Hillary's campaign manager works for "revolution" to undermine Catholic teaching

We've already considered this, this, this, and all of this, which should be enough to make practicing Catholics fly away from Hillary and the Democrats or, better yet, fight their ascent with all we can muster.

But today we see a leaked email from John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary's current campaign for president, discussing how he set up groups to stir up "revolution" against Catholicism:

You should not be shocked, as this has been going on for a very long time. Really think about that last paragraph.

His bio from Wikipedia: "Podesta previously served as Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton and Counselor to President Barack Obama. He is the former president and now Chair and Counselor of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a liberal think tank in Washington, D.C., and is also a Visiting Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center." <---------- Catholic institution, as you know. 

Wikipedia

I'm sure there is and will be a lot more to come (the Democrats have been doing this for a long time), but here's another email leaked yesterday, from a Democratic operative to John Podesta, regarding Catholics:

We should take that second-to-last paragraph as a badge of honor, by the way. (And I believe "SC" means "Supreme Court.")

For those Catholics who still feel inclined to vote for Hillary, you might want to rethink your support for a candidate, a campaign, and an entire political party that directly, gleefully targets your own Mother. 

Answering "Choice" (who describes herself as "intolerant of intolerance, and proud of it")

This is long, but bear with me.


To understand what you are about to read, first go here and here. After Calah posted the shocking yet hopeful story of her first pregnancy, a woman named "Choice" came on to challenge her. So far so good. But it took a turn, and I have secured permission from Calah to respond here to some of Choice's comments, which I have reprinted below. Choice's words are in black, with my thoughts in blue italics:



My primary goal here is not to insult all of you [judging from what follows, might it have been your secondary goal?]; it is to provide a dissenting viewpoint that is too frequently lacking in these types of blogs. [What types of blogs are "these types of blogs"? Calah's blog is a personal blog, with her personal thoughts. She has lived both sides of the cultural divide, and she has come down on the side of Catholic wife and mom. As for dissenting viewpoints, we faithful Catholics live in a country that dissents from our viewpoints. Heck, even most American Catholics dissent from Church teaching. So, please don't worry that we are not exposed to dissenting viewpoints, as it's orthodox Catholic viewpoints that we rarely hear.]

If our deepest-held convictions go unquestioned and unchallenged, then we may as well forfeit our reasoning minds and walk this earth on autopilot. [If you are familiar with Catholic patrimony, then you know we adore questions, challenges, and reason. In fact, we believe that faith and reason are "like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth". We're the folks who founded the university system, after all. And we relish in philosophy, both pre-Christian (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) and Christian (Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, Newman, Chesterton, et al.). We also love science; it was from the heart of the Christian culture that the natural sciences were nourished and then flourished. Given all this, I can only imagine that you are confusing Catholics with anti-intellectual sects.]

Leila: Either life is sacred or it is not. Your distinction between human creations of God and non-human creations of God is arbitrary. [Actually, it's not arbitrary at all. There is a definite line between humans and other creatures. It's so clear and obvious that even my four-year-old can tell the difference between a human and a pig, or a human and a dog, or a human and a mosquito, or a human and a plant. Nothing arbitrary about it. To say it's arbitrary is like saying there is an "arbitrary" distinction between a horse and a tree.]

Why would God populate the earth with creatures, and decide that one species is sacred and others can be tortured and killed? (If you don't believe that the animals you eat for food are tortured, educate yourself and your loved ones on factory farming). [First, God does not want his creatures to be "tortured"; in fact, my Church teaches that animals are to be treated humanely. But yes, animals are here in the service of man. Man is the only creature on earth made in the image and likeness of God, with an intellect, a will, and an eternal soul. By the way, do you eat fruits and vegetables? If so, what right do you have? Why is your life superior to theirs?] 

I’m sure several of you will want to cite the Bible to disprove that argument, but save your breath. The Bible is not a source of evidence. It is a work of fiction [Do you have evidence of that?] written to influence the lives of religious constituents, in the pursuit of power and money. [Really? Who was pursuing the power (since most of the early Christian leaders were martyred during the time the New Testament was written and compiled; dead people don't have a lot of earthly power), and who's got the money?] I could no more sanely cite a Mother Goose tale as evidence for my arguments. [Thank goodness your primary intent is not to insult us. ;)]

In my opinion, the entire religion of Catholicism has served much more as a tool of imperialism than a guideline for moral living. [Then why does the Church have no army, and why does she still insist on teaching the highest moral code in the world, while the world mocks her for it?]

Have you ever wondered why the use of contraception is so strongly discouraged by the Catholic faith? [Why yes, I have! In fact, I've studied and taught that very subject for 15 years now, so I've gone past "wondering" about it.] It is not to respect the “sanctity of life,” or to keep intact the “holy act” of intercourse. [It's not?] Those are the feel-good reasons they have instilled in you to cover up the true and original intent of these rules. [This is new to me: A liberal claiming that Catholic sexual doctrine is couched in warm fuzzies? I thought your line about Catholic sex was that the Church is cruel and oppressive?] This stipulation of your faith was designated to increase the Catholic population. Think about it. [Because clearly I've never thought about any of this before...] A group of people [can you specify the group of people?] set out to utilize a religion to amalgamate and brainwash [!!!] their constituents.

