Bishop Takes On King

The recent brouhaha about the Catholic bishops threatening to excommunicate President Noynoy Aquino if the RH Bill is passed was truly farcical. I sincerely hope the threat wasn’t serious because if it was, our bishops were probably on weed if they indeed said it ๐Ÿ˜† or still think they are living in the days of the Inquisition. I suppose when King Noynoy , the Grand Heretic got the news, he was on his Ipod listening to John Lennon’s new age anthem – ” Imagine there’s no heaven… no hell below us, above us only sky.. no religion too … ” ๐Ÿ™‚

This time I won’t argue about the moral and theological ramifications of birth control nor justify the advantages of under population vs. over population. I’ll get straight to my point. It issue isn’t really about the birth control pill – whether it is an abortifacient or not. It has got to do with the church’s rather bizarre interpretation and understanding of the nature of sex which drastically differs from yours and mine. If we can’t be on the same page on this issue it would be futile if not pointless to pursue further dialog on the matter.


I blogged about this in the past but allow me to revisit the topic again.Here’s the official interpretation of what sex is – according to the Catholic Church :

The moral issue here is whether a man and a woman should engage in sexual intercourse merely for sexual pleasure or mainly for procreation which is the means of cooperating with God in creating another human being.

Thus the Catechism states that โ€œSexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposesโ€. Any act of contraception, be it by pills, condoms, withdrawal, or ligation is always wrong, and if this is done with full knowledge and full consent, it is always a mortal sin. Every marriage act must be open to the transmission of human life

If the only church compliant form of family planning is the rhythm method, and sex is consummated knowingly when the woman is infertile, isnโ€™t this likewise tantamount to having sex with no intent of procreation ? Therefore both the condom and rhythm method achieve the same result the difference being that the former is artificial hence an outright infraction and latter “natural” hence more theologically sound ? To who ? Do you think you can fool God ? ๐Ÿ˜‰ Shades of – “death by hanging or lethal injection?

Even in AIDS ravaged Africa, where some countries have 30% of their population HIV positive, the Catholic church still condemns AIDS sufferers who use condoms on their wives. Some of these men were either born HIV positive or contracted AIDS from blood transfusions and unhygienic medical procedures. The church is pretty consistent on its theology, that even if you have AIDS, you must continue to procreate, produce HIV positive children who will likely decimate the human population. I suppose the church expects God to be extremely pleased with such obedience.

Talking about sexual pleasure in the context of heterosexual marriage, I once attended a sermon by a pastor who told his congregation ” sky is the limit when it comes to sex between husband and wife at the matrimonial bed”. It is a metaphor no doubt but we can certainly read between the lines. The pastor who himself was married certainly knew what he was talking about, I hope ๐Ÿ˜‰ I wish priests are allowed to marry so they could be like one of us, capable of understanding the meaning of sexual pleasure, an innate need of every human being. Without the suppressed sexual desires of a celibate perhaps they can minister to their flock with more empathy ( you don’t necessarily want to make babies every time you have sex with your wife) let alone eliminating the cases of sexual abuse scandals that has rocked the church for decades now.


Survey showed that 71% of Catholic Filipinos as well as 68% of non-Catholics support the RH bill and want it to pass. Politicians who initially feared a backlash by the voting public need not worry anymore. The kowtowing tactics of the church isn’t effective any longer so just pass the bill. Besides, the bishops haven’t really offered a viable alternative for controlling population explosion other than self-deprivation and abstention from sex, a practice they have sworn to live by. The Vatican with its billions in the bank vaults isn’t willing to ante up some cash to support the impoverished families with dozens of kids so there is no sense in prolonging the debate.


To hear many religious people talk, one would think God created the torso, head, legs and arms, but the devil slapped on the genitals. ~Don Schrader


30 Responses

  1. The Vatican’s billions of dollars are used for defending their pedophile priests, and for settling cases of those marginalized victims courtesy of their countless morally right man-of-the cloth.

  2. Hahaha… on weed!

    Totally agree with you. Church does contradict itself because rhythm method also means that the couple is not doing it for procreation. It also contradicts the church teaching (don’t know if I’m correct on this as my theology is mostly based on gossip… haha!) on subservience of wife to man.

  3. the cartoons are hilarious, haha ๐Ÿ™‚

    I’m shocked at the disapproval to use condoms for those suffering from AIDS especially those who were accidentally infected. Common sense should prevail in this case.

    • It looks like some bishops and cardinals are at odds with the Vatican on condom usage for AIDS sufferers. We shall see if the church will change its stance as the result of the protest ๐Ÿ˜‰

  4. Priests should get married so they can understand more about husband and wife making love. Sex between husband and wife is not necessarily all the time geared into “making” more babies. Sex between husband and wife is also the act of consummation of love…
    I agree with you. Priests who practice the celibate life wouldn’t and will never understand these things at all…

    • It is one thing to issue marching orders for the sake of compliance and it is one thing if such orders actually reflect reality. It’s easy to give orders when you aren’t in the same boat as the people you are expecting obedience from.

  5. Sex being ‘morally disordered” if you aren’t making babies with your wife is pretty tough statement . I wouldn’t be surprised if some people find it defying logic.

    I like the lepers cartoon. Terribly funny.

    • How many married people in this world really think that having sex is morally disordered when you aren’t making babies ? ugh.

