Jesus did not die on the cross because Eve brought death to humanity after being tempted by GIANT PENIS SNAKE! Jesus did not have to spill his virginal lamb blood in order to repair the EVIL DAMAGE that sexual intercourse caused, that took away the chance for folks to live forever in the hereafter – the Jews suposedly did not believe in! Yes they did!
Catholics are taught that having sex is evil, and only when one confesses they or ashamed of having sex to a priest, at least once a month, will they know eternal life. To put on a condom is to DEMONSTRATE sex is not shameful, and, this is something you and your Catholic wife – WANT – in a premeditated manner! Saint Paul, and other so called Virigns, cut off their penis lest they succumb to UNCONTROLABLE SEX URGES, or put a condom on a stiffy – just for kicks! After having a ball, the stiffy snake sheds its skin, and the holy sparks of God are tossed!
This shame-based extortion racket does not come from Jesus. Paul got the holy blackmail rolling by saying sex and marriage does not matter anymore, because the world is coming to an end. When the world did not end, then the Catholics rolled out the virgin Mary, a mortal who had ideal se xwith an angel in order to produce the perfect being we one day can be, if we do not do anything nasty – IF we abstain! Well, that is impossible, thus this false church got the monopoly on SHAMEFUL SEX ACTS, something we are all ADDICTED to, thus the Papacys uses sex like a drug! The SIN TAX was born, that replaced the true Mission of the Jubilee Jesus, which was to put an end to Sin Tax!
Condoms ALTER the sex act! Where in the Bible does it say not to do this?
Jon the Nazarite
NFP and contraception are both methods of birth control. Birth control is the spacing & planning of children.
The Church does not teach birth control is immoral. The Church teaches that contraception is an immoral means of birth control. Big difference.
Each marriage act (act of sexual intercourse) must be unaltered before, during, or after the act. No action may taken to alter the act because each act must be objectively unitive and procreative in order to be authentic and properly ordered as God designed.
Subjectively that particular act may or may not be procreative. For example, if someone is naturally infertile due to time of the month, post-menopause, already pregnant, etc, then an unaltered act of intercourse is objectively procreative but subjectively does not result in conception.
How does NFP meet this criteria? In NFP each marital act is objectively unitive and procreative. If you have reason to avoid pregnancy you *do not engage in the act*. That respects the objective elements that must be present in every act.
How does contraception fail to meet this criteria? When contracepting a couple engages in the marital act while simultaneously altering the act to nullify it’s procreative element– either before, during, or after the act. Before– sterilization, Pill, sponge, diaphram, condom, IUD. During– withdrawal, masterbatory acts that don’t culminate in intercourse. After- morning after pill, abortion. All of these things alter the act either in anticipation of, during, or after.
NFP says: Don’t want to become pregnant at that time? Abstain and respect the act as God created it because we and the act serve God. Engage in the act when the woman is naturally infertile and never alter the act.
Contraception says: Don’t want to become pregnant? Have sex and mutilate the act because the act serves *us*.
NFP is not an alterative to contraception, it’s an alternative to complete abstinence.
he Obama administration’s recently posted rule requiring the health insurance plans of Catholic universities and charities to offer free birth control information and services to women has raised the hackles of the Catholic Church. It feels that birth control is a sin and that the Church’s First Amendment rights to religious freedom are therefore being threatened. That a majority of Catholic women support the administration’s rule, and that a large percentage of workers — women and men — in those universities and charities are not Catholic has little bearing on the matter, according to the priest/bureaucracy that runs the Church.
They will dictate to the flock, despite the fact that their dictates are not being listened to by their own people. They will also savage a government whose mandate is to govern an entire country of which the Catholics are only a distinct minority.
That Catholic bureaucracy is, of course, deep in trouble for its own mis-dealings with regard to child molestation by some of its priests, and that crime’s cover-up by those higher up. As well as the until recent indifference to the issue from the throne of The Most High Up in Rome. So it seems a little disingenuous for these fellows to be moralizing about the sinfulness of what is indeed an important health issue for women worldwide. Women’s rights and the alarming speed with which the world’s population is growing make access to birth control a necessity, not a sin. The Church — and its supporters in some government circles in Washington — would have all those children be born willy nilly, yet seem to care very little about supporting them once they are born.
What the religious legislators and zealots will not do, condoms and other forms of birth control will.
It is appropriate, however, to continue the conversation about the separation of church and state, because it too is a very large issue.
The idea of the separation of church and state was made clear by President Thomas Jefferson in his famous 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists… “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
We take this to mean that religion of any sort is protected from interference by the government of the United States, a sanctified tenet of the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of religion and the right to exercise it.
Extending Jefferson’s logic, it also holds that religions must not interfere with the running of the democratically elected state, prevented from doing so by this same wall of separation.
With the recent rise of Christian religious fundamentalism in the Republican Party, the vetting of a candidate’s Christian beliefs has become a necessary requirement for being elected to office. The daily Christian prayer meetings held at the White House during George W. Bush’s time in office, the pious nostrums repeatedly uttered by all of the hopefuls for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, the assailing of any politician or other public figure who does not share the religious beliefs of those doing the vetting, and the ongoing debates between candidates and elected politicians as to who is the most Christian have changed the political landscape. Prior to the day that George W. Bush was elected president of the United States, such debates were generally subdued. It was expected that one could pursue his or her religious beliefs as desired, but must not impose those beliefs upon the rest of the populace. Or upon the government.
Few have had the temerity to question the new intensity of religious interference in government. Most seem afraid to do so, perhaps cowed into submission by the self-righteousness of the new Mighty Fortress of Christian fundamentalism. First Amendment doctrine clearly states that government should have no fundamental influence upon the religious activities of the people. But in the current political atmosphere, many feel that religious beliefs can be as important as any other system of ideas — or even a determining factor — in political decisions and government policy.
Religions should be free from government interference, and government should be left to operate without interference from religious organizations. The new fundamentalist Christian movement and its fueling of the conservative takeover of the Republican party have put the second half of that equation in grave danger.
In the meantime, as a modest proposal, I suggest that those few rank-and-file Catholics who do not agree with the Obama administration’s new rule simply act from their own private consciences, and not avail themselves of this important health offering. They have a right to do so.