But how to increase the likelihood that your religion and your brainwashing will be as effective and as widespread as possible? Simple. Teach them that they need to reproduce as many times as possible, and that any prevention of reproduction is a sin. Ta-da! Your numbers grow stronger and you gain more power. [Ah! The "breeding minions for the Pope" argument! Well, bummer, that's not been an effective strategy, since most Catholics use contraception happily and scoff at Church teaching (if they've ever even heard of it).]

If the Catholic church truly believed all human life to be sacred, would the Pope have sanctioned the Crusades? [To which of the eight crusades over hundreds of years are you referring, and do you know the differences among them?] Would it continue to wage war against homosexuality [Wait, "waging war"...you mean teaching that homosexual acts are sinful, but that homosexual men and women must be treated with full dignity?] when those efforts could be spent saving lives in third world countries? [Do you not realize how many Catholics are saving lives in the Third World and all over the globe? Who will fill the void if the Church goes away? Whose "efforts will be spent" running the soup kitchens, hospitals, homes for the dying, medical clinics, relief agencies, orphanages, schools, etc.? Will you and your friends give up your lives and step in if Catholic charities disappear?] 

There are so many holes in the Catholic ‘sanctity of life’ argument. “Life is sacred…unless it’s a different species…or a different religion….or people who think differently than we do. Then it’s okay to torture and kill.” [Can you please cite some official Church teaching on that? I've never seen it. It seems like you have very little information about what Catholicism actually teaches, but a lot of opinions.]

The bottom line is that this earth is as we see it. [Well, except for the parts that we don't see.] There is a lot of love, there is hatred, there is pain, and there is beauty. But we shouldn’t need some imaginary man in the sky or some sexually-repressed, oddly-outfitted man in Rome to tell us to live our lives as good people. [How do you know the pope is sexually repressed? Do you publicly say the same of celibate Buddhist monks, by the way? "Oddly-dressed"? This is the level of discourse you want to bring to the blogs of those you are trying to reach? I think Papal vestments rock, by the way.] Our relationships with others, our empathy, and our nature as human beings should encourage us to do so. [And yet somehow, humans still act barbarically.] Not because we fear eternal punishment or strive for eternal reward, but because being a decent person is the right way to live. [Says who? I thought godless evolution was about survival, not virtue or decency. Sometimes to survive, we must cheat, steal, lie and kill, correct? Besides, who defines what's "right"?] 

We are animals, just like any other, who reproduce because it is written in our genetic code (which there is actually proof of). [Yes, Catholics believe that God hardwired us to reproduce. With the added bonus that we can freely love, as an act of our will.] Life can be a beautiful thing, babies can grow up to be presidents or researchers or peacemakers. But life can also be painful and horrible. Babies can grow up to be criminals and rapists and serial killers. [True. Sin is a horrible thing, and we deal with the ugly effects of our own and others' sin all the time.] 

What about the millions of children starving and dying of preventative diseases all over the world? Why are you not campaigning to save their lives if life is, in fact, sacred? [What evidence do you have that I and my Church are not?] Why is your primary concern to get as many children into the world as possible [umm, it's not my primary concern, nor is it the Church's], when welfare programs are already spread too thin, there are already so many children living in squalor and poverty, and there are parents who abuse their kids? [Are you saying that because poverty and sin exist, we must agree that unborn children can be killed and discarded? How does that follow?] 

Why the focus on quantity, not quality? [I'm focused on "not killing innocent people" not "quantity". And sadly, "quality of life" has become a liberal buzz word for abortion, euthanasia, and eugenics in general, which deserves its own post.] How about instead of bringing more souls into the world, you adopt and care for those that are already in existence who desperately need love and assistance? [Clearly you don't know your audience. In the name of fairness, I invite you to read this recent post, which will teach you more about Catholic pro-lifers. Oh, and aside from what you will learn there, it's worth noting that conservatives are also consistently more generous than liberals in charity donations as well].

I would assert that your allowing these souls to suffer [I'm allowing it?] in order to produce children genetically related to you is just as disrespectful to the sanctity of life as a woman who chooses not to carry a pregnancy to term. [If you are equating the two, you are morally confused. You also don't realize how many of those in the "Catholic Bubble" have adopted children.]

If some superior being had wanted us to reproduce endlessly, he or she would have made the resources of this earth limitless to satisfactorily provide for all of those lives. [The resources of this world are plenty abundant to provide for all of humanity. Sin, corruption and misguided policy keeps resources from people.] But they are not, and we cannot all pop out one child after another without society and the earth at some point caving under the weight of this ceaseless breeding. [For more on the myth of "ceaseless breeding", go here for a quick primer.] This does not make me loveless; this makes my definition of love one based on reality rather than religion. [What is your definition of love? Go here for what other atheists told me about what love is for them.]

So go on living in your bubble and feeling all warm and fuzzy about the way you conduct your lives. [Actually, the lifelong struggle to live a virtuous Christian life requires great sacrifice and entails great suffering. However, the interior peace and joy is worth it.] Go on crusading [for] the thousands of unborn children who aren’t brought into this world every day [you mean, who are willfully killed by abortion], while you pay thousands of dollars every year to companies who torture and kill other of God’s “sacred” creatures for the sake of your taste buds. [First, we've covered that the Church does not sanction torture of man or beast. Second, animals are not "sacred". Third, humans are meat-eaters. I don't know if I can apologize for that?]

