FOX NEWS

Friday, November 4, 2011

SOCIAL INJUSTICE: CCHD CORRUPTION EXPOSED BY REAL CATHOLIC TV



To see the documentation for the charges leveled in the show above click here.
Posted by Catawissa Gazetteer at 6:45 AM
Labels:

12 comments:

  1. AnonymousNovember 5, 2011 at 6:57 PM

    I watched quite a lot of this, but its the first few seconds that stumped me. How is contraception and gay sex evil again? It just strikes me a something that makes people happy, not an evil.

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousNovember 5, 2011 at 6:57 PM

    Ah, I need approval apparently. Well, feel free to reply without posting my question if it helps you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Catawissa GazetteerNovember 5, 2011 at 7:56 PM

    Sorry about the approval thing. Too much Chinese porn tried to get through. I put up just about anything anyone sends me.

    Without getting into a long drawn out argument, mainly because I had a tooth pulled and it's infected and I just don't feel up to it, here's the short answer: Firstly, both contraception and gay sex are forbidden in the Tradition of the Church and in the Bible. I'm Catholic so I follow and accept the authority of the Church. My acceptance of Church authority is based on reason and logic first with faith entering the picture after reason was satisfied.

    Secondly, both offend the natural law. The primary, but not only, purpose of sex is procreation. Any sexual activity not open to the creation of life frustrates the primary purpose of sex. Neither gay sex nor the use of contraception allows for the creation of life. Masturbation is forbidden for the same reason.

    Finally, just the fact that some activity makes someone happy does not mean that the activity is morally acceptable. Some derive great joy from theft, murder, adultery and on and on. Would you argue that these should be accepted as a good just because they make someone happy?

    The best I can do for you right now is suggest that you do some reading on natural law. You might also, if you're so inclined, grab a copy of the Catechism. If you read it check the footnotes and read the source material.

    Sorry for not being more expressive but damn this tooth hurts!

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousNovember 6, 2011 at 10:28 AM

    I think that if what you do makes you happy but also doesn't in turn make someone else unhappy or hurt then it is fine. For instance (and I'm not gay myself) but 2 gay men in a consensual relationship seems pretty fine to me. Who are they hurting? I think the church needs to get a bit more up to date and try to become more accepting. I mean, for this video to start by condemning gay sex and contraception seems a bit extreme.

    As you say the primary reason for sex is procreation but what about if you want to have sex but for other reasons, not the primary one. Then contraception is a great idea! As it reduces the number of abortions.

    Also, I can understand the reason male masturbation is 'forbidden' (spilling the seed, etc) but what about female. If anything studies have shown that females who do masturbate are actually more fertile then females who don't. Same goes for males as they have more productive and healthier sperm. However, the reasoning for all of that involves evolution and I'm not sure how you feel about that topic.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Catawissa GazetteerNovember 6, 2011 at 11:37 AM

    Up to date or accepting really doesn't have anything to do with Church teaching. The question should be whether it is objectively true or not. Nothing else matters.

    The question of whether or not two consenting adults having homosexual sex is harmful is rather broad. If one accepts the natural law then one is bound to believe that some harm is done. Perhaps it isn't obvious but the harm may exist none the less. Further, there is a good deal of evidence that homosexual sex carries with it risk levels much greater than heterosexual sex (http://bit.ly/994aVL). I'm not saying that the article I've linked to is completely accurate or the final word on the subject. I'm just using it to illustrate the point that homosexual sex may indeed, by its very nature, be quite harmful, regardless of consent.

    In Catholicism it is perfectly acceptable to have sex for any number of reasons as long as the sex is within marriage and it is open to life. Sex is quite important in my marriage, even though we're both old and beyond the point of procreation being possible, at least in medical terms. However, all that being said, every sexual act must be open to life for that's its primary purpose.

    Here's a terribly weak analogy for you. The primary purpose of a Prius is to provide efficient transportation on paved surfaces. Now, this doesn't mean it won't run on gravel roads or maybe down an old logging road. It just might. However, because it wasn't intended for off road use, and even though it's possible to take it off road, the chances are it's going to be damaged or broken.

