I love women. I am by no means the perfect guy and have many shortcomings, but I do put a heavy emphasis on respecting the beauty, grace, and dignity of the female half of the world. In light of this, I decided to write about my personal opinion on a very hot topic in our country today: contraception and it's role in society and the lives of individuals. This post will not be theological. I do not plan to go into scripture or church teachings. It is not a commentary on current political events involving contraception. What this post contains is reflections on my personal opinion regarding the use of artificial (hormonal) birth control and the affects that I have witnessed and have been reported. (If you're tempted to stop here...DON'T!)
To begin, I think it's appropriate to give the facts on hormone-based contraceptives. Some of you probably know about about them so I'll make it brief. Hormonal contraceptives use either a single hormone (progesterone) or a combination of two hormones (progesterone and estrogen). Both types use artificial replicas of the actual hormones. The two-hormone combination works to both make the uterine lining uninhabitable for a fertilized embryo and to prevent ovulation. There are differing strengths available, some to completely stop the woman's cycle and others that prevent menstruation for 12 weeks and then allow for 7 days of menstruation. The single-hormone version does not prevent ovulation; rather, by preventing the proper buildup of uterine lining cells, the embryo is unable to properly implant and dies. In the most plain language possible, hormonal contraceptives shut down or severely impair the proper function of the woman's reproductive system.
The first pills were introduced in 1957 following requests by prominent feminist leaders of the time. Some serious dosage reductions occurred after early pills were reported to cause side affects such as nausea, weight gain, blood clots, and stroke; the FDA approved the use of the pill after dosages were lowered. The pill was touted as a major leap in women's rights, because it "equaled the playing field in sexuality" and allowed women to have casual sex without fear of getting pregnant. This very superficial view was short-sighted and ignorant on the ways that the pill would actually affect women. Rather than empower them and make them "equals", it did quite the opposite. (KEEP READING!)
I'm going to assert that women today are respected less than ever before. Margaret Sanger and her lot thought that because women had periods and were the child-bearing sex they were not of "equal status" (and women have historically been mistreated in various cultures, there is no doubt) and the pill would help level the playing field. Unfortunately, the emergence of the pill has often reduced women to objects of pleasure since women can be, in a sense, chemically "sterilized". Aside from the simple fact that I disagree with contraceptives on the basis that they detract from the true meaning of our unique human sexuality, I also abhor the vast negative side affects they have both physical and psychological.
In our world of modern medicine it's unfortunate that hormonal contraceptives, are as pushed as they are. It seems like a simple solution, right? Pop a pill! You'll be so happy! The contraceptive commercials today make you think that you're buying happiness pills, not mentioning the hormones that flood your body and alter its function.
According to cancer.gov oral contraceptives reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, and increase the risk of breast, liver, and cervical cancer. It would seem that if there are any treatments that the government would mandate as integral to women's health, it would be things like cancer screenings and yearly heart assessments, not cancer-causing artificial hormones that are part of a woman's voluntary choices. Preventative health services? If the government is trying to prevent diseases why don't they say "The pill causes more cancers than it prevents...we won't discourage its use because you're free to make your own decisions, but it can potentially kill you." Remember, this isn't a case of a life-saving drug such as chemotherapy having negative side affects. Contraceptives are not necessary for life and health, regardless of what an administration or for-profit organization tells you.
In our all-natural, organic-crazed society that freaks out when we hear apples have toxins in the peels and not washing your grapes can cause, umm, something...why are we so excited to gulp down chemicals that alter our body's function? If we took our ability to make independent, logic-driven decisions and combined that with our modern desire to be chemical free, wouldn't it make sense that we leave outdated, artificial hormone, cancer-increasing contraceptives in the dust? Shouldn't we take a look at the whole picture? It's really no wonder that so many women are getting married, chemically preventing children until their later reproductive years, then become completely astounded at the fact they can't get pregnant.
My take on the main reason contraceptives are so prevalent? People don't understand or aren't aware of other options, like natural family planning (or NFP). Or they have heard of it, but are sure that it cannot be effective enough to ease their mind about the possibility of pregnancy. This method should not be confused with the "rhythm method" that simply guesses at the woman's fertile time each month. Instead, NFP measures physical signs that point exactly to fertile and non-fertile times. It's not easy, but it's effective. The downside? 7-10 days per month of abstinence to avoid pregnancy with 98% effectiveness. It's a totally different mindset than contraceptive use, but it's less intrusive on the body and allows each woman to refocus on the uniqueness of her physiology and the natural signs that are expressed. An added bonus, did you know that couples who use Natural Family Planning to space their children have a 2% divorce rate? True Story.