Keep telling yourselves that sex before marriage is okay as long as you hurry up and get married before the baby comes [I've never told myself that, and neither has the Church], that divorce is okay as long as you pay the church an adequate sum of money to pretend the marriage never existed [clearly you don't know the difference between divorce and annulment; even civil authorities make the distinction], that parts of the Bible are necessary for everyone to follow but others can be swept under the rug if they inconvenience you [Evidence? Examples? Make sure you know what you are talking about, or this could turn into a whole new post], that torturing and killing is okay as long as it’s a member of a species or a thought doctrine other than your own. [What's the obsession with torture? Sigh. Speaking of "sweeping under the rug" (or dumping in the trash) and "torturing and killing", could you go here and be the first pro-choicer on this blog with the integrity to defend what you see?] 

In short, keep living in your Catholic bubble if it’s too painful for you to think outside the brainwash that comes prefabricated in the neat and tidy package of religion. [Glad you are not trying to insult anyone. By the way, are you aware that most of the people you are talking to have already lived the life you advocate, and have come to the Church after living the Planned Parenthood way? We don't actually live in a bubble, but judging from the vast ignorance of all you've said, you just might.]

But keep your brainwash to yourselves and let the rest of us live as we see fit as well [except the innocent unborn, right?]. I will never protest your right to live your life as you please [Can the unborn have that right, too?]. Stop protesting my right to do the same (and yes, 'my life' includes my decision whether or not to bear children) [translation: "my decision whether or not to kill children". And FYI, my right to protest is protected under the First Amendment. Why do you demand that I stop protesting? I don't believe you have that right.].

+++++++

Choice, it is my hope that from here on in, you will speak less from ignorance and more from knowledge and truth. You claim to be "proud" of your "intolerance of intolerance", but to some of us it seems more like a convenient way of excusing your anti-Catholic bigotry (which is nothing new or enlightened) or your (willful?) ignorance about facts which are easily known if pursued. 


To my fellow Catholics and others of good will, I put Choice's words out there to show you, once again, the cultural divide. 


And though Choice called the following "vitriol", I will once again post the words which summarize exactly what you see going on here:





"The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe; they are intolerant in practice because they do not love." -- Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, OP


Read a follow-up conversation with "Choice", here.



.

Important follow-up to the Natural Family Planning post: "Isn't it the same as contraception?"

I can't believe I forgot to mention this in the Natural Family Planning post! There is one very common misunderstanding about NFP that comes in the form of a question like this:

"How is NFP different from contraception, since both of them are ways not to have a baby? I can't see a real difference, since the intention is the same: to prevent a pregnancy!"

The question assumes that avoiding pregnancy is inherently immoral according to the Catholic Church. But the Church does not teach this! In fact, it is not inherently immoral to avoid pregnancy.

The question is flawed because it forgets the distinction between the end (our intended goal) and the means (how we get to that goal).

For an act to be moral, both the end and the means must be moral.

The "end" in our particular question is "preventing pregnancy". That is the goal or intention, and it is not inherently evil. If serious reasons exist, a married couple is justified in postponing pregnancy, even indefinitely. So, in such a case, we've got a moral "end".

So far, so good!

But now what about the "means"?

Well, the means a couple uses to prevent pregnancy has to be moral, too. Like so many other things in life, we have a choice between moral and immoral ways to get to a good end. NFP is a moral means of preventing pregnancy, contraception is an immoral means of preventing pregnancy.

But why?

Well, because contraception fundamentally changes the very nature of sex. In some cases, the spouses' bodies themselves are altered through chemical or surgical means, and in other cases there is a literal, physical barrier put between husband and wife at the moment they are called to be united as "one flesh". Contraception subverts the inherent, purposeful connection between love and life (i.e., sex and procreation), and when those two dimensions of sex are artificially separated, the marital act itself becomes disordered. To deliberately sterilize the marital act is to strip it of its transcendence and meaning. Sex leaves the sacred and becomes common.

With NFP, by contrast, the spouses and the marital act remain untouched and unaltered. Husband and wife unite in love as they are designed, and fertility works within the rhythms that God (and Natural Law) intends. The integrity of the martial act is completely intact.

But wait! you might say. You are still manipulating the process by not having sex during times you might get pregnant! 

No, not manipulating. NFP users are working with the natural cycles of fertility and infertility that God Himself put in place. God could have chosen to make us fertile 100% of the time, but in fact He made us infertile the majority of the time. To prayerfully consider our situation and then avail ourselves of the naturally infertile times of a woman's cycle does not disrespect God's design or the Natural Law.

Remember, choosing to abstain from sex is not a sin. However, choosing to take the pleasure of sex while willfully disconnecting it from its full meaning is a sin.

This analogy may help:

Trixie and Pixie both want to lose weight. Losing weight is not inherently sinful, and can be a good goal.

Trixie's means to that end? She practices self-control and sacrifice by eating healthier meals and smaller portions, and even fasting for a time.

