“Birth control best way to avoid unwanted children”

Thus read the headline for a letter to the editor, in the May 10, 2015 edition of the Cincinnati Enquirer.

“Unwanted children” – a commonly used term of complete detachment and one of the most condemning of our time.

The presence of these “excess” children is not because we have insufficient resources in our wonderful planet. Rather, it’s from a simple lack of love which views children as a penalty to be avoided when having fun in bed.

It’s a problem of priorities. I’m a fan of professional sports. However, it’s discouraging to see a preponderance of ads in sporting event broadcasts selling sex aids to those of us in the normal, declining activity years, but who are still healthy. Also, there’s no shortage of tax money to assist well-to-do team owners and athletes make even more money – while vulnerable young lives go wanting because of our collective indifference.

This is not to suggest that couples should have unlimited children. There are responsible and healthier ways than chemical means to space children, but that is not the purpose of this article.

Our society’s philosophy has digressed into a self-centered strategy. It reduces the gift of human life to a commodity which is to be managed in the same way we choose pets, breed cattle for market or adjust hunting seasons to prevent animal overpopulation.

Dealing with “Unwanteds” Past and Present

Designating some human lives as “unwanted” has led to the greatest mistreatment of peoples throughout history starting with Biblical accounts. But it is certainly not restricted to pre-modern times. Hitler always comes to mind as the king of savagery, yet his 6+ million murders and countless tortures could be argued to take second place to Stalin’s at least twenty million killings including the seven million by forced famine in 1932-33.1,2 Numerous “ethnic cleansings” is the recent euphemism for eliminating unwanteds.

Our Shame

Our nation is not innocent. Lives lost through displacement of the American Indians/ “Native Americans” including “The Trail of Tears” in 1836 has stained our country’s soul.3

Even today, we get rid of “unwanted children” through the efforts of “clinics’ such as Planned Parenthood whose founder Margaret Sanger wrote: “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

She also wrote about immigrants and the poor: “They are…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ’spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”

“Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease…Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks [of people] that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant.”4

We ridicule the barbarism of times past, yet we have proven that technology without wisdom leaves us with no more reason to be proud than our distant ancestors. We must eliminate the term “unwanted children” from our vocabulary for us to be pointed in the right direction.

1 – “Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Primary Megadeaths of the Twentieth Century,” http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm

2 — http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm

3 – “The Trail of Tears,” http://www.history.com/topics/native-american-history/trail-of-tears

4 – “7 Incredibly Shocking Quotes From Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger,” Becky Yeh, http://www.lifenews.com/2015/02/23/7-shocking-quotes-from-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger/, 2/23/2015


Insulted Girlfriend and Advice Columnist are Oblivious to the Real Disrespect

The Tuesday April 7, 2015 edition of the Cincinnati Enquirer printed Carolyn Hax’s advice to a young woman who had been dating a guy for five years. She is currently living with him and they are planning to be married.

The Perceived Problem

She was upset because she had learned from a previous girlfriend of his that he had taken this woman on a first date “to a really expensive restaurant (one I have expressed an interest in, but that he always said cost too much). On our first date we went to a mediocre restaurant.”

This led her to write “I feel like crap since I found this out, like he thought she was better.”

Ms. Hax brought up the possibility that perhaps “he was in better financial shape back then, or dumber about how he spent his money.” She added he might have not taken her “seriously when scheduling that first date,” then later changed his mind about her. She tried to help “Second-Class Citizen” gain confidence by saying she shouldn’t need a fancy restaurant to feel good about herself.

The Real Problem

Sadly, this exchange completely missed the most serious issue in the couple’s relationship and one that most “liberated women” of today fail to realize. The lack of respect did not stem from the trivial issue of those first dates. Rather, it began when she accepted the deceptive and cleverly wrapped belief that truly modern women show their power and independence by allowing men to use their bodies without the proper commitment of lifelong fidelity due to a lady.1 Major contradiction.

The Solution

“Second-Class Citizen” and millions like her could prevent serious damage to their sense of self-worth by recalling the lesson from the famous dialogue attributed to either George Bernard Shaw or Winston Churchill, depending on the source:

“ Madam, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?”
“My goodness, Well, I’d certainly think about it.”
“Would you sleep with me for a pound?”
“Certainly not! What kind of woman do you think I am?!”
“Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.”2

The dignity of the human person dictates that no one is to be used by another. When a guy lives with a woman in all ways married except the vows, he is doing just that.

1 – Assuming that artificial contraceptives are used in most unmarried living arrangements, the decreasing respect for women was predicted in 1968: “Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.” By Pope Paul VI, in his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, section 17 under “Consequences of Artificial Methods,” http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

2 — http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/what_kind_of_woman_do_you_take_me_for_madam_weve_already_established_that_c/, 11/22/2009

“Homophobia” is Contrived, so Where is “Adulterophobia”?

What is a “phobia”? It is “a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.”1

“Homo” is the prefix meaning “a genus of primates that includes modern humans (Homo sapiens) and several extinct species.2

Let’s Build a Word

Putting these two together, we arrive at “homophobia” which means an irrational fear of a genus of primates. If this exists, it would be exhibited as a fear of all people… probably not the originally intended meaning.

Could it be that this word is being misused by those who wish to discredit fellow humans who understand that sexual activity between two men or two women is intrinsically disordered? Even someone who does not follow a religion should know without a doubt that this behavior is contrary to Natural Law.  (Key point: it’s the behavior that must be rejected, not those involved.)