    People are the same way. We may believe we can fly and we may consent to step off the cliff on the strength of our beliefs but it won't take but a handful of seconds to realize that the natural law applies to us, regardless of how we feel about it. Gravity works.

    As far as evolution goes I don't have real strong opinion. There is a bunch of evidence but no real, unquestionable truth that Darwin was right. However it all happened, I believe God caused it. I do believe in intelligent design. Evolution could have played a role, but not in a Darwinian sense. And I always have to wonder where all the transitional fossils are? I've never seen, outside of a fantasy drawing in a classroom, any real, provable trail of evolution.

    But I suppose we all have to have faith in something and we have the freedom to choose so like I said, I don't really have a dog in this fight.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yahoobuckaroo's BlogNovember 6, 2011 at 11:45 PM

    As you now, you couldn't pay me to watch RCTV, but reading through the comments, there's one medical fact that seems to fly in the face of church teaching (almost any church) pertaining to abstinence for unmarried people, and that's the fact that the act of sex produces more testosterone in men and women both, and testosterone is an essential component of the immune system. To tell people not to have sex unless they’re married is detrimental to their health. This doesn’t make sense to me. With most of the laws throughout the bible concerning human health such as dietary laws and laws about washing and cleansing, they seem to be things that would make people healthier. But this one law the modern church has come up with about unmarrieds not being allowed to procreate (or have any kind of sex at all) seems to go against the grain. Of course there is no such law in the bible. There IS one passage in the OT about a virgin girl being violated that sounds as though it may pertain to premarital sex, but it can be interpreted differently. Otherwise there’s nothing in the bible about the subject.

    Obviously there are laws in the bible about homosexuality, but I don’t really need a book to tell something is stupid when I see it. And maybe that’s the biggest argument against it. It’s too dumb an act for the human animal to engage in. Like dancing. Or playing golf. Or going to the opera. Yeah, definitely the opera.

    I like the car analogy myself.

    Try the old fashioned teabag remedy on your tooth. I mean hole. If nothing else, it will at least take the swelling down.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Catawissa GazetteerNovember 7, 2011 at 6:33 AM

    As you know, the Catholic Church doesn't derive its authority from the Bible. So, as long as a Church teaching doesn't contradict the Bible (truth cannot contradict truth)it doesn't need to be found IN the Bible.

    Most of what the Church teaches about sex outside of marriage comes from the Magisterium. It's teachings are derived from natural law, scriptures, Tradition and, it seems to me, just plain common sense. In other words, its basis is philosophical, not scriptural.

    Here's Aquinas' take on it from the Summa: http://bit.ly/uSBzm8

    It seems to me, and let's keep in mind I'm just an old carpenter typing at the kitchen table, that the teaching on sex outside marriage comes from the logical outcome of a group of other teachings. The Church teaches that the primary purpose of sex is procreation and that all sexual activity must be open to life. She also teaches, and common sense and experience tells us this is true, that children need to be raised inside a family. So, if the end purpose of sex is to create kids then that sex better be inside a marriage. The Church and the Bible also have quite a bit to say about fornication and adultery, two issues that can be easily addressed through marriage and chastity inside the marriage vows.

    Just look at the cluster we have today with the insane out of wedlock birthrate and all the problems it creates. I know how difficult this is because my granddaughter was born out of wedlock and it's been a struggle for my daughter and her.

    The Church also teaches that the basic unit of society and government is the family, composed of a man and wife and their children. Without this basic unit as a foundation society will collapse. Again, just look at the inner cities today with their complete breakdown of the family leading to the complete breakdown of the community.

    I guess what I'm getting at is that while what you say about the health aspects of sexual activity may be true, and the Church probably wouldn't argue with them if they are, physical sexual activity cannot be separated from the spiritual aspects that seems to be part and parcel of the experience. I remember reading somewhere that sex creates a chemical reaction in the brain that creates a bond between the people involved in the act. The article went on to say that this effect will begin to disappear over time if one has multiple sexual partners. It seems to me that, if I'm remembering this correctly, this is some indication that we may be designed to live a chaste life, keeping sexual activity within the marital framework because doing so will create a physical/spiritual bond between husband and wife that just might strengthen them against all the problems that beat a marriage around.