Pixie's means to that end? She eats all she wants, in any portion, heavy on the sweets and treats. Each time she is done indulging her palate, she retreats to the bathroom where she sticks her finger down her throat and vomits it all back up.

I hope we all can agree that Trixie's means of losing weight is moral and ordered, while Pixie's means of losing weight is immoral and disordered.

Bulimia contradicts the body's design by accepting the pleasure of eating, but willfully thwarting its life-giving purpose.

Contraception contradicts the body's design by accepting the pleasure of sex, but willfully thwarting its life-giving purpose.

Natural Family Planning is a good means to a good end, thus is ordered and moral.

Contraception? It's just sexual bulimia.



_______

Related Post: My NFP Plea: Stop Giving Warnings, and Rejoice!

Answering L, for clarity's sake

An anonymous commenter known as "L" left a comment yesterday that I thought was worthy of its own post, as it covered many topics that begged to be addressed. 


Her comments are in red italics.


I agree with college student about sex since the beginning of time and will one up that with "read up on human history." After all it was a long, long time ago that the Catholic Church itself was waffling on the sticky issue of "ensoulment" (for college student, this was the notion that a fetus did not have a soul until 40 days gestation for a male or 90 days for a female... because the church, like most folks at the time, did not see females as equal.) 


L, thank you so much for this opportunity to publicly correct this very common error. The issue of "ensoulment" was a theological concept, a pondering put forward by theologians at the time. There was never a time when the Catholic Church condoned abortion. The Church, regardless of the "ensoulment" discussion, has always and everywhere taught that abortion is an inherent evil. Moral truth does not change. 


Has there been sexism in the Church through the ages? Because her members are human, and sinners, yes. There have been sinners of every stripe in the Church, as much yesterday as today. To read what Pope John Paul had to say about sexism and the dignity of women in general, please read his Letter to Women. If you truly desire the Catholic response to this concern, it's worth your time.


Some Popes denounced any abortion regardless and some said it was okay as long as they did it before ensoulment. 


Some popes "said it was okay"? When you make a statement like that, you really need to cite your evidence. The truth is that no pope ever -- at any time, in any era -- taught that abortion was okay.

There have always been drugs, teas, tinctures to induce abortions - even hundreds of years ago. It is WELL DOCUMENTED. 


You are absolutely correct. Not only has abortion existed hundreds of years ago, but thousands of years ago. Catholicism has stood against abortion since Christ founded the Church over two thousand years ago; after all, abortion (and infanticide) was quite common in pagan Rome. No one on this blog, nor any Catholic I know, would dispute the fact that abortion has always existed. Murder, rape, theft, lying, cheating, and myriad other sins have also always existed. There is no new sin under the sun.


Ever since men have had the upper-hand over women, there has always been rape, incest, domination and subjugation throughout history. But here, in modern times we have a voice to say "NO MORE."


The wording here makes me think of the first part of this story. You are correct that sinful men have oppressed (and continue to oppress) women. Rape, domination, and subjugation are evil and unjust, and I thank God that we live in a nation where we do have a voice to fight that evil and assert our innate human dignity. If you "read up on human history" (to borrow your words), you will see that Western civilization has provided women the greatest freedom and dignity, as well as the loudest voice with which to oppose misogyny. In most cultures outside of Western civilization, women are still systematically and/or legally dominated, subjugated, dehumanized, raped and even murdered. I encourage you to investigate why Western civilization has been so good for women, while other civilizations have continued to oppress and misuse them.

What about suffrage? Thank you feminists. NOt Being the PROPERTY (not partner) of one's husband? Thank you feminists. Being able to breastfeed in public? Thank you feminists.


Oh, how I love the suffragists! Thank you, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Victoria Woodhull, Sarah Norton, and so many other strong, courageous women! The early feminists knew that the violence of abortion was a crime against both women and children and an affront to human dignity. Their stories are compelling and inspiring, and I join you in lauding these amazing women.


Now, "women as property" is a non-Christian concept, as the dignity, equality, and partnership of spouses is made clear from the beginning: 

1605 Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone." The woman, "flesh of his flesh," i.e., his counterpart, his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a "helpmate"; she thus represents God from whom comes our help. 

1662 Marriage is based on the consent of the contracting parties, that is, on their will to give themselves, each to the other, mutually and definitively, in order to live a covenant of faithful and fruitful love.  [Catechism of the Catholic Church]

Breastfeeding, in public or otherwise? You've come to the right place! God Himself designed breastfeeding, which is so beautiful that it's actually theological: 

…[Breastfeeding] benefits the child and helps to create the closeness and maternal bonding so necessary for healthy child development.  So human and natural is this bond that the Psalms use the image of the infant at its mother’s breast as a picture of God’s care for man.... [Pope John Paul II's Address on Breastfeeding, 1995]

So, thanks be to God for breastfeeding! And thank you to the seven courageous and devout Catholic mothers who founded the La Leche League in 1956 to support nursing moms when the rest of society had turned to bottle feeding. Even if modern feminism never existed, Catholics are all over breastfeeding.



You may hate contraception and abortion and the using of sex as a cheap way to fill carnal and sinful desires (secular people don't like a lot of this lifestyle either) But stop with blaming feminism. 


