There isn’t a problem in the world that liberal don’t think they can’t fix with free condoms. World hunger? Condoms. AIDS? Condoms. Skyrocketing deficit? Condoms.
Now, to be honest I’m not even sure what problem this school district thinks its solving here but a school district in New England will be handing out condoms to little children upon request and is telling teachers to ignore parents who don’t want their children to receive free condoms. Because, you know the teachers know better what’s good for your kids, not parents.
Too many public schools have completely lost interest in actually teaching kids (if they ever had interest) and now consider themselves first and foremost social engineers.
Right Wings News is reporting:
These days public schools don’t pay much attention to the tired old topics of yesteryear — reading, writing, arithmetic, etc. Now the emphasis is on learning fun stuff, like sexual intercourse and disregarding the wishes of parents:
New England school district has approved a measure that will provide free condoms to elementary school students and direct teachers not to comply with parental wishes to the contrary.
The policy, unanimously approved by the Provincetown School Committee does not include an age limit — meaning children of any age ask for — and receive — free condoms.
The committee also directed school leaders not to honor requests from any parent who might object to their child receiving condoms. In other words mommy and daddy — you don’t have a right to prevent your 7-year-old from getting a contraceptive device.
This world has gone mad. When will adults start acting like adults again?
The funny part is that some members of the school board were outraged by this new rule but not for the reason you might think. They were upset that the children had to ask for the condoms and that they weren’t being handed out to everyone.
Check out Right Wing News for more.
June 22, 2010 at 5:07 pm
There are many valid reasons why both parents may need to work. One reason may be to have the ability to pay their bills. If the couple follows the teachings of the Catholic Church and witnesses to others in their jobs, God will bless both that couple for being witnesses to the Gospel of Christ and those who they witness to. If a couple sacrifices so that their children may be home schooled, then God will bless those children and parents as well, as long as they are passing on the teachings of the Catholic Church onto their children. Please, Anon stop being sanctimoious in your judgemment of others for you do not know a couples' situation. Only God does.
June 22, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Oh Larry D,
You have proven my point. I did not personally condemn anyone for using NFP. I stated that NFP is a form of birth control. I also stated that most Catholics who use NFP do so to alleviate their consciences. I also stated that modern priests, even conservative ones, have assured their parishioners that NFP use is acceptable. I also stated that the Church has always condemned any form of birth control UNLESS there are truly grave circumstances. I was actually wrong in that statement because Pope Pius XI actually declared in his 1931 Encyclical Casti Conubii that "any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin." What I should have said is that the Church has always condemned any act that deliberately frustrates conception is morally evil. The Church has also affirmed that those who wish to delay childbearing should not marry because the primary good of marriage is the procreation of children. However, as modernism has taken hold, that is no longer taught and modern Catholics are taught that they may delay child birth and "space" babies using a natural form of birth control. This is an error. This is wrong, the Church, until modern times, has NEVER taught this. You are correct, I know little of her circumstances, but I do know that she is educated and has a few electronic luxuries like a computer or cell phone with internet access. She must also have certain finances in order for her to pay for her education unless her parents paid for it. Otherwise she has considerable debt which is crippling and unnecessary. I also know that she has a husband. I have never considered myself a judge, nor am I judging C & E's heart. I am purely making an observation about the actions she proudly professes making, without shame. She stated that "when she conceives she will be using NFP." I never accused her of a thing. She admitted it herself. I simply stated that, according to Catholic teaching, NFP is condemned. I was not being uncharitable at all. What I said was that when Catholics point out, and can back it up, that certain issues/topics/thoughts/actions are, in fact, errors, the Catholics who practice/hold/profess those beliefs accuse the other Catholics of being judgmental and uncharitable.
June 22, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Anonymous, you are flat out wrong. NFP is not condemned by Catholic teaching, but using NFP for insufficiently grave reasons is. To my knowledge, there is no published guideline as to what constitutes "sufficiently grave".
Would a husband and wife who completely abstain from sex also be guilty of the sin of frustrating conception?
June 22, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Matthew S,
You get off your high horse. I don't assume a thing about anyone. You long ago made up your mind that because, your life and circumstances are so difficult and hard, that the Church's "rules" surely must not apply to you. Surely, God won't condemn me for doing something evil because my wife may or may not die. Surely, God won't condemn me for doing something evil because we can afford this or that. How presumptuous of you. Plenty of women have given their lives for their children, leaving behind newborns and families for husbands to raise. St. Gianna comes to mind. My point is that if you accept one error with excuses how easy it is to accept another. If you are deliberately contracepting because your wife my die from a pregnancy, how in the world can you condemn a person who uses abortion to do the same thing? No one, no one, no one, is "permitted" to use NFP or any other form of contraception. It is gravely immoral. But that has been lost with modern American Catholics. We have thousands of legitimate, practical excuses for everything we do simply to justify us doing it. It wouldn't matter if I had written the message on a piece of paper and put it in a fortune cookie. Modern Catholics don't want to hear it. And when anyone says it, even their priest, they object, scream, proclaim ignorance, declare that it's tactless and uncharitable. As for my friend, they are doing what other Catholics are doing…nothing. They don't want to "hurt" their relationship with their daughter. Rather than firmly declare that her situation is morally evil and prohibit her from bringing her lover to family events, they send him birthday gifts. By their actions, they accept the situation and by their silence condone it. We must stop trying to make people happy and feel good. People's souls are at stake.
