Say no, no, no to the Left’s idol, the condom!

*GRIN*

That doesn’t release us, of course, from taking care of the needs of all to the best of our ability.

On your other comment about interpreting God’s will, I agree with you. I happen to have found the Catholic interpretation to be the one that I believe is most likely because it leads to certain conclusions about mankind that are consistent with my observations. That doesn’t mean that I ‘know’ it is 100% correct or true, but I choose to accept it as such because every time I thiink through any particular issue that I might personally have some differences with the Church’s teaching, I have every reason to believe that it’s more likely that my selfish interests are causing the conflict more so than the Church’s selfish interests in promoting a specific teaching.

Kevin,
I can see your point of contention with Mallon there and the contrast with my own statements is probably because I disagree with the way he phrased all of that. I think the point he may be trying to make is that at least some girls feel that way (I would even generalize the first part of his statement about not wanting to bed hop, because I really do believe that females are relatively hard wired toward committed relationships, not sexual dalliances- even biologically that makes sense). In other words, I think the context of his statement is that he’s disagreeing with the current societal notion that women desire sexual freedom and so the old notions of childbearing are seen as a barrier to that freedom. That said, I think he did a poor job of expressing it because your conclusions logically follow from his statements as written and that points out the fallacy or extremism in his thoughts. Of course he doesn’t necessarily speak with papal authority, and his statements are colored by his own interpretations which aren’t necessarily official.

MvdG: Yes, I recognized that as the reason that you posted the followup and for the most part I agree that he was doing what I had suggested was appropriate in response to Sean Hannity. I think he made some good points but then some that were a bit off base (as in my comment to Kevin), and also I think that Pope John Paul II’s series of talks on the Theology of the Body give a much more complete understanding of the issues.

It is at the core of debate about homosexuals in church life as well as about jihadi holy wars, Not so long ago it was at the core of debate about slavery. on both the pro and con sides.

All these dogmas start at the end, the prescribed or proscribed activity, and work backwards to find justification in scriptures.

In the end, religious leaders find God’s will in every personal opinion they hold. Religious people turn to teachings that mesh well with their personal opnions.

I think it’s wonderful that like minded people can come together and find inspiration in a common interpretation of God’s will.

I find it less wonderful when one group extends its internal truths to the point of making them universal.

d

Little girls … dream of a man who will sweep them off their feet, love them forever and having his many children.
…
Real lovers want to give without reserve in God’s own superabundance creating more hearts and lives to love. Contraception is like kissing through a screen door and real love cannot tolerate obstacles.

Stuff that like is is vast contrast to what CS does here, because it insinuates that if you don’t agree with the Catholic pov, that your dreams don’t even exist, or that you don’t feel “real love”.

Many little girls have vastly different and more complex dreams than being a baby factory to a good man, and people are capable of loving just as strongly, regardless of their religious choices. The presumption to “know” the inner workings of every human being on this planet is infuriating and smacks of hubris.

Mallon did that IMHO (which is why i linked to it – this went beyond ‘talking points’).

You have done a very nice job both here and on MvdG site at expressing a particular pov on these matters of right and wrong, and I respect that.

What I don’t respect is writing like John Mallon’s piece which tries to trivialize the argument by boiling it down to a single word.

Rife with problems:

Proper fear of the Lord is the horror one feels at the thought of hurting, harming or even simply displeasing our beloved, be it a human love or God.

What if your beloved wanted you to have/get herself and abortion? Disagreeing would certainly be ‘displeasing’ them. To justify defending against abortion, you then need to devise a hierarchy of love, which severely complicates this message of ‘its just love’. Should one love the God more than the person? Why? the person more than the society? Why? What about the love of a beloved over the love of a stranger? again, Why? Such a rubric answers no moral questions, just rephrases them.