OK ladies (and gentlemen), I've said quite a bit. You can tell I'm passionate about this. Eventually I want to use this passion to do professional education on the dangers of hormonal contraceptives. In the meantime, please don't allow yourself to be merely an object. Wouldn't it be great to know that your man respected you so much that he wanted to follow your biological clock, rather than change your physiology so your body is available for him whenever he wants? Wouldn't it be liberating to let your own body tell you when you're fertile, not some pharmaceutical company's product? Wouldn't it be cool to see society move just a little back in the direction of respect and dignity? I know it's a stretch, but it starts with you. Think about it.
24 comments:
Goooo, yeah!!! Super post. Naw, I couldn't tell that you're passionate... phffft! ;)
I appreciate the viewpoint to the extent that it is geared against oral contraceptives rather than barrier types; goodness knows the havoc the pill is wreaking on pepople and animals in water tables with increased levels of progesterone & estrogen. I'm hoping you're not against contraception 'per se', because if you are how do you reconcile this with a planetary population that is hurtling towards 9 billion people? China needs to find an area the size of France (100,000,000ha) per annum to feed its people, and we are fast running out of space to produce food for the world. People enjoy having non-procreational sex - it's part of human nature - and if we're to keep the global population to a manageable level, easy access to contraception has to be an option.
Anonymous: thank you for your comment. I'm afraid you missed the point of the article. To answer your question about all contraceptives: I am, unequivocally, against the use of contraceptives of all kinds. This is both a matter of women's dignity and my faithful beliefs. If you read through my article again and replace "hormonal contraceptives" with IUDs or condoms, the argument will be the same: Sterile sex leads to a devaluing of women. I am a bit surprised that you got through that entire article without even guessing at my beliefs on contraception as a whole. But, to reinforce...I believe that contraception violates the natural moral law and my faithful religious beliefs. For my thoughts on "non-procreational" sex as you call it...I believe that human sexuality is more than just a biological function, but a divine gift that, when misused, can be very psychologically damaging to persons. Do I believe that everyone should have a vanload of kids? No. But, as I mentioned in my section on self-control, women are made with a biology that lends itself toward infertility 20-25 days per cycle. Are we so convinced that sex all the time is crucial to human happiness? This is a delicate issue that will continue to be debated throughout history. I, for one, ascribe to the belief that by choosing periods of self-denial over barriers between me and my spouse (these barriers send messages other than just infertility) I am showing real love and self-sacrifice.
As far as the overpopulation comment: Overpopulation is a myth that is politically driven and even "green" groups are moving away from. For good resources on this, please read "Real Costs, Illusory Benefits" by Stephen Mosher, and follow these links below:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/27/taking-on-the-overpopulation-myth/?page=all
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/
I'll be writing more in future posts. Thank you!
Anonymous,
I think a better solution to the problems you describe is to teach women to observe the fertility signs in their bodies and to abstain from sexual relations when they want to avoid pregnancy. There are different methods of NFP, but the mucus-only method that Mother Teresa taught in India was simple enough that poor, illiterate women could use it successfully. NFP is more practical than barrier methods. Women would not have to get to a health clinic or depend on someone else to provide them with supplies (which cost money...wouldn't that money better be used to provide them with FOOD?) And not only does NFP have a higher method-effectiveness than barrier methods, it also has a higher user-effectiveness.
Kudos on a great post!
Why only list the cancers that OC's allegedly cause why not list the ones that they allegedly prevent? Or any of the other good things they do? Is there a reason not to give both sides and let the reader decide?
(not the same anonymous as the others who already posted) I like your passion about the respect a man should show for his wife. Showing self control is a great way to show your wife how much you really love and value her. This is a great way for families to avoid or plan a pregnancy. However, as someone who is very involved in the foster care system, I have to say that we have to be careful about suggesting that no one ever uses any contraception. Of course, in a perfect world that would be ideal, but unfortunately there are many women who do not have any self respect or self control. As a result they keep having children they cannot take care of on any level, and before they even know they're pregnant their sexual partner is long gone. There are not enough foster homes for the kids to go to. So yes, while encouraging these women to remain abstinent until marriage is the best option, the reality is that many will not.