I hope you are correct that secular people don't like that lifestyle either. But what part of  secular/liberal philosophy will lead to the cessation of that lifestyle? Can you show me in feminist literature where the "free love" mindset is being fought against or repudiated? Help me understand why modern feminist thought is not an accessory to the sexual mess we find ourselves in today.


Stay out of FoxNews type talking points. 


That came seemingly out of the blue! But let's address it: Fox News talking points on what? Contraception? I have never heard a FoxNews reporter or commentator oppose contraception. I assume they use contraception at the same rate as the general public. In fact, I remember when Sean Hannity (a Catholic) fought on air with a priest, vehemently defending his own use of contraception!


Or perhaps you believe that Fox News has talking points in defense of Catholic moral teaching? It's quite the opposite. Bill O'Reilly (a Catholic) has bashed John Paul II and the Church's teachings on sex more times than I care to remember. I was so offended that I stopped watching Fox News for years because of it. Fox News is most definitely not a mouthpiece for the Catholic Church.


These are effects of the human condition, they don't exist because some women don't want to get pregnant and take a pill to keep from doing so. 


You are absolutely right that sin is part of the human condition, a result of the Fall. And as we humans have the strong tendency to be drawn toward sin (virtue ain't easy!), any mindset or philosophy that facilitates or encourages sin is best avoided. There are better alternatives, which keep us happy and healthy.  :)



L, in conclusion, I can't assume that your misrepresentation of the Catholic Church is due to bigotry or malice, so I will assume it's just that you didn't know. I like your passion, I think we do have points of agreement, and I do hope that you will continue to comment. However, if you are going to make your case against Catholicism, please check Catholic sources to make sure you first understand what Catholics believe. That way the debate is fair and honest, and readers can see both sides presented with integrity. I truly appreciate it.

“The truth is, of course, that the curtness of the Ten Commandments is an evidence, not of the gloom and narrowness of a religion, but, on the contrary, of its liberality and humanity. It is shorter to state the things forbidden than the things permitted: precisely because most things are permitted, and only a few things are forbidden.”  

G.K. Chesterton

Sophie and others: Am I being unclear?

I admit confusion and frustration. There is a pattern happening with several readers, and I am not sure why it's as common as it is.


To understand what I am going to say next, please go to this post, then scroll down and read Sophie's first comment from February 3, at 3:24pm. Then read all subsequent comments up to the point of her exit from the conversation.


Done? Okay....


Please note that either I or another commenter addressed each of her questions. We did not ignore her points nor did we scoff at them and then refuse to answer. We even addressed her points when she changed the subject.


It's (now familiar) exchanges like those that make me scratch my head. 


Specifically, let's look at the way it ended:


Sophie (not to be confused with Sophie Fletcher) said:


Reading through previous posts, it's obvious that your requests for debate are purely rhetorical. Little Catholic Bubble is a perfect description of the site. The wider world's ethical and medical views are simply ignored. I can't see the point in requesting comments when you have no interest in anyone's views but your own.


I responded: 


As for whether or not I want to hear other opinions on the blog, I have said this before: I never censor what the other side says. You can put your best case out there, and I will put my best case out there. We let the readers decide. I don't know why that translates to "The wider world's ethical and medical views are simply ignored. I can't see the point in requesting comments when you have no interest in anyone's views but your own." I am allowing you free rein to give your side of things. So, I am very confused about why you say it's being ignored here in the Bubble? Help?


And then I added:


Sophie, right at the top of my blog, there is a link to "A Welcome to Liberals" [This is now under "Please Read First"]. Here is part of what it says, just so that we are clear:

Dear liberals/leftists/secularists/atheists:

You are welcome in the Bubble! In fact, I encourage your comments and perspective. I will give you a fair hearing, I will not misrepresent you, and I will remain respectful in my questioning and responses. I often use Dennis Prager's saying, "I prefer clarity to agreement," and I really mean it.

You should know up front that I do not dialogue in order to reach "consensus." Some issues can't be reconciled. I dialogue so that we can have clarity about what each of us believes, which facilitates understanding but not necessarily agreement. It also allows readers to see both sides presented, and from there they can form their own opinions.

If you do not enjoy being challenged in your philosophy, if you do not like being pressed to go further, if you do not like questions (and more questions), then this is not the forum for you. But if you like a Socratic-type dialogue, then make yourself right at home here in the Bubble!

Sophie's response? More skirting of the question, and insults: 

Leila: As I observed previously, Little Catholic Bubble is exactly that. It's Catholic propaganda on fertility issues. As a non-Catholic I find some of the content rather creepy and bizarre.

There's no place here for anyone who doesn't accept your core values, so I'm not surprised few dissenters take up your "challenge". What would be the point? My own participation was clearly a waste of of my time.

Thankfully, outside the bubble, you're not getting much of an audience even among Catholics. Most Catholics here use contraception, and many have abortions. I'd be surprised if the same wasn't true in the US.

Disappointed, but used to this pattern by now, I answered:

Sophie, so basically you avoided the questions.

Blessings to you, and you are always welcome here.

And therein lies my confusion. What did Sophie think going in? That I would change my mind and discover that abortion is a good, or at least agree that both sides can be "right"? 