Distortion of language is the weapon of choice for the politically correct crowd. Realizing this, it is surprising that they haven’t labeled those opposed to adultery, and its cousin fornication, as being “adulterophobes.” Perhaps it’s because this mortal sin has been so ingrained in our society that it’s considered standard procedure. This brings to mind a mid-1980’s episode of the television series “Murder She Wrote” when one of the main characters attempted to chide another by saying, “Infidelity isn’t exactly front page news anymore.”

Of course, even if “progressives” felt the need ridicule those men and women attempting to be virtuous, the term would still be absurd. These individuals do not have an irrational desire to avoid sexual relations outside of a valid marriage. They are simply respectful of the disruption this behavior causes to society, not to mention its eternal consequences. That is a reasonable thing to be concerned about!

A Charitable Response, not Enabling Behavior, is What’s Needed

By its origins, “homophobia” does not exist as social engineers claim. It’s merely a clever attempt to demean those who acknowledge “the big picture” into accepting a disordered lifestyle which goes against Natural Law as well as the Ten Commandments. Arbitrary social changes produce contrived terms which divert our focus from what should be our top priorities, in this case: on loving and assisting those afflicted with these tendencies into a better life— both now and, more importantly, beyond.

1 – taken from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/phobia
2 – taken from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Homo

There’s No Ambiguity in Jesus’ Statement Regarding Divorce-Remarriage-Adultery

Before the obvious is verified, let’s look at what marriage accomplishes with the originally separate individuals.

“and [Jesus] said, “for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two can become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”1

Christians are familiar with Jesus’ reply when asked about the “bill of divorce” in Moses’ time:

“He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”2

So, Why the Confusion?

Knowing this, how can any Christian argue that a civil decree of divorce negates the sacramental union created by the covenant of marriage? Civil laws have no impact on the validity of a covenant. To use the vernacular, “Marriage is above the state’s pay grade” (which is also important to remember when dealing with the absurdity of the state attempting to redefine marriage—a discussion for another time).

But still, aren’t there extenuating circumstances permitting a divorce?

Two Erroneous Grounds for Christian Divorce

The split in the Church as a result of the 16th century Protestant “Reformation” has created much confusion producing today’s justification of divorce by many. For example:

▪ “When adultery has take(sic) place, a divorce can be obtained, because adultery has already severed the marriage relationship and divorce is a formal acknowledgment of what has already taken place.”3

Adultery may do great harm to a human relationship leading to a temporary or permanent separation, but it does not break the marriage covenant. Recall the vow “for better or for worse.”

The act of adultery is a mortal sin, another reality that was lost sometime after the year 1517. Mortal sin does sever the relationship between the individual and God. However, that relationship with God can be reestablished through a proper confession and absolution of the sin,4 but adultery is not a “get out of jail card free” which allows the other partner to ignore the commitment made before God.

Now, if it can be established that one of the partners had a history of an inability to commit to relationships or showed a disregard for the permanence of marriage any time prior to the wedding ceremony, then a valid marriage never took place. Something which never took place need not be broken (divorce). While the validity of a marriage is always presumed, key facts may become known later which reveal that the two did not become “one flesh.” Hence, “a decree of nullity” (annulment) may be granted, thus freeing each to marry someone else who is also free to do so.

▪ “The Pauline privilege, which I mentioned earlier, (1 Corinthians 7:15) permits divorce on the grounds of desertion by an unbelieving spouse. For mental cruelty to be grounds for divorce, it must involve conduct which makes it impossible to live with the spouse without endangering oneself.”3

The epistle in question refers to a “separation” which “The brother or sister is not bound in such cases.” Since a valid marriage is indissoluble, the only way a spouse is not bound by the marriage vows is if the necessary conditions were not present at the time of the commitment. Again, the origins for abusive behavior must be proven to have existed before the ceremony, otherwise the “for better or for worse” vow holds. (Of course, the Church does not suggest that the abused party must continue to live with the abuser.)

This is why entering into a marriage is such a serious issue requiring an sufficient period of discernment. It’s much more than having moral sex.

If No Annulment, What About the Happiness of the Aggrieved Party?

In some cases, an annulment cannot be granted. Where does that leave each spouse?

For those of us who believe in an afterlife, we are concerned about “happiness” in the next life not just on Earth. It’s easy to forget that. One cannot watch a simple sporting event without an advertiser trying to convince us that life without sex is desolate, unloving and not worth living.

Speaking from experience, this is completely false. A special relationship outside of marriage with a member of the opposite sex can achieve amazing fulfillment for each person while being faithful to all ten of the Commandments.

So, instead of trying to rationalize our way into immoral activities, we could make the world a much better place if we would return to the commands our Savior gave us Himself or through his apostolic successors.5,6

1 – Matthew 19: 5-6 from “The New Catholic Answer Bible,” Fireside Catholic Publishing; Wichita, KS, 2005

2 – Matthew 19: 8-9, Ibid.

3 – from “What Does The Bible Say About Divorce and Remarriage?” at http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/cbnteachingsheets/Divorce_And_Remarriage.aspx

4 – “And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.’” John 20: 22-23, from “The New Catholic Answer Bible,” Fireside Catholic Publishing; Wichita, KS, 2005

5 – as Jesus said, “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” Luke 10: 16, Ibid.

6 — For those who do not believe in God, we still possess the code of moral behavior present in human consciences even before the time of Moses’ trip to Mount Sinai. When we try to pretend it doesn’t exist, we end up feeling empty in the end. Ask any therapist.