Also, to be fair, you said in a response to someone else that if you replaced condoms with hormonal contraceptives, the argument would be the same, but condoms do not cause any cancer or later infertility.
Anonymous #2 - If I told you that not wearing a seat belt might result in less lap rash even though that could kill you, would you say the good would outweigh the bad? Probably not.
Anonymous #3 - Thanks for your insight. I understand that self-respect for all will not happen overnight, but is that a good reason to not strive for it? Am I an idealist? Absolutely! But someone has to be to counter the very prominent and vocal naysayers in the world.
Also, I wasn't implying that condoms or other barriers cause cancer, I was implying that there is a message there regardless of what method you're using: I'll use you for the physical gratification, but that's all this is. Can we agree that that's fair? Do you think there's a difference in the messages if I would on one hand say "I love you so much I want to wait a week or so to avoid pregnancy this month" vs. "You're so hot and I can't wait so let me grab my condom to make sure we exchange nothing other than pressure." This is simplistic but you get my point here.
Am I lobbying to ban birth control? No, I don't have the ability or the need to do that. I am lobbying for greater respect for persons and a deeper understanding of human sexuality beyond what the world tells us.
I don't understand why you used the photo in the blog with the caption. "how guys see you on the pill - how guys see you off the pill" both of those girls look like the kind of girls who do bad things, very, very bad things...
Wow, so many anonymous posters! I put myself out on a limb with my name and vast opinions, yet so many anonymous comments! Hmm, and they're all the negative ones...
Anywho, if I was looking for the PERFECT picture it wouldn't be out there. Some guys are going to think every girl wants to do very bad things no matter what, am I right? And do I sense a distinct and permeating sarcasm on this comment?
Dear Anonymous #1, being a farm-girl, I know how the food markets roll. If you have ever driven through the country, you've probably seen more than a few fields doing nothing but growing weeds, trees, and anything BUT something harvest-able. Those fields aren't because the farmer forgot them. Those are 10, 15, or 20 year set-aside acres. The owner is being PAID, by the government, for 10, 15, or 20+ YEARS, to NOT plant/harvest them. Why? Because if every farmer with some of those set-aside fields did harvest grain/food from those fields, there would be too much food in the market and it would plummet and we would have a massive stock market crash all over again. {I will clarify, many think that these set-aside acres are "wild-life reserves". Some are, but those are only created when an animal species' naturally occurring habitat has been removed (and these are government owned, not farmer owned.) Ex. a Wal-Mart replaces a marshy-lake area so the government sets aside a new area to be a designated, government-protected "wet-lands".} The main point here is this: IF the US produced food/grains to its FULL capacity, the US ALONE could feed the entire world. I'm not making this all up. I live in it, my whole farming community makes money off of it, and in 2010, all the above was being taught in high school government class 101.
Excellent points, I wish I'd never taken them ... at least I didn't take them for long.
I'd also like to point out that people who wish to not use any form of birth control but one that requires "abstinence" for a week or so don't have to go without pleasure ... there are things people can do for their lover that don't involve intercourse, so pregnancy isn't an issue. I don't think that's so bad. It still allows us to follow our desires to a "happy ending" for both without mixing baby batter.
If I read correctly, you come from a family of 7 and have 4 children of your own? Clearly, Natural Family Planning has worked great. (of course no knocks against your family choosing to have 7 kids and you to have 4, but hurrah for the fact you apparently grew up in a family that could support that many people) Overpopulation isn't an argument you're clearly going to listen to, so let's talk instead about the fact that a lot of people can't even work right now. What about the couple that has found themselves out of employment through no fault of their own? Are they just supposed to do their very best not to get pregnant and if something goes awry, pray they can support the child they bring into the world? When the average person has a hundred other worries just to get food on the table and get to the next paycheck, do you think they have time to invest in planning out her cycle and measuring mucus and temperatures?
I'm all about individual choice and what works for you works for you. There is a flaw in your argument that what separates us from the animals is that we have reasoning. The other thing is that we, unlike most animals (except bonobos, at least) can choose to have sex for partner-bonding. And perhaps there are other ways to bond with your partner, certainly, but choosing to have sex with someone you care deeply about is not inherently wrong.
Yes, we live in an oversexualized society. But before the feminist movement women were PROPERTY. And often treated as such. That's why we couldn't vote. Objectification of women is still crappy, but it beats being someone's own personal concubine.
We also live in a society where pharmaceuticals are for sale. You surely know that being in nursing school. Are birth control pills pushed? Of course. So are pills to fight obesity while we chomp away on butter-slathered fatty meals. So are pills for erectile disfunction, ADHD, depression, etc etc etc. I am fine with the pill targeting young women because you know what? There are still a lot of 16 year old girls pressured into sex and they are the ones who have to live with the consequences, not young boys. I wish we lived in a society where everyone was loving and respectful toward their partner, as you are, but society as a whole has a long haul to get there. I'd prefer to protect young girls best as possible before then.
Finally, women use birth control for reasons other than preventing pregnancy. My family has a history of endometriosis. Without the pill, I wouldn't have been able to go to school half the time because I would have been in insufferable pain and vomiting once a month. My mother wouldn't have been able to have a child at all, had she not been on the pill to reduce some of the scarring.
I absolutely respect your personal choices. And everyone else's, whether to go on birth control or not assuming they have the means and education to care for a child they may end up without using a hormonal or barrier method. But I do not think your choice will work for everyone in the real world.
Thank you for the honest discussion.
One last thing. People were having plenty of wild sex long before the pill was invented. Check your own family tree--most people I know have at least one or two skeletons in their closet. The difference is back then women were shamed and sent away to have their babies in secret and give them up.
Diane, thank you for your honest comments. I appreciate when people are able to form a coherent commentary on this issue, rather than immediately assuming I'm trying to belittle women or “take away their rights”. I'd like to answer your points in sequence. First off, I do have four kids and I actually come from a family of 8 kids. Believe it or not, NFP has been used by me and my wife, as well as our parents, to both prevent AND achieve pregnancies. The point is that we WANTED big families, not that it did not work. You mention having the time for “planning out her cycle and measuring mucus and temperatures.” To that I will say this: mucus signs are checked while using the bathroom, taking your temperature takes less than a minute while in bed each morning, and charting is simply documenting temperature and mucus signs. That's like 4 letters per day on a monthly chart; or you can even do mucus-only and have no temp. I understand that at first glance this seems like a really big deal for people that aren't used to it, but with a couple small steps it becomes routine. And if you don't want to set aside the time, maybe this could be done during a commercial break?
As far as the partner-bonding goes, let me tell you that there is nothing more beautiful than the bonding love that sexuality provides. I'm sure that you and I come from different worldviews so I'm not going to argue the point, but I will just say that as a person of faith who believes sex is sacred, I hold to the belief that human is designed for unity, bonding, and life-giving. I do NOT think that sex must always be procreative, that's why there are infertile times and we happily make use of those, but we are open to life as an expression of our loving union.
As a nursing student and a casual observer it's clear that we are super-pharmed by drug companies. That's not the point I need to make because it's evident. But to say that it's fine for drug companies to target young women with the pill is really dangerous, and here's a few reasons why: First off, let's use simple psychology – if you're a 16 year old girl who is being pressured to have sex, would you be more or less likely to have sex if you knew you were chemically sterilized? I'm gonna go with more likely. Second, are we going to allow Big Pharm to target our young women because the “boys are going to get away with it?” This is like saying that “if men could get pregnant this would be a different story” which totally ignores the fact that roles would simply switch. I think we're totally letting men off the hook with this whole “girls are left with the consequences argument”. Sound odd? My liberal sociology professor once made the excellent point that at many universities there are pamphlets telling young women how to “avoid getting raped”. No joke. Things like “don't walk home alone”, “be conscious of how you dress and act so you don't send the wrong message”. My prof asked: why don't they hand out pamphlets to the guys that say “DON'T RAPE PEOPLE!!!” Yeah, why don't they? See, we're putting the burden on the women when we should be telling young men “don't pressure your girl to have sex”. Our society just keeps coming up with reasons to explain away and “medicate” for our bad choices.
Finally, regarding the non-fertility reasons for using birth control: I know several women that have suffered from endometriosis, some were and some were not able to achieve pregnancy. I know that there is much suffering that women endure with this disease, and as both a caring person and a future medical professional I can say with certainty that this is not a disease I take lightly. While I know that the pill may be used as a last resort for these conditions, there are probaby 9 out of 10 cases that doctors prescribe birth control for non-fertility reasons without doing more than ask a few questions. I recently heard a doctor talk about the fact that the new treatments he was using for endometriosis and heavy bleeding. These included low doses of progesterone and high dose anti-inflammatory medications drastically reduced the affects, as well as laproscopic surgery that is now so precise it can remove all endometrial cells from the abdomen. This has been so effective that he hasn't prescribed birth control for anyone with these types of conditions in the last six years.