That's not what this blog is about. I won't be changing my mind on moral truth, and I do not expect that Sophie will change her mind either. However, I did expect an honest dialogue, with reasonable questions answered, not skirted. 

It's not as if I have misrepresented my viewpoint. This blog is clearly marked as a Catholic site, and whoever visits can see immediately that I uphold the teachings of the Church. Nevertheless, I invite persons of any and all beliefs to make their case to the readers, through debate and discussion. We dissect ideas here; we do not cast aspersions and run as soon as we face a difficult question.

Anyway, as a preventative measure, I have revamped my banner links. I would love any feedback on the "Please Read First" link: Is it clear? Does it leave any doubt or ambiguity about what we do on this site?

Thanks for your thoughts.

+++++++

News note: For anyone still following the Planned Parenthood underage sex trafficking scandals, yet another disturbing video has been released, this time from New York, showing two PP employees more than happy to aid and abet child sex slavery. Time to yank taxpayer funding yet?

Not your average "pro-choicers"

Jen at Conversion Diary attended the Walk for Life West Coast last weekend in San Francisco, and I was fascinated by the photos she posted of the "pro-choice" counter-protesters (who were a tiny handful compared to the throngs of pro-lifers).

Now, I realize it's San Francisco and all, but I am interested in the average liberal's reaction to the following pictures, which Jen was kind enough to permit me to use:

The generous use of sacrilege, via anti-Christian signs and open mockery of Christian symbols, is clearly an important tactic for these folks as they show their support for abortion.

This sign was so offensive that I took Jen's cue and obscured part of it. Note the upside-down cross on the women's face who is holding the sign.

The elaborate costumes and disguises are interesting.... It reminds me more of a gay pride parade than a pro-abortion protest.

How terribly heartbreaking to see a young girl dressed up in costume and holding an anti-Catholic sign. Children are naturally pro-life, so I can only imagine what this girl has been told about the need to terminate the unborn.

In case you think that all "pro-choicers" want abortion to be rare, please note that this man's "halo" reads, Thank God for abortion. Many others wore the same sign. Again, the message on the banner was so vulgar that I have obscured it.

What you can't see in these disturbing photos is what Jen saw in real life: "Some of them put on little impromptu plays where they’d pretend to be Jesus or Mary and pantomime lurid sexual acts, shouting profanity-laden narration all the while."

Sigh.

When I got past my initial revulsion of it all, including the outrageous (but expected) anti-Catholic bigotry, I was left with a deep sense of sadness for these people. Despite the exaggerated display of "happiness" you find on some of their faces as they mock the pro-life marchers (check the first three photos), they are clearly deeply troubled souls. My heart goes out to them. There's a lot more I want to say about that, but I will just suggest that they need our love and prayers.

Meanwhile, here are some questions that come to mind, and I welcome the thoughts of any atheists/secularists who want to help me understand:

1) Why do you think that this largely homosexual group is so invested in abortion rights? What is the connection?

2) What do you think of the anti-Catholic bigotry that you see on display here?  (Or, do you even see bigotry?)

3) Do you think this is a fringe group of "pro-choicers" and do you denounce their tactics? Or are you proud to have them courageously carrying the "pro-choice" banner for the rest of you?

Please feel free to answer any or all, or add your own thoughts and comments.

Thanks!

How do the media know so little about Catholicism?

It's not like Catholicism is a new religion. It's not like the teachings of the Church cannot easily be found. It's not like a reporter couldn't pick up a Catechism as a reference, or search the Internet for official Church statements, or even pick up the phone and call the local Catholic diocese, whose staff is always ready to help.

And yet the other day, I'm happily reading an AP news story* about the upcoming beatification of Pope John Paul II, and I trip over this:

Once he is beatified, John Paul will be given the title “blessed” and can be publicly venerated, or worshipped. Many people, especially in Poland, already venerate him privately, but the ceremony will allow Catholics to publicly worship him.  [Emphasis mine.]

This level of cultural illiteracy reminds me of the other times I've witnessed the media completely blow it when it comes to Catholicism.

For example, I'll never forget the night I was watching my local TV news a few years back (the NBC affiliate), when a story came on about the possibility of the Pope officially defining Our Lady as the "Mediatrix of All Graces" (a legitimate title for her). I about fell over when the anchor said that the Catholic Church was considering making Mary a "fourth person of the Holy Trinity"!!!!!**

Catholics (or anyone who knows a lick about Christianity), can you imagine?!

I was flabbergasted. This was a respected news station! How did this get by all of them? How could they not stop and think for one moment that the Church cannot simply decide one day to elevate a creature to the Godhead? How does such a thing even enter the radar screen of possibilities? I ran to my husband and screamed! (Yes, I was worked up, ha ha ha!) I thought of the Protestants out there, the evangelicals who already erroneously think we "worship" Mary, and I imagined all of them saying, "Aha! We knew those Catholics think that Mary is God!" Ugh!