June 22, 2010 at 5:52 pm
For your consideration: link
June 22, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Matthew S. You are wrong. While NFP was not named specifically, all forms of contraception are condemned. See above in reference to Casti Conubii. 1931. Read your Baltimore Catechism. Condemned. Catholicism didn't begin in 1965.
June 22, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Presumptuous of me?
First of all, you are mistaking periodic abstinence for contraception. Contraception says "we will engage in this activity and actively work to prevent the natural outcome of the act". Periodic abstinence, on the other hand, requires the self-discipline to say "we will not engage in this act at this time". One must have sufficiently grave reasons to make such a decision.
Secondly, Humanae Vitae clearly states that periodic abstinence is morally acceptable for sufficiently grave reasons. Do you have some God-given authority to invalidate the teachings contained in a papal encyclical, or to determine what it actually teaches, or how those teachings apply to each and every person in the world? Sorry, I trust the Pope over an anonymous commenter on a blog.
Third, what evil act am I committing? Is it equally evil for a couple not using NFP to engage in the marital act during the unknown times of infertility? What about when the wife is pregnant, or post menopause?
Fourth, we prayed to St. Gianna during each of the last three pregnancies. We're well aware of the sacrifice she made for her daughter, and my wife echoed St. Gianna's plea to her doctor numerous times.
Fifth, which of the following are morally evil?
1. Using some means to ensure that pregnancy does not result from intercourse during a wife's fertile period.
2. Knowingly placing a wife's life at significant risk, simply for the purpose of engaging in sex.
3. Abstaining from sex in marriage during periods of fertility.
4. Altering the functioning of the human body so as to make conception impossible (direct sterilization).
5. Completely abstaining from sex in marriage.
If a couple knows that the wife is fertile and chooses to not engage in sex for reasons other than a choice to avoid pregnancy at that time, is that also morally wrong? In other words, is it morally imperative that couples engage in sex during known periods of fertility?
Truly, I'm glad the God, and not you, will be my Judge. You're not just more Catholic than the Pope, you're more Catholic than God.
June 22, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Anon,
You are wrong. Look here: http://www.nccbuscc.org/laity/marriage/MarriedLove.pdf
Contraceptives were not invented and approved by the FDA until 1960 and Casti Conubii was written in 1930, so how could Pope XI condemn something that didn't exist at that period of time?
June 22, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Perhaps you don't like what Anon is saying. Perhaps it's the way he's saying it. For me as a wife and mother, It is better to be home with my children than send them to daycare or public schools. It just is. We do it because it is best and it is the best situation for everyone. Now if you don't, well I am sure you have your reasons. Dude, it's the "mommy wars". I was just thinking as I was changing my little one's diaper, how could I let someone else do this all day. You miss so much if you work away from your children. You do, and it's not rightly ordered. I can understand moms working from home. Moms need to stay home, if not then dads, I guess. But institutionalising your children at such a young age just appears disordered. Look what they are exposed to as CMR posted. That's disordered and shouldn't considered abuse and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, no?
June 22, 2010 at 6:28 pm
That's … should be considered…
June 22, 2010 at 6:31 pm
I agree that being home with your children is the best thng but some circumstances make that impossible.
June 22, 2010 at 6:38 pm
We are incredibly blessed in that we have the best of both worlds. My wife works, but she gets to take our daughter to work with her because she works out of a house. I do think that the optimal situation is for the mother to be with the baby. But some seem to be under the impression that optimal = only justifiable option.
Anyway, we have let one anonymous commenter all drag this thread beyond the scope of what Matt was talking about. So let's ignore the sanctimonious one and move on.
June 22, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Julie, I don't like what Anon is saying because it's wrong. From what I gather, it is somehow morally required that I place my wife at very significant risk of death. Allow me to lay out all of the points carefully, given Anonymous' apparent letter-of-the-law interpretation of select passages and convenient ignoring of other passages:
1. Spouses are required to engage in sexual relations (Casti Conubii 25: By this same love it is necessary that all the other rights and duties of the marriage state be regulated as the words of the Apostle: "Let the husband render the debt to the wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband,"[28] express not only a law of justice but of charity.)
2. Choosing to abstain from sex during periods of fertility is contraception. (Not sure of the source of this one. CC54, perhaps)
3. Contraception is a sin against nature (CC 54: But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.)
Therefore it is a moral requirement that my wife play Russian Roulette 3 out of every 28 days, and that I supply the ammunition.
I would think that teaching of Casti Connubii was clarified by Humanae Vitae 16, which clearly states not engaging in intercourse during known periods of infertility is not sinful if there exists sufficient grave reason to avoid pregnancy (…If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained…).
Anonymous missed this important sentence: Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. Pope Paul VI clearly states that periodic abstinence is not contraception.
