and have harmed the community / They are prohibited from any pastoral work involving homosexual persons and are ineligible, for an undetermined period, for any office in their respective religious institutes.
    Again, not allowing the ordination of homosexual mindset men into the priesthood is and always has been ‘Doctrine’.

  • intellectone

    No, the mindset is totally wrong for the priesthood.

  • intellectone

    It is ‘Doctrine’ . It always was and always will be because Doctrine cannot change. It is not allowed to ordain a homosexual mindset to the priesthood. To say otherwise would be error. A very clear explanation is as follows.

    “The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is obliged to declare for the good of the Catholic faithful that the positions advanced by Sister Jeannine Gramick and Father Robert Nugent regarding the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts and the objective disorder of the homosexual inclination are doctrinally unacceptable because they do not faithfully convey the clear and constant teaching of the Catholic Church in this area.3 Father Nugent and Sister Gramick have often stated that they seek, in keeping with the Church’s teaching, to treat homosexual persons “with respect, compassion and sensitivity”.4However, the promotion of errors and ambiguities is not consistent with a Christian attitude of true respect and compassion: persons who are struggling with homosexuality no less than any others have the right to receive the authentic teaching of the Church from those who minister to them. The ambiguities and errors of the approach of Father Nugent and Sister Gramick have caused confusion among the Catholic people and have harmed the community they are prohibited from any pastoral work involving homosexual persons and are ineligible, for an undetermined period, for any office in their respective religious institutes.”

    Very clearly states that it is ‘Doctrine’.
    Why would you put a man that is attracted to men in a sexual way in the priesthood. That would be like putting a man sexually attacted to women into a women religious order to be a nun.
    It is also putting a homosexual man into the near occasion of Sin. That is tragic! That is why it is Doctrine. Period!

  • It was not necessary to be so verbose – a simple yes response would have been sufficient in the first instance – the second was answered by your verbosity.

  • intellectone

    Obviously, you did not like to hear that using the ‘Civil Right Act was only for people of Color. It certainly was not meant for the homosexuals, let alone, for them to ‘Redefine Marriage.’
    You have absolutely no understanding on interpreting the Bible and what Jesus Christ meant. Translations to sloppy languages ,such a English, can loose a lot of the authentic meaning and understanding.
    Like the Supreme Court’s interpretation of what the Constitution means and from what mindset it was written, which was Judeo-Christian.. It is oblivious that they are as ignorant as you are in interpreting the Bible.

  • I mentioned the John Jay report already. That is the RCC blaming the ‘counter culture’ and homosexuals for the rape proclivities of their clergy.
    Everybody is always at fault but the RCC and its poisonous sexual pedagogy. Absurd.
    Homosexuals have sex with adults. PEDOPHILES have sex with children.

    These are the findings of the Grand Juries in Philadelphia. Are you saying Msgr. William Lynn, and Cardinals Krol and Bevilacqua were gay? YOU ARE A LIAR.

    I quote from the Grand Jury Report 0f 2011 Summary:

    “The present grand jury, however, is frustrated to report that much has not changed. The rapist priests we accuse were well known to the Secretary of Clergy, but he cloaked their conduct and put them in place to do it again. The procedures implemented by the Archdiocese to help victims are in fact designed to help the abusers, and the Archdiocese itself. Worst of all, apparent abusers – dozens of them, we believe remain on duty in the Archdiocese, today, with open access to new young prey.”

    The Grand Jury Report 2005
    This report contains the findings of the Grand Jury: how dozens of priests
    sexually abused hundreds of children; how Philadelphia Archdiocese officials – including Cardinal Bevilacqua and Cardinal Krol – excused and enabled the abuse; and how the law must be changed so that it doesn’t happen again. Some may be tempted to describe these events as tragic. Tragedies such as tidal waves, however, are outside human control. What we found were not acts of God, but of men who acted in His name and
    defiled it.
    But the biggest crime of all is this: it worked. The abuser priests, by choosing children as targets and trafficking on their trust, were able to prevent or delay reports of their sexual assaults, to the point where applicable statutes of limitations expired. And Archdiocese officials, by burying those reports they did receive and covering up the conduct, similarly managed to outlast any statutes of limitation. As a result, these priests and officials will necessarily escape criminal prosecution. We surely would have charged them if we could have done so.