  6. Why should we take advice on sex from the pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn’t! ~George Bernard Shaw

    Conservatives say teaching sex education in the public schools will promote promiscuity. With our education system? If we promote promiscuity the same way we promote math or science, they’ve got nothing to worry about. ~Beverly Mickins

  7. I remember in our theo 102 class – christian morality – ung prof namin dinali kami sa isang seminar na anti RH na may pagka hypnotic.

    I sent my reaction paper defending contraception and my theo prof spent an hour and a half lambasting every word I wrote. Pero hindi niya ako binagsak in fairness. It was one of my happiest moments in college.

    • good for you. Perhaps your teacher realized that there is no sense for students to say AMEN to everything the teacher says – that means they’re no more than robots ๐Ÿ˜‰

  8. Show me a catholic doctrine and I’ll show you a hypocritically religous principle.

    I have an actual discussion about this with a priest here:

    The “leper” is funny!

  9. I just think it’s time to pass this bill.

  10. It is quite tragic how the Catholic church wrongfully uses sacred Christian teachings in the interest of sustaining power and dominance. The absurdity of those rules imposed on our modern issues clearly indicates that the only interest the Catholic Church has is sustaining its already deteriorating social currency by strictly adhering to a doctrine that is distilled and taken out of context.

    If the real interest of the Catholic Church was about souls then they would not leave out the most important rationale about this rule regarding sex. First of all this rule is meant only for those who have been chosen or choose to seek God. Secondly, it is part of a greater teaching that thwarts being reactionary and constantly being governed by impulses (this sounds quite applicable to our times).

    Yes, and finally, any form of spiritual progress is a “choice” that must be made by the individual, not imposed by some geezer with fancy clothes.

    • I was stunned when I read the Catholic Cathechism’s doctrine on marital sex. I thought that being born a heterosexual actually increases one’s chances of going to hell. Getting married and having sex with your wife apparently isn’t enough to bail you out from the sin of committing fornication. The theological conditions of sex for ” procreative and unitive” purposes to avoid sinning are more complex than I thought. Come to think of it , homosexual sex seem to be exempted from the encumbrance for it offers no threat to the supposed destruction of human life. How odd ๐Ÿ˜ฏ

  11. Man’s fingerprints are all over that doctrine on marital sex, concealing and distorting its fundamental principles. For better or worse, humanity’s progress can be attributed to deviance. It is a universal condition to never be satisfied by our current norms. This is the same seeking mechanism which enables someone to cheat on their wife, nuke an entire country, or look for God. All of these actions stem from an unsatisfied position in life.

    Now, why would God kill the same engine used to find him in the first place? I may be wrong, but I think God’s motive was to instill us with an outside perspective of our consciousness. It was Jean-Paul Sartre who said, “It is consciousness only when consciousness is looking at consciousness.”

    To me, I see no other benefits associated with self-imposed limitations: abstinence, withdrawal, or even faithfulness.

    • If such self-imposed limitations – abstinence, mortification, suffering – are supposed to make God happy and pleased, it reflects how feeble and narrow our understanding of God is, by attributing human qualities to a power that is beyond human comprehension.

  12. Greetings, this is a genuinely absorbing web blog and I have cherished studying many of the content and posts contained on the web site, keep up the outstanding work and desire to read a good deal more stimulating articles in the future.

  13. That is the point I was trying to make. Self-imposed limitations should not be done for the sole purpose of pleasing God. Rather, they should act as pathways into understanding the roots of our thoughts, motives, and desires. One could say, a clearer picture of our consciousness.

  14. if the church too calls for civil disobedience, they’ll be emabrrassed as people won’t support them. all they could muster are the religious themselves and probably students of catholic schools coerced to attend and just plain ignorant ๐Ÿ˜ฆ

    • I’d be willing to bet that if the country does a national referendum with citizens 18 and above to simply say aye or nay to the RH bill, the results will confirm the sentiments of the public and that is more than 50 % will say yes to the bill.

      If I can quote Carl sagan again :

      โ€œ In making such decisions, weโ€™re concerned not only with doing right but also with what worksโ€ฆ what makes us and the rest of society happier and more secure. Thereโ€™s a tension between what we call ethical and what we call pragmatic. If, even in the long run, ethical behavior were self-defeating, eventually we would not call it ethical, but foolish “

  15. I think the Church is more worried how sex could become more casual with high access to contraceptives than the issue whether sex should merely be for procreation and not for pleasure.

    I should agree that population should be controlled (not curtailed) but I am a bit worried that condoms in the hands of our youths could inure to widespread diseases and you know, improper sex ๐Ÿ™‚

    • contraceptive pills at least where I am cannot be bought without a doctor’s prescription. It is not an over the counter drug contrary to what most people think. I imagine the Phil government could prescribe them to the poor families by govt doctors who work on the family planning program.

      Condoms can be bought without prescription though. Now here comes the issue of choice, where the govt can impose an age limit on who can buy condoms. Adults certainly have the freedom to sleep with whomever they want – with or without condoms. Banning condoms altogether simply encourages black market trade – people will still buy them from illegal sources. In my view restriction and coercion doesn’t work in this particular case. And if I may add – what about MARRIED MEN ? Why can’t they be allowed to use condoms on their wives ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: