Matthew J. Franck
Robert P. George
William J. Haun
David T. Koyzis
Robert T. Miller
James R. Rogers
Russell E. Saltzman
Something seems off here . . .
And…the tweet is deleted. Thanks for the screencap.
Wow, this seems a parody…I wish it was a parody…
Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete once shared a anecdote in Traces, the magazine of Communion and Liberation, about Paul VI’s 1968 papal visit to Mexico. Albacete was waiting for a pastor he knew at a parish and a poor Mexican women, waiting for a priest to hear her confession, insisted that Lorenzo hear his confession, even though this was before he was a priest. The women expressed her excitement at Paul VI’s visit, since she knew the Pope loved the poor. Albacete asked her if she was disappointed that the Pope condemned contraception. She answered, “No, no, no. You see, the Pope doesn’t want only the rich to have children.
This poor Mexican women understood what many wealthy and educated elites cannot–that the Church is pro-women, for the poor, and for life.
Is it verified that this is real? You can use “Let me tweet that for you” to make fake tweets. (I’m just trying to grasp at straws here… if that’s real… WOW.)
This message from the President is so contradictory. He is elated over the convenience that women can obtain an contraception so easily without cost to them and then, turns around and wishes them a happy mother’s day! I guess that’s what’s called talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Andrew, I don’t understand your comment. Who was hearing the confession? Did you switch from “hers” to “his” unintentionally? You have a Msgr. waiting for a pastor, and a Mexican woman. Then you say he (the Msgr.?) wasn’t a priest yet. Please clarify.
The irony is strong with this one.
If you’re the president, you don’t have to make sense.
James Cain and Jake Meador: The tweet is still up and has not been deleted, as of 12:42 PM CST on May 12.
Sister MMs, yes the switch from “hers” to “his” was a careless typo mistake on my part. Monsignor’s anecdote concerns an incident that happened before he was a priest. He was waiting for a pastor he knew at a parish in Mexico and a poor Mexican women happened to be also waiting there, she was waiting for a priest to hear her confession. She asked Lorenzo Albacete to hear her confession, even though he wasn’t a priest at that time.
The significance of Monsignor’s anecdote in relation to the unfortunate twitter-post is that if the utilitarian/contraceptive mentality prevails, then only the rich will be allowed to be parents.
How is it anti-mother to want women–and men–the ability to plan their families? I don’t get it.
The tweet is ironic only if you believe women are baby-making machines first, human beings second.
Has it ever occurred to you that limiting her family size might allow a woman to be a better mother to the children she already has?
Because creating division between male spouse and female spouse produces harm, exploitation and denied protection for the female spouse.
Randy and Rmh, the only women that ever refer to their unborn babies as anything but a baby are those who have decided to terminate the life to which they have been giving safe haven. So it is very ironic that BO would wish a happy Mother’s Day while telling them that so many more ladies can, without cost, kill the very being that makes them a mother. Killing your unborn child is not in the same universe as “planning your family.”
Many answers to your questions. Here are a couple quick ones:
1) Sex with contraception is sex for recreation where you use the woman for sexual pleasure rather than what our bodies were made for. It’s easy to dress that up with words like “express their love for one another,” but in the end it’s still saying the same thing.
2) Since the sexual revolution taught women that sex was primarily for recreation and since abortion became the watchword of “equal rights,” abortion rates have skyrocketed. Irresponsible sexual activity leading to abortions happened, not despite the pill, but because of the responsibility-free sexual culture it created. A woman who has repeated abortions often has a much more difficult time getting pregnant later on. By removing the responsibilities from sex (both through contraception and the abortion back-up plan), contraception has led to greater infertility and increased numbers of abortion.
3) Contraception provides a near 100% infertility for women. And girls are taught in school that “unsafe sex” is sex that results in a disease or a child. We can say it wasn’t anti-woman but “her own choice” when a woman suddenly enters her late 30′s/early 40′s and can’t get pregnant. But we can also say it’s anti-woman, I think.
Sex with contraception is sex for recreation where you use the woman for sexual pleasure rather than what our bodies were made for.
Why isn’t sex with contraception, in a great many cases, a woman using a man for sexual pleasure rather than what his body is made for? Certainly in the case of married couples, the husband and the wife jointly decide to limit the number of children by using contraception. And it is in most cases the wife who uses the contraceptives.
Proponents of Natural Family Planning (NFP) claim it is as effective as the pill. Why is sex during infertile periods not sex purely for pleasure rather than sex in conformity with what male and female bodies are made for?
Gentlemen, may I interject? With NFP, sex during the infertile times when avoiding pregnancy respects the natural rhythms of a woman’s cycle & the periodic abstinence which is required is respectful of that rhythm whereas contraceptive sex circumvents this natural rhythm. This respect for the cycles & abstinence in turn upholds the dignity of both spouses in that intercourse does not become a matter utility or convenience as can contraceptive intercourse tend towards.
Just to comment on Franklin’s mention of NFP, which is by the way FANTASTIC in that it ALWAYS leaves open the will of God. Nothing ever in the action of the marital act should ever shut the door on the possibility of God choosing to allow a child to be created. My husband and myself have been contraceptive free in our strong marriage and at one time when he was going through cancer treatment we did avoid the “10 days” of when we knew that the possibility of having a child was increased, not to say there was a possibility and we were definitely open to life. But having 3 children and the possibility of a child seemed a lot during my husbands trial with cancer etc. God knows in our hearts we wanted to obey him more than society or certainly anything else and we never use each other and shut God out, ever. NFP couples rarely if ever divorce, look at the stats, they are over 90% secure. All those who embrace NFP are absorbing the wonderful waters of God’s grace and are HAPPIER than those contracepting couples (look at those stats too). Overwhelmingly NFP couples are happier for sure.