As far as your second post goes - as a student of history (I hold a bachelor's degree in this subject) I'm aware of the fact that our human tendencies are not new. People have always made choices that result in consequences both good and bad. I certainly don't think that sending your pregnant daughter away in shame is a good decision or the loving thing to do. The fact remains that we must aim for a higher moral standard and push society for greater personal responsibility.
Again, thanks for engaging this topic.
What about the ladies who have hormonal imbalances? There are other reasons for the use of birth control than just not wanting to get pregnant... Perhaps a hormonal imbalance that causes excessive bleeding every month causing anemia. Every pill has a side effect no matter what it is used for so should society stop taking other medications in order to prevent risks?
Anonymous #4. Thank you for your comment. Please refer to my comment in response to Diane. Does that help answer your question?
As usual with opinions such as the ones voiced in this blog they typically only utilize the views and facts to back their argument while deleting or avoiding facts that dispute it. Much like your point that these d...rugs can be used to regulate a woman's menstrual cycle. Great point and one that was omitted from the blog for obvious reasons. Honestly the blog brings up some grEat points many of which I agree with. There are inherent flaws in the argument- especially the self- contradictory slam on the President. However hard the writer tried to keep his religious beliefs out of the statement by saying that he was going to do so gave away his motivation for writing in the first place. Lumping all women into a category of in controllable sex drives and victims of sexual pressure is absurd. All people are different so the broad generalization is not only sexist it's prejudicial AGAINST women and demeaning. While eloquent and well written its also highly charged with control issues and Hypocritical. Understanding many types of spiritual and religious beliefs the controlling or manipulation of Gods will whether it be thru contraception or methods of self control mucus whatever is defiance of God - especially in Christianity. But again people tend to be strict on points that suit them at the time or for their argument rather than adhere strictly to the entire belief system- which is also rationalized and justified. If one thinks logically I would believe the fanatical Christians would prefer contraception over abortion- if I have to explain that we are all in trouble. We cannot legislate morality - it ultimately comes down to persons god-given right to chose thru their own god-given self will. If there is a reckoning in the end we can clearly chose the difference between right and wrong and will face whatever consequence there may be in the end. I will agree with an underlying theme in this blog that our society has issues. However a Catholic cardinal and pope would defend and protect a child molesting priest rather than allow a woman to use contraception. Christianity is a sexist belief system if taken literal can be as dangerous as fanatical Islam!!! Catholicism is a religion run by........guess what??? ALL MEN!!! They praise and defend the institution of marriage yet their own priests cannot be married yet offer counseling to couples on marriage!!!! Worry not the catholic church is a dying institution- 50 years from now we will be reading in history books about the rise and fall of the Catholic church. Does this mean it's bad- no. It's humans dictating the will of god thru man- made doctrine. Man made anything is flawed. It contains self- will. Something like 98% of Catholics have used contraception. It's a dead issue. The media makes it an issue. I will take contraception over abortion any day. Many religionists believe conception to be a miracle- yet if a monkey gets pregnant its an act of species continuation!!! There is no difference- the drive for sex is instinctive we are born with it and it is god-given. The bible is not anti- sex- its anti-anything in extreme form. That's a fact. We have a lot of murder in this country- we could eliminate 68% of violent crime if there were no alcohol or drugs. But how'd those people get on alcohol or drugs? Maybe education is the key to part of the answer. Some believe if we just go to church and read the bible all will be good!! The puritans did that- they burned human being so-called 'witches' at the stake!!!! Burned them alive!!!! Oh yeh- they were women too!!! See the pattern? Men need to stay out of the reproductive choices of women - that's the only solution to the problem.
1. Chris, insulting the anonymity of comments just because you don't agree with the content is ignorant. You're not a hero just because you put a name and a face to your pig-headed opinion.
2. I'm not going to address any religious issues because I'm so tired of religion being the focus of EVERY damn argument or problem. Why can't the issue itself be discussed without deflecting to some higher power? "Hey God, allow me to misquote You and speak on Your behalf about whether or not I should take pregnancy prevention into my own hands." PUH-LEASE.
3. I'm a woman. Personally, I do not take oral contraceptives, as I suffer adverse side effects from them. I don't condemn those, however, who take them. That whole alleged "God's plan" b.s. is why Michelle Duggar keeps popping kids out of her vajay like a damn clown car. God has nothing to do with you doing the nasty unprotected to add income to your ridiculous reality show.