    Which makes me wonder if the rise in the divorce rate that seemed to coincide with the sexual revolution isn't somehow tied back to this simple chemical reaction, or lack of it due to the abuse of chastity.

    Maybe God has a plan and maybe His Church is trying to get us to see it.

    By the way, it sure is nice to be able to talk about this stuff without everybody yelling at each other which is what seems to generally happen in the comment section. We CAN all have differences of opinion without beating each other over the head.

    I'll give the tea bag a try. Hell, I'm starting to feel like the home remedy poster boy. You wouldn't believe the crap I've been putting in my mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yahoobuckaroo's BlogNovember 7, 2011 at 1:08 PM

    As to whether more harm than good comes from having unmarried sex, I’m sure that overall it does more harm for the majority of us, mentally; spiritually; and physically. The one caveat might be masturbation. Yeah, they told us we’d go blind when we were kids, but the fact is that it does indeed help the body to produce more testosterone, which is a good thing, and doesn’t subject the individual to diseases. There may be some kinds of psychological harm being done by it, but it pales by comparison to the harm done by a cheating spouse, and there’s an awful lot of the latter in the world. Worse yet, our spouse may cheat on us and subject us to a terrible disease, something the young masturbators don’t have to worry about.

    But let’s talk about abstinence more. Your church may say one thing, but the bible talks ambiguously about this. On the one hand it certainly praises those who stay single (although I don’t think we can assume abstinent), while St. Paul encourages procreation between married couples, but he does so in order to keep each from being tempted into some kind of sexual sin. Suppose both the husband and wife had no trouble in that regard though and could both remain completely abstinent with little difficulty. Would they both be better off to do so? There are non-canonical books that say so. Both the Acts of Peter and the Acts of Thomas say this outright. According to the latter along with legends, it was a big part of the ministry of Thomas to preach abstinence among married couples. Once you’ve had your kids, he says to stop sexual activities. This got him in some trouble with a king when the king’s wife decided to heed the apostle’s teachings.

    There’s also the mystical aspect to the subject. Nearly all mystical writings, including the mystical Catholic writers (I’m reading Teresa of Avilla’s autobiography right now), advocate abstinence from sex as something important to one who is applying him/herself to the mystical life. Some have even claimed a great spiritual power that comes by giving up the gift of sex. So you trade one gift that’s considered somewhat base for a greater one which might manifest itself in various ways including the working of miracles. CS Lewis’ friend Charles Williams had a novel (his first one) called Shadows of Ecstasy that was about a man who had followed a mystical path all his life and was a very powerful being who even commanded the elements to some degree, and much of his power came by way of his never having “known a woman.” You’ll find several mystical texts like this.

    We ask our children to abstain from sex; perhaps we’d be better off setting an example in that regard ourselves? Don’t know for sure, but I think it’s a legitimate question. I know that I believe the whole world admires virginity. They’ll smart off and tell you otherwise, but I’m sure it’s a lie. We can’t help but feel we’re next to a very holy person if they’re virginal. They just radiate something Godly from their person, and I don’t think there’s any denying this.

    You do darn well for an “old carpenter.” Of course, I’m just an old window cleaner (in other words an out of work butcher) with a measly year of college, so what do I know.

    PS, the word “fornication” is a mistranslation in every bible that uses it, which is why most modern bibles avoid it. Fornication means literally premarital sex, but you’ll find many bibles, especially the King James, using it to mean any kind of sexual sin from adultery to bestiality. The correct translation is generally “unfaithfulness.”

    ReplyDelete
  9. Catawissa GazetteerNovember 7, 2011 at 3:02 PM

    There's a lot of truth in the things that you're saying. That's the thing about sex - it's so much more complicated than it seems on the surface. It has so many physical and psychological ramifications that even the wisest among us really don't understand it, and yet kids are climbing up on the horse and going for a ride.

    Maybe, and this is just wild supposition on my part, that's why sex is set aside for marriage, not only in the Christian tradition but in many others as well. Maybe all the emotions need to have some sort of ring placed around them, something to contain them and order them towards creative rather than destructive ends.

    At the risk of having my man card revoked I'll make an admission. Apart from one time when I was 14 I've never had sex with anyone but my wife. Did I miss something by making this choice? Maybe. But I think that what I gained far outweighs the carnal pleasures I rejected. 30 years of marriage with all its ups and downs and I wouldn't have it any other way.

    Most of my buddies over the years, if one is to believe them, have burned a trail of conquest across the land. They've all got stories to tell. But most also have broken marriages, kids being raised by other people and just general turmoil, usually self inflicted and usually revolving around cheating on their wives. I wonder how their earlier habits of whoring around set the patterns that would haunt them later in life? I wonder if some vital connection that should have been established with their wife through sex was deadened or disabled by earlier promiscuity? I don't know.

    I wonder sometimes if the objectification of women that comes with the hook up culture hasn't caused a good deal of these problems? Maybe if a person becomes so accustomed to just viewing women as sexual objects put on this earth for his gratification he finds it impossible to view his wife any differently. I know way too many guys that view their wives as some sort of tool, something that's handy for doing chores around the house and bringing in some money but they don't really ever spend any time with them at all. All their free time is spent hanging with their buddies, doing sports, hunting or just drinking beer. I don't see the friendship connection in the marriage, just the object connection. Again, I don't know.

    I wonder - if butchers and carpenters ran the country instead of attorneys, would we be in the same problems today?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yahoobuckaroo's BlogNovember 7, 2011 at 9:07 PM

    I've got stories to tell, but I wouldn't call them conquests. Does pitty sex count?

    I may, however, have a daughter out by the airport. It's never been confirmed, nor denied. It's probably not true. Even so, I think most people by and large would be better off if they'd have been born like the angels, myself included. I'm the last person on Earth that ought to think about replicating. I think children should be born to only the best among us. To true soul-mates if they exist, and I think they must be rare. They're the only ones capable of putting that ring around their emotions as you so eloquently put it. Personally, I'm an emotional rollercoaster quite capable of extreme jealously, anger, and resentment, but also love if it presents itself. But I've never loved anyone deeply, including women I've lived with. The only woman I ever loved hated the ground I walked on. Guess I'm a poor judge of character. Now I can see how smarmy she is--couldn't begin to see it at the time though.

    My Catholic friend, Christine, has a gift. She's the most mystical person I know. She talks about soul-friends a lot. I think there's something to that. There are some people in this world that, when you see them, the word "home" comes to mind. It's as if you both belong to another world and are brothers and sisters there. They carry some spark of the Divine in them and you recognize it immediately. I've met only a handful of people like that. Never once saw it in a woman I bedded. And I would never marry anyone that didn't have it. So as my sister likes to say about me, I'm a dater, not a marrier.

    I make allusions to grandeur about it. If butchers and carpenters ran the world it would be a foreign policy nightmare. But there'd darn well be a pig in every barn, and a well-made barn it would be.

    ReplyDelete
  11. AnonymousNovember 18, 2011 at 10:28 AM

    Hi, I was hoping you could do me a favour. I occasionally visit the site Commentarius de Prognosticis run by Ioannes. I haven't been in a while but it would seem the comment feature is blocked or something. He usually published my thoughts, we have a particular similarity with regards to our ex-spouses and children and subsequent legal issues, and was hoping you could pass on my request to be allowed to post once more. I am not completely computer literate but I am sure I could work it out. Do I need to sign up anywhere?

    Bill

    ReplyDelete
  12. Catawissa GazetteerNovember 18, 2011 at 11:01 AM

    Hey Bill,

    Can you give me an e-mail address that I can send you his info on? I don't want to put Ioannes' up here for obvious reasons.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)