Fast forward a few months, and the same news channel has another report about the Catholic Church. A married man was to be ordained a Catholic priest, and the anchor stated that for the very first time, the Catholic Church would allow the ordination of a married man to the priesthood! I ran to Dean again, flabbergasted.... Where were the fact-checkers? There have been married priests since the beginning of Christianity: In the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, ordination of married men is still the norm, and although celibacy is required of priests in the Latin Rite, dispensations are given occasionally (i.e., when married Anglican clergy convert to Catholicism). In fact, we had at least one married Roman Catholic priest in my diocese at the time of that local news story!

After the "first married priest ever!" story, I did contact the news station and asked about the blunder. The anchor wrote back and apologized, saying that his producer -- who was a Catholic -- cleared the story. (Yet another example of why I want this to be a teaching blog, primarily for Catholics!)

I know that this sort of misrepresentation of the Catholic Faith goes on all the time. Sometimes it's deliberate, but I would like to think that most of the time it's not. However, the fact remains that the regular media do not generally take the time to research and report accurately when discussing Catholicism, and yet accurate reporting and fact-checking is the crux of a journalist's job! I don't expect the general public to know what the Church teaches, but the failure of the media to accomplish what is essentially their only task reinforces my growing belief that mainstream journalism is useless.

As Paul Thigpen said after the rush of "Pope Approves Condoms!" headlines:

"I've often said that if a sports reporter was as clueless about his subject as the typical religion reporter is about his, he couldn't keep his job for a week."

Nicely said.

* The linked article has since been modified or replaced, so the above statement no longer exists in this form. This could be a result of the emails some of us sent to AP.

** I seriously try not to overuse exclamation points, but this was warranted!!!!!!!!

Sterilization: Is it getting "fixed" or getting broken?

I've promised a contraception post for a long time.

For the moment, let's forget about condoms, diaphragms, spermicides, birth control pills, birth control patches, birth control rings, birth control sponges, birth control implants, birth control injections, IUDs... and whatever other contraceptives I am forgetting (I am sure the scientists are working on more ways to thwart fertility as we speak!).

Let's start with an easy one: Surgical sterilization.

Specifically, vasectomies and tubal ligations.

First, some background. When my husband and I were first married, we wanted approximately two children. Maybe three, but that was pushing it. We liked the first two so much that I talked him into number three (and quickly at that, so that we could be free to "have fun and travel in our forties" -- ha ha ha!).

After number three, it was time to get serious about getting sterile. My husband and I had agreed that he would get a vasectomy. I joked to friends that I surely wouldn't be the one getting sterilized because "it was against my religion [Catholic] but not his [agnostic Jew]!" As a lapsed Catholic at the time, I guess I thought that was pretty clever.

But a funny thing happened on the way to our "planned barrenhood": We both had profound conversions of heart. And one of the easiest things to see when we took the secular blinders off was the immorality of surgical sterilization. What once seemed responsible now seemed perverse.

Think about what surgical sterilization is: It's the deliberate mutilation of healthy organs.

Even from a secular standpoint, the very concept should be repellent: Paying a doctor (a healer!) to cut up, burn, disconnect, or otherwise destroy healthy organs, for the express purpose of destroying their normal, healthy functioning. In other words, there is nothing wrong with Jane's reproductive organs; in fact, they are working as designed (this is called "health"). But Jane will pay someone to go in to surgically mutilate her organs so that they don't work as they are intended to work. From a Natural Law standpoint, this is clearly disordered.

What an irony that we call this getting "fixed" when we're literally getting broken.

Now, this is a bit more painful, but let's look at it from a Christian standpoint: We know that our bodies are "fearfully and wonderfully made" by the Lord, and that we are temples of the Holy Spirit. The gift and blessing of fertility is mind-boggling in its goodness. In giving us the gift and blessing of our fertility, God has designed us to bring forth His children. What an unspeakable honor, of which we are not and could never be worthy! And yet instead of being awestruck with gratitude or even trembling in reverence for the gift and blessing of fertility, most Christians see no problem with taking this most precious gift and destroying it without a thought. (As one now-regretful Christian  friend told me, "I tied my tubes without batting an eye." She is much older now, and it's one of her two biggest regrets in life -- the second being not throwing out her TV.)

Please understand.... I don't think that most Christians intend to throw the gift of fertility back in God's face when they sterilize themselves, and I could never weigh in on the culpability of any individual. Our culture long ago replaced the Judeo-Christian view of sexuality with the Planned Parenthood view, so the confusion is understandable, if tragic.

But if we step back and give it a moment's thought, the truth should hit each Christian like a ton of bricks. God did not make a mistake when He designed our bodies. His design for our bodies, and for bringing His children to life, was perfect and deliberate. To reject it, to take a healthy body and willfully destroy its most incredible function, should be unthinkable.




Related: The Day the Air Conditioner Tech Told Me He Got "Fixed"






.

Answer to DQS and Grand Prize Winner!!

I'm back with the answer to the Doctrinal Quiz Show, Church History Edition! Once again, I am quite impressed with the answers!

Here was the question I posed:

Over the past 2,000+ years, the Church has held many councils (i.e., gatherings of the world's bishops, often called "ecumenical councils"). These councils have been convened to combat heresy and define doctrine, among other things. Can you name the first two Church councils and the last two Church councils? For an extra edge toward the Grand Prize, please state the approximate date of each council and one major issue that was on the table.

And, here's how I would have answered it (keeping in mind that answers could vary and still get points):

The first Church council (some of you smarty-pants noticed that I gave a little leeway... not all were "ecumenical" councils) was the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). It occurred in the First Century (probably around the year 50 A.D.) The major issue was whether much of the Mosaic Law (such as circumcision) would be required of Gentile converts. In other words, would Gentile converts to Christianity have to become Jewish first? Peter and the other bishops, guided by the Holy Spirit, declared that the answer was no.

The second Church council (and the first "ecumenical" council) was the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. The Church was combating the Arian heresy and needed to make very clear the nature of Christ's divinity and His relationship to the Father. From this council we received the Nicene Creed, which is still recited every Sunday at Mass after the homily.

The second most recent ecumenical council was the First Vatican Council ("Vatican I"), in 1869-1870. One major issue was the definition of Papal Infallibility.

The most recent ecumenical council was the Second Vatican Council ("Vatican II"), from 1962-1965. One major issue addressed was the liturgy. Another was the Church's relationship to the modern world.

Now, as for the scoring.... There was a maximum possible score of 12 points (three points for each council: one for naming the council, one for giving the approximate date, one for naming a major issue). Mrs. Blondies, Lisa Graas, JoAnna, R.J. Grigaitis, A Martha Trying to Be Mary, and Ruby -- you all did a great job and were in the running! But someone smoked you all, and we'll get to that in a minute.

In the meantime, here are the rest of the Bubble Awards!

The Not Only Were You in the Running, But You Might Have Won If You Weren't Such a Bundle of Nerves, Because I *Think* Your Date for Nicea Was a Typo Award goes to.... Ruby!!

The Expressed Incredulity With a Tinge of Smart-Mouth But it Totally Cracked Me Up Because I Know You Meant it in Love Award goes to.... Sew!! (Sew, just because you are you, you must have about ten Bubble Awards by now. I hope you have a big shelf for them all!)

The I Am Shocked But Consoled That an RCIA Class Actually Taught Such Things Award goes to.... Allie!!

The Okay, Fine, I Will Give You an Award For Answering First Award goes to.... Mary!!

(For those of you who are recent additions to the Bubble and haven't heard my awards disclaimer: I would love to continue handing out awards to everyone, but we do not use the liberal model here, and so not everyone will get an award, even if you are a good person and had a clever answer. Not getting an award will not harm you permanently, and it will help build your character.)

Now, finally, the GRAND PRIZE WINNER and winner of Jay Groft's newly released, beautiful Christmas CD goes to....

K!!!!

Not only does K win the CD (email me and I'll have it sent out to you!), but also the coveted Bubble Award Icon which can be used to win friends and influence people: 

Great, great job, K!!!!!

Good-night everyone, and be sure to join us next time for.... DOCTRINAL QUIZ SHOW!!!!

The Pope is not as powerful as you think.

Many people believe that the pope wields a strong and potentially tyrannical power over his flock. The concept of an infallible teacher leads them to imagine a dictator (even if benevolent) who can force doctrines upon Catholics at whim, leaving the faithful either a) anxious and uncertain about what dogmatic changes will come next to disturb their lives, or b) ready to run like lemmings off whatever cliff the Supreme Pontiff decides to lead them. Sure, maybe the current pope is mentally and emotionally stable, but what of the next? And the next? Think of the havoc he could wreak! Who in his right mind would put his life under the pope's authority?

In reality, however, the pope is not quite as powerful as one might think.

For example:

They say: "The pope has forbidden Catholics to use contraception!"

The reality is: For twenty centuries, the Church has taught that contraception is wrong. No pope in any era has the authority or power to reverse a teaching of the Deposit of Faith.

They say: "The pope won't allow women to become priests!"

The reality is: For twenty centuries, the Church has never admitted women to the priesthood. No pope in any era has the authority or power to reverse a teaching of the Deposit of Faith.

They say: "The pope says women can't have abortions under any circumstances!"

The reality is: For twenty centuries, the Church has taught that any and all abortions are intrinsically evil (even when there's been debate over the issue of "ensoulment"). No pope in any era has the authority or power to reverse a teaching of the Deposit of Faith.

They say: "The pope won't approve pre-marital sex or homosexual activity!"

The reality is: For twenty centuries, the Church has taught that sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage is gravely sinful. No pope in any era has the authority or power to reverse a teaching of the Deposit of Faith.

They say: "The pope won't let people defraud the poor!"

Wait... what? The Church-bashers don't take issue with that part of the Catholic Faith? Well then, they might be happy to hear this:

For twenty centuries, the Church has taught that defrauding the poor is evil. No pope in any era has the authority or power to reverse a teaching of the Deposit of Faith.

Are you seeing a pattern here?

The pope has no power to change the Deposit of Faith. None. Nada. Zip and zilch. He can't change the moral law. He can't change the tenets of the Creed. He can't touch the truths of faith and morals because he has no authority to do so. 

As my friend Kim relates in her conversion story (a must read!), infallibility doesn't give a pope carte blanche to invent any doctrine he wants to make up; instead, infallibility is actually a highly limiting doctrine. Jesus' teachings are preserved and protected, leaving them intact throughout the centuries.

And our dear pope, thank God, is powerless to change a single truth.