4. I *will* agree with Eric L. who said men have NO business making reproductive choices on a woman's behalf. WE have the uterus. WE have the ovaries. We're not helpless beings you have to rescue. We are perfectly capable of deciding what is best for us, our lives, and our bodies. I don't tell you what to do with your penis. If you NEED someone to tell you what to do, you apparently aren't mature enough to be engaging in sex in the first place!
Love,
Anonymous #5
Eric - honestly I have so many things I'd like you to clarify I don't know where to start. Maybe three you could clarify for me:
1) How was my comment about the president self-contradictory? I make a reference toward his mandate on contraception, do you disagree that he mandated contraceptive coverage?
2) Do you know when the Catholic Church was established?
and, 3) You alluded to me being "selective" in my beliefs. Can you expound on that please?
Dear Anonymous #5 -
1) I reserve to the right to be the hero of my blog. Just because you don't think I can be a hero for putting my name out there, I was told as a child that everyone can be a hero and I'm going to be the hero of this one for no reason other than I want to be. Otherwise my self-esteem will suffer and that would be bad I'm told. So, I'm the hero of my blog and there ain't nothing you can do about it, negative opinion of my superhero writing powers and all. (In case you missed it, this is me being sarcastic and self-deprecating.)
2) If you don't like the fact that I wrote my own opinion in my blog and through comments it became more religious-oriented – don't read my blog. No one is telling you to read my writing, and I'm certainly not making you. I'm a believer in greater things than me and you, and I'm not afraid to express that.
4) So you that you're tired of people bringing God into conversations and people “misquoting Him”, but you then go on to ridicule people with large families and seem to assert that everyone who has a big family does it because they think God only likes big families. I'm not going to assume that you have never considered this point (because I don't want to assume anything about you), but has it ever occurred to you that people really do like big families? Or having kids at all? I don't know whether you have kids but they are a blessing whether you have 1 or 20. I will not attempt to tell anyone how many kids they should or should not have and I ask you to respectfully refrain from insulting us that actually want more than one or two.
5) As far as your last paragraph, would you mind explaining where in my commentary you came up with the idea that I have any desire to “make reproductive choices on a woman's behalf”. I'm sure you're OK with the idea of free speech, right? Just like the total willingness of both you and Eric to rip into my Church, don't I have an equal right to state my opinion about anything I please in my own domain? Nothing I'm going to say will change a single decision you make, am I right? I volunteer my opinion, I don't make policies or people's choices or take away their free will and I don't want to. Please do me a favor and re-read my initial point from the perspective of a father. Obviously you're not a father but try to understand why I desire greater respect for my daughters and the many young women I know. I don't want to run anybody's life, I want women today to be respected for their dignity and not viewed as sex objects. Please, re-read from my point of view.
Thanks for that Anonymous #5. Since this is still my domain and I reserve the right to edit content as I see fit...you're post is gone.
Here is my comment. Why do people think that religion should be left out of arguments? I hate to bring this up, but God will judge all of us and all decisions that we make are subject to him. If you would like to remove moral reasoning from a decision that is on you, as for me, my decisions are based on my morals. Try and deny a moral order in this world, you can't. If you did, then that would be denying that evil exists, and that's just plain silly. And to the person who said that the Catholic faith is a sexist religion. I will not insult your intelligence, but please do not argue the integrity of the faith with a point like that. The Catholic Church has plenty of women who lead extraordinary lives of leadership. Jesus established Peter the first Pope and had 12 apostles that were men. But, the Blessed Mother is the highest ranking female in the Church, and to get to Jesus, us Catholics go to his Mommy! And the man, who is the head of the Church, he too goes and talks to Jesus's Mommy. That's not to mention the countless examples of women who have led religious orders and stood as martyrs of the faith. That argument is shallow. Second, people coming on here and attacking the blogger's faith such as comments on priests, etc. should research the facts before posting. A priest or religious practice celibacy because they are married to God. Its a spiritual marriage that exemplifies holiness. They understand marriage, just ask one of them. Also, one other tiny detail, marriage is a sacrifice. Its really hard. Everything about it speaks to holiness and drawing closer to God. That is the point in loving your spouse. The whole reason that God gave us our sexuality was to express it to our spouse. This expression must carry with it an openness for life, thus we are procreators.
Post a Comment