June 22, 2010 at 8:27 pm
It is a telling sign of the state of the Catholic Church that the discussion of child-bearing or not bring so much angst, ire, confusion, and controversy among well meaning Catholics. Contraception is not a new concept. The moral of such were clearly outlined as early as the Didache. 1960 did not bring with it any novel approaches to living. While there may not have been science as we know it, pagans were using potions and devices long before Christ came and long after he left. So clearly it was an issue. What is new, however, is this idea of NFP as a science form or an approach to living. For centuries, the Church taught and Christians understood that the primary good of marriage was children. The Scripture is full of such references. Since it was frankly immodest to speak of sexuality in open terms or in mixed company, marital issues were always left to private discussion with priests or for the confessional. The immorality of contraception was a given. However, the practice of continence, or self-restraint in sexual relations, is a virtue. While there is no really evidence to suggest it, it was probably not unusual for a married couple to have serious concerns that might benefit from long periods of continence. The issue, to my knowledge, was not really addressed "officially" until around 1860 which coincided with the dawning of the Industrial Age. At such the priests and bishops who were moral theologians determined that, on a case by case basis and under dire circumstances, that it could be (but not necessarily) licit for married couples to engage in prolonged periods of continence provided they both agreed and it did not lead to other grevious sins. It was not suggested that this become the norm, however, that it could be permissible under certain circumstances. In a response to the Prots accepting birth control in the 30s, PPXI reaffirmed the Churches condemnation of contraception. Unfortunately as modern philosophy and thought crept into the minds of moral theologians their ideas about marriage began to change and thus the nature of marriage. By the 1960s, the Church had concluded that BOTH procreation and unity were primary goods of marriage and, in light of changing economic standards, the issue of child bearing took a forefront. Unfortunately, PPVI didn't handle the situation adequately. Instead of reaffirming clearly that contraception, in all forms, is immoral, he let the door open for an ambiguous interpretation of what "serious" reasons can be used to avoid child birth. It is unfortunate. A fruit of that tree is the sheer number of Catholics who use contraception in all forms. Frankly and truthfully most Catholics that use NFP have the direct intention of not having children or limiting their children to 2 or 3. It is common practice for priests to endorse NFP as an acceptable practice and NFP classes are offered as part of marriage preparation. In essence, something that was merely TOLERATED under very grave and rare reasons is being promulgated as a moral good. This is not really the case. Sadly NFP has become a cult–with Catholics who practice it defending it whole heartedly and those who are critical of its moral implications are labeled as radical "traddies" or something. While continence is not contraception, NFP has the potential to make it such. We practiced NFP once and have since decided that it is wrought with moral complications and ambiguity. It's high time Catholics quit be so defensive about it, on both ends, and have a really honest discussion. Catholics are having any more children than non-Catholics, aside from a very view.
June 22, 2010 at 8:41 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
June 22, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Anonymous and CatholicMomof7, how about state plainly and clearly just why anyone should listen to yourselves vice their own parish priests? You should be able to produce something that makes it worth listening to you, right?
Or are you juat a pair of flannel-mouthed blatherskites looking to pander your egos at the expense of others?
June 23, 2010 at 1:36 am
I'm a little confused here, Anonymous. Do you think that no Catholics should teach in public schools? I don't know how my husband would support our family otherwise. Why is it so bad for a Catholic to be a teacher in a public school? Does every person who works in 'the world' have to preach and share the gospel at work? If they did, wouldn't most people get fired, no matter where they work?
I'm also a little confused about why you feel you can judge those who feel they have grave reasons to abstain. Doesn't the fact that they have thought and prayed about it mean anything to you?
I would love to stay home with my children and teach them, but my own mental health precludes that. I don't mean that lightly, in the "they would drive me crazy" kind of way. I mean that in the nearly clinically depressed way. I spent 9 years that way so that I could be home with my children when they were babies and toddlers and preschoolers. Now I am a very involved part of my children's education, as is my husband. You are wrong to say that there are no good public schools, no good public school teachers, no good education going on in them. I have seen it at my husband's school, I have seen it at the school I work at, and I have seen it in my children's school. I see very hard working and caring teachers doing their best to teach and care for children, many of whom get nothing at all like that at home. Who are you to judge my husband's calling? And for him it is a calling.
Is the public education system hurting? Yes. Is the Provincetown school district wrong? Yes, but as others have said, they are an extremely liberal community, as many in NE know. Can all Catholic mothers or fathers stay home to teach their children? No. SHOULD all Catholic mothers stay home to teach their children? I dare to say no, because there are plenty of homeschooling families out there who are doing a lousy job of it, perhaps through no fault of their own. I know homeschoolers, and most of them are fabulous. But I also know my own strengths and abilities, and homeschooling is not something I am called to do. And isn't that between me and my God?
June 23, 2010 at 1:57 am
Stop feeding the trolls!
June 23, 2010 at 2:12 am
Sarah, you're right. It just frustrated me so much! I should think longer before I post! 🙂
June 23, 2010 at 3:14 am
This was just weird. Anyone who types in all caps for more than one word is questionable. Or really, really loud.