    All gay, right? LIAR.
    These are the kinds of things that Archdiocese priests did to children:
    ► A girl, 11 years old, was raped by her priest and became pregnant. The Father took her in for an abortion.
    ► A 5th-grader was molested by her priest inside the confessional booth.
    ► A teenage girl was groped by her priest while she lay immobilized in traction in a hospital bed. The priest stopped only when the girl was able to ring for a nurse.
    ► A boy was repeatedly molested in his own school auditorium, where his priest/teacher bent the boy over and rubbed his genitals against the boy until the priest ejaculated.
    ► A priest, no longer satisfied with mere pederasty, regularly began forcing sex on two boys at once in his bed.
    ► A boy woke up intoxicated in a priest’s bed to find the Father sucking on his penis while three other priests watched and masturbated themselves.
    ► A priest offered money to boys in exchange for sadomasochism – directing them to place him in bondage, to “break” him, to make him their “slave,” and to defecate so that he could lick excrement from them.
    ► A 12-year-old, who was raped and sodomized by his priest, tried to commit suicide, and remains institutionalized in a mental hospital as an adult.
    ► A priest told a 12-year-old boy that his mother knew of and had agreed to the priest’s repeated rape of her son.
    ► A boy who told his father about the abuse his younger brother was suffering was beaten to the point of unconsciousness. “Priests don’t do that,” said the father
    as he punished his son for what he thought was a vicious lie against the clergy.

  • Jim Reed

    The real answer to your question is Christians don’t know where hell is. They tend to act like they know more than they actually do.

  • intellectone

    John Jay College of Criminal Justice is not a Catholic organization.

    They were the ones that came in to research all levels specifically due to the horrendous abuse. There were some pedophiles, with some girls and boys abused (which is always and everywhere a horrific crime)
    But you must come to gripes with yourself and admit over 80% were boys in the ages of 11 – 17 and anybody with any sensibilities and honesty will know that these abuses were committed by homosexual priests. Again, that is why there has been a ‘Doctrine’ from the beginning that the homosexual’s with their mindset should never be ordained to the Roman Catholic Priesthood.
    In the American society clearly the homosexuals have done their.

    proselytization, seduction and recruitment of youth( boys ages 11-17) Obviously, that age group has been the lifeblood of the homosexual sub-culture wherever and whenever it has emerged in human society.
    Now they are teaching your children that are under-age this lifestyle and that is ‘Criminal on it face’.

  • intellectone

    It is Doctrine. This is what the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church Teaches “The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is obliged to declare for the good of the Catholic faithful that the positions advanced by Sister Jeannine Gramick and Father Robert Nugent regarding the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts and the objective disorder of the homosexual inclination are doctrinally unacceptable because they do not faithfully convey the clear and constant teaching of the Catholic Church in this area.3 Father Nugent and Sister Gramick have often stated that they seek, in keeping with the Church’s teaching, to treat homosexual persons “with respect, compassion and sensitivity”.4 However, the promotion of errors and ambiguities is not consistent with a Christian attitude of true respect and compassion: persons who are struggling with homosexuality no less than any others have the right to receive the authentic teaching of the Church from those who minister to them. The ambiguities and errors of the approach of Father Nugent and Sister Gramick have caused confusion among the Catholic people and have harmed the community They are prohibited from any pastoral work involving homosexual persons and are ineligible, for an undetermined period, for any office in their respective religious institutes.”

  • intellectone

    It was necessary to be verbose because it was important to point out, for the slow learners, that one cannot be respectful and compassionate to homosexuals and their mindset by condoning and promoting their errors. For it to be Christian one must teach them the Truth.

  • I have read the report in its entirety. I know who conducted it. I think you are an obsessed sexual pervert. You skeeve me.

  • intellectone

    That Report was cited to prove to you that you are wrong.
    You are the one that is the pervert and disgusting. You hate Jesus Christ’s Church. The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. If you married in the Roman Catholic Church and not baptizing your children, you, you didn’t keep your promise did you? You are like Judas of Iscariot. You have fled out into the dark space and it shows.

  • Obsessed and incapable of integrating reality into a world built on layer after layer of fantasy and myth – children deserve better than to be in the proximity of such people as they are at risk of being used in any way possible to uphold those fantasies – yes dangerous and deceptive, an unrealistic acculturated mind.

  • Thank you. A mind like this will commit any atrocity in the service of what it considers ‘moral and correct.’ I do not know how many more atrocities must come to light before we see an ounce of sanity and reality come from the RCC. The religion attracts morally and psychologically sick folks like the one we are replying to.

  • So true although I feel there is room for debate as to whether the religion attracts this type or whether it actually creates them – I am inclined towards the creation view at the moment.

  • You are an obsessed bigot and pervert. Folks like you are attracted to the RCC precisely because of their poisonous sexual pedagogy. The RCC provides a home for the mentally sick that cannot be beat.

  • You could make an argument for both stances.
    Upon giving this some thought, I tend to go with your position. I know how hard it has been to deprogram myself from the RCC pedagogy.
    My response was to run away. Many folks respond with a form of Stockholm Syndrome, like our friend here perhaps.
    Which came first – icky sexual dysfunction or icky sexual mores? Good question. Much of my dysfunction came from what I was taught, sometimes at the end of a stick.

  • “The bonded individual is compromised by their own fears that they were unable to rationalize as a child due to the fact that the trauma was inflicted before the child has progressed through the development stages of establishing our personality.”
    ………..
    Well said. You are made to take vows in front of the entire congregation and ‘god’ before you are mature enough to know what you are promising. You are made to vow to do something that as a mature adult you would never swear to do in a million years.
    You have more hope in the presentation of reality to the afflicted as a teaching tool than I do. Zealots do not deal with facts. Nothing you say dents the delusion. We can see that operating here.

  • intellectone

    Not, that report was produced to show that being lax on screening and allowing homosexuals to be ordained or to be around people and especially children is dangerous. How else can they multiply?

  • This a brief and rough guide – should give you something for productive thought re this. Interested to hear your feedback on it.

    http://www.molestedcatholics.com/index.php?id=Personal-Religious-Trauma-Stages-of-Development

  • Thanks for the link. I have been writing about and researching this issue. Always interested in new thought.

  • Just looked at the material. There is a lot to take in. Might take me awhile to have a response. Especially because I am a survivor of sexual abuse.

  • I am also a survivor – there are at times unrecognised benefits (shame about the original causes though).

    My email is john@tfyqa.biz I am also on SKYPE: tfyqa1 Am interested to learn more re your research and more – will keep my eye out for a response here also. Facing our reality is not always an easy task however it does produce reward of a type when we can come away with a better understanding of environment as a child as it can teach us how we were lured, groomed, deceived and psychologically trapped into such a bizarre form of human suppression and human sacrifice.

  • Thank you. I will get back to you. Getting to know yourself is scary, humbling and sometimes it hurts. The rewards of doing so are enormous.

  • How else can they multiply? You are putting me on, right?

  • intellectone

    Answer the question. How else, but grooming someone that is not aware and convincing them that they are homosexual. Even transgressing them and locking the unsuspecting into the lifestyle? The question remains?.

  • You skeeve me. You really are a disgusting pile of sexual and mental perversion. Ewwwwwww.

  • PieRatz

    I have almost finished reading the back and forth on this thread and I was struck that we may…be…dealing….with…… Silas? Intellectone is this you?

  • Ed in Lincoln

    Ah, thank you. The entire Church.

  • Ed in Lincoln

    We prefer God. You, know? capitalized?

  • bpuharic

    Good for me I don’t care what you prefer about santa claus or god.

  • bpuharic

    Having been a seminarian, gays did not ‘infiltrate’ the priesthood. Homophobe simply persecuted gays, having previously hated Jews and blacks.

    Your blood libel against gays once was used against Jews. Christianity is responsible for the oven that murdered 6 million

  • bpuharic

    Actually they were child molesters, which has nothing to do with homosexuality. And your mindset is disordered to be so perverted that you think obsess about other’s sex lives

  • intellectone

    Baloney! Nobody said anything about killing the homosexuals. The Fact is that it is dogma that homosexuals and their mindset should not be ordained to the priesthood.

  • intellectone

    The Report is very clear. They are homosexuals when they abuse boys ages 11-17. It sounds like you are a slow learner or a plain liar.

  • bpuharic

    Hmmm…homophobes like you just hate gays. From “America” magazine on the John Jay report:

    “[T]he researchers found no statistical evidence that gay priests were
    more likely than straight priests to abuse minors—a finding that
    undermines a favorite talking point of many conservative Catholics. The
    disproportionate number of adolescent male victims was about
    opportunity, not preference or pathology, the report states.”

    This from a 2011 report commissioned by the Bishops. So John Jay actually has TWO studies, neither of which confirms your traditional Christian hatred of Jews…ahem…gays.

  • intellectone

    You betcha, can’t stand intrinsically evil, their sickening. Example: The ‘Pride’ Parades are blasphemous and ugly.(they only think of themselves and nothing about the ugliness for the eyes of children and messing with their innocent minds. This is besides the desecration of and impersonating and mocking religious orders, which should be condemned by all in the religious and political levels of authority. They went from the closet to the swamp. Shows how ignorant you are ,if you think a traditional Catholic hates Jews. Catholics love Jews because Jesus is of Jewish heritage, He is from the line of David. All the Apostles are of Jewish decent. This is how stupid you people are,surface thinkers, like Hitler, a real nut job.
    Obviously, you did not look at the chart on page 69, and 53 of the John Jay Report. it clearly shows that the homosexual priests were the 84.5% problem in the abuse cases.(boys ages 11-17) Who are trying to snow? Not us folks that know better. The few Bishops may want to hide that because they are the ones that ordained this same ‘Objectively Disordered men. Again, for the slow learners, it is Dogma that the Bishops, in the ‘Authentic Roman Catholic Church’ are not to ordain the mindset of homosexuals to the priesthood.

  • bpuharic

    Why is being gay ugly to kids? You keep taking as a conclusion what you want to prove. There is NOTHING WRONG with being gay. And slamming religion, after what religion says about gays? Good. About time the whole jesus thing got toasted.

    And you’re blindingly ignorant if you think Catholics loved Jews. I know you’re uneducated and don’t know history, but read the history of Catholic/Jewish relations instead of making stuff up.

    And as the JJ report says, these were crimes of opportunity. If girls were allowed to BE in Catholic churches, they would have been molested. We know that because when girls ARE present, they get molested in other venues

    Your lack of education causes you to be a bigot.

  • intellectone

    Teaching children that the homosexual lifestyle is normal and healthy is criminal because it is a Big Lie. If a man is attracted to a man in a sexual way, that is disordered. If a man is attracted to a man, that is a
    a Friend. To mess with a child’s mind ,with misinforming him or her,is a crime. They are under-age and have the ‘Right’ to hear the truth. It is a fact that homosexuality is objectively disordered. Why? Because if your Creator wanted you to be attracted to a man He would have made you a woman. Faith and Reason.
    Anyone with any sensibilities knows that to Love Jesus one must also Love the Jews. After all, Jesus and all the Apostles are from Jewish heritage. But Jesus and the Apostles are Christian.
    You better study history. Because there is a Jewish Religion and there is Jewish nationality.
    You are not even reasonable about the J J report. The priest that abused the boys were definitely objectively disordered and they were grooming the boys to multiply the homosexual pool. You are in denial, but that is to be expected because you are objectively disordered..

  • bpuharic

    And it’s a ‘big lie’ because, well because you say so. Golly. Why am I unconvinced? Why is it ‘disordered’? Well, because you say so.

    And I don’t care what you THINK is true about the 2000 year war of Christians against Jews. It’s a fact. Again, you’re very uneducated.

    OOHHH!!! Objectively disordered…big words for a hillbilly.

  • intellectone

    What is wrong with a hillbilly? They will get to Heaven, where as, a homosexual promoting and supporting an intrinsically evil practice will never get to Heaven.

  • Steve Karper

    sound like that wacko bill donahue or his pals, or the mel gibson branch of the church

    Some of these people believe that like in parts of isalm the women should be kept in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant and used as a baby factory to prove how big and powerful daddy’s boy parts happen to be.

    the other part of no birth control etc is that people -too many children, who are desperately poor – their only hope is prayer to wn the lottery etc. More minds to control by ultran conservatives like Benedict etc

  • Steve Karper

    I’m rpoud to be a sinner – helped in the black civil rights movement depite the bible justifying slavery etc

    prouder stil that I was a key person in getting the one repub vote in the md legislature that got us marriage equality a couple years ago.

    Guess god likes what I did, about 11975 I stumbled on a situation that led to being very rich working at intel corp and I’m paying to send a gay friend of mine, kickec out of his family by “chrisitan love” to finish his doctors degree in pscyhoclogy

    condemn me all u conservative want. I’d sure rather be in hell then in heaven with some of you who have the same ideas about gays as dead fred phelps

  • We found the problem here in Australia today – we have headlines that are reading Church’s child protection policy blamed Satan for accusations, royal commission told
    The devil has been the problem all along and now we know the identity of the culprit.

    We are asking people right across the world to notify the police if they spot the devil anywhere.

    The Phantom has been called in to help track him down. Green Lantern and the Hulk are about to join the search. Superman and Superwoman have vowed to leave no stone unturned in what looks like the worlds largest ever devil hunt.

    Read the story here from Australia – its real. There are rumours everywhere here in Australia. Last we heard Bo-Peep was about to confess along with 4 of the Seven Dwarfs and Snow White herself.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/churchs-child-protection-policy-blamed-satan-for-accusations-royal-commission-told-20141016-116vn9.html#ixzz3GHUROg1N

  • Steve Karper

    all over the world. Good pope Francis Cardinal keith obrien – head of the atholic church in great britan for “imporper ttouching”

    he did the same to a pepuvian bishop who raped children and said gays were “faffits”

    hundreds of priests are out on the streets already while in the past he german pope hid these vile crimes to protect the pocketbook

    As soon as Pope Francis has time etc and finishes cleaning up the right wingers in the curia, I;m sure if he hasn’t alreaddy he’ll tackle female priesthood. the Cof England alrready allows women to be bishops.

    If you want to be in a church that treats women l- a war on wowmen join the talban church

    Under anoher screen name I spent years exposing the endless hidden molesation of kids by the churches not nomal policy of celibacy

    Part of the reasons Bendiect was actually forced to resign, and part of the reason that a majority of cahtolics despie the churches’ pstion support civil law marriage before scotus was involved

  • Satan? lol.

  • SisterLea

    I’m only suggesting that we return to the “old crusty contentions” of the Gospels. There is a balance between continuity and change. Go to either extreme and you have idolatries left and right!

  • That might bear some weight if idols were important or were other than mythological, superstitious beliefs or wishful thinking.

  • SisterLea

    Oh, idols are VERY important, John! They are the ideas/things which convince us that God is all about security and certainty with no room for change…no room for the Spirit of God to move as it will.

    Idolatry is the very reason that the prophets protested vigorously and continuously at our every effort to Box God in or Lock God down. Idolatry has never been “mythological, superstitious beliefs or wishful thinking”; it has merely been dismissed as such so we may look down our noses at our ancient brothers and sisters.

  • Oh OK – an idol convinces you of the existence of a particular god – in this instance the Christian god. Does that mean that the idol of the monkey god hanuman is enough to convince its followers of the existence of hanuman.

    I am glad I am no rely on someone like that to provide me with advice or medical treatment. Using that logic any idol of any culture is evidence of the existence of a god – its just that in your case it supports the god you believe in – very convenient.

  • SisterLea

    An idol is a way to lock your/my/our particular view of God into a box…a good, heavy, sealed box safe from any questions or thoughts alien to the image in the box. And, yes, we are all prone to lock God down, myself included. I guess that’s why the prophets kept trying to raise human consciousness to an awareness of our propensity to lock truth securely in a box.

  • Am not into guessing – just a different name for wishful thinking when done like that

  • SisterLea

    John, “Wishful thinking” is the idea that God can be completely and forever contained in revelations of previous millennia. “Wishful thinking” is the idea that God set a date whereby our understanding of revelation stops evolving!.