68 Comments

• Andrew007 | Jun 23, 2012, 12:56 AM EDT

  @eiriamach PART 2: However, I do qualify this as at the time of the writing of the NT abortifacients were also used (employing herbs or violent shocks to the female body), as well as the apparently then widespread practice of infanticide (ancient methods of contraception being VERY imperfect at best). Given that moral and legal proscriptions have existed on what was (and arguably mostly still is) regarded as murder since time immemorial (pagan human sacrifice, even of children and new-born infants, such as that which existed in Punic worship of Baal-Molech, being the exception), I don’t expect NT writers to publicly condemn what I believe was already almost universally legally condemned for being evil. I also qualify it on religious grounds, because fertility is a blessing from God and infertility a curse, and Mankind is meant to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28), and so therefore child-bearing and rearing is intended by our Creator to be a natural consequence of sex, which is expressly forbidden to be outside of marriage (i.e. marriages are meant to be fruitful, not childless). I further qualify this on historical grounds, as high fertility rates can actually make a nation strong or save a people from extinction. E.g. it was the incredible (RC-influenced) fertility of the Irish Gaels that saved them from extinction, as during the collapse of the Gaelic political order in 16thC Ireland and then the deliberate ethnic cleansing, enslavement and transportation, and then attempted genocide in the 17thC, and then the 19thC Great Famine, English overlords either deliberately attempted to annihilate the rebellious Gaels or were overwhelmingly indifferent to their mass starvation.

• Andrew007 | Jun 23, 2012, 12:54 AM EDT

  @eiriamach, in response to your reply of Jun 14, 2012, 11:10 AM EDT: fair enough. Expanding upon what you said, not even St Paul, who expounded at length about the new Moral and Spiritual Order of this "Age of Grace" within which the (universal) Christian Church operates, mentioned contraception. As you’ve suggested, contraceptive practices were widespread in the ancient world (especially amongst Greeks/Romans), and included both “natural remedies” (incl. famous herbs like Silphium) as well as “artificial” methods (such as coitus interruptus, avoiding sex during ritually “unclean” (and fertile) periods, and using devices such as wool or polished stones to block the passage of ejaculate - "condoms" apparently being first invented during the English Civil War, when besieged Royalist soldiers used sheeps' intestines to prevent the poxied wenches they bedded from infecting them, but I digress!). Unlike most of the other key disciples of Christ, St Paul was highly educated and specifically trained in Jewish Law by leading scholars, and didn’t just come from (gentile) Tarsus in Anatolia, but demonstrated that he was highly informed about the gentile world he travelled in and to which he was exposed, and I have little doubt that he would have been aware that contraceptive practices existed (particularly in the gentile world). Therefore, of all NT writers I would have expected him at least to condemn contraception if indeed it was a sin. But he remains silent on the issue throughout his writings (which, given St Paul’s directness about sexual immorality and male-female relations, is significant). If we consider this silence in conjunction with the overwhelming silence of OT writers on the matter, I therefore cannot but conclude that contraception isn’t necessarily a sin in and of itself, but only when combined with other factors – such as when Onan was deliberately trying to deny his brother’s widow a son to carry on the deceased man’s name.

• mayoman | Jun 19, 2012, 10:02 AM EDT

  If this article means anything it is that the Archbishop has been left at the station. Fifty years ago women began using contraceptives, and they soon discovered that contrqaceptives are a covenient and safe means of preventing unwanted pregnancies, and controlling their own bodies and destinies. This is a reality that the Archbishop isn't personally concerned about. But let's be clear about this: this is all old business, very old business. Catholic women have moved on, and have wisely decided to use contraceptives. And fortunately they don't give a rap what some old archbishop with quaint, reactionary views of women thinks. The conservative men, that are eternally in charge of the RCC, should wake up and take note. The world has changed, and is busy evolving right now. And they need to run to catch up.

• Collette2 | Jun 17, 2012, 02:52 AM EDT

  Brnmar, Your the only one who has ever made reference to Chiniquy's book. It's enough to make you wonder and enough make you puke. They get away with it still today because it's a sin to speak against a priest, and many still believe it.

• seanomelb | Jun 16, 2012, 11:10 PM EDT

  watched an interesting story on health care in America. They interviewed a gentleman who was turned away from hospital because he did have insurance or $20,000 dollars to pay for surgery his doctor claimed his condition was critical as his hernia was infected.His diagnosis is operate or die. The GOP mantra toward this man is tough its his fault for been poor.So much for the Christian right.

• eiriamach | Jun 16, 2012, 04:43 PM EDT

  Gearoid4, Medicaid money is controlled by the states. While federal funds contribute to Medicaid, states allocate it. Many states, with PR and money from Catholic anti-choice groups, have written laws to deny Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood and other women's clinics that refer for abortion or provide abortion, and sometimes the state legislatures withhold the funds simply because the clinics provide contraceptive services. If poor women cannot avoid pregnancy, they are disadvantaged on the job market, their families slip deeper into poverty, the women become totally dependent, and the cycle of poverty repeats in the next generation. Isn't that the name of your game? At this point, Planned Parenthood keeps all public funding totally separate from its abortion referrals and services. These, as I understand the situation, are now completely funded from private contributions. Yet you still lobby against gynecological health services for women in need. Shameful!

• Gearoid4 | Jun 16, 2012, 04:10 PM EDT

  @Eiriamach, Despite the provision of varied gynaecological services by PP, it's viability as a business, would be seriously effected if abortion or contraception were not as widely promoted as they are. Also your assertion that there is no Federal funding for abortion appears to be erroneous, as such financial aid is built into Medicaid. @CiaraDexy, Catholic parents are constitutionally entitled to the provision of Catholic education where it is in demand. At present, this has not radically diminished, despite the availability of choice concerning other types of schooling. Parents will make sure that the Church is not marginalized by an ideological campaign to cause this. You go through the litany of wrongs that the Church committed in the past. The dark side of Church involvement with the state, as in Institutional abuse has been shocking and rightfully condemned. Currently Irish Catholicism is facing this in a forthright and penitent manner and it's renewal forms part of that. You mention symphysiotomies, a controversial procedure which was carried out in certain Irish hospitals in past decades. It's association with Catholic influenced medical practices has never been verified, and this policy was also carried out in other western nations. Your figure of "100s of thousands of children" who were raped or abused is ludicrous. Abuse of minors in any form can never be condoned, but instances mentioned in recently released reports varied from slaps or verbal abuse up to very grave acts of sexual assault. You deride the senior age-profile of the attendees at the current Eucharist Congress in Dublin. But their public witness to the Faith is inspiring and bodes well for the survival it's survival in Ireland. To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the Church's demise are greatly exaggerated. And long may it be so.

• Brnmar1 | Jun 16, 2012, 02:41 PM EDT

  Read Father Chiniquys' book "Fifty Years in The Church of Rome." It was written over 100 years ago, but it will enlighten you about the sexual abuses committed by the priests. During Father Chiniquys' time as a priest sexual abuses by priests was already happening. What has been discovered now, was already a reality during the 1800s and even before that. The Catholic Church has been covering up these things for centuries.

• ciaradexy | Jun 16, 2012, 09:00 AM EDT

  Eiri, its so refreshing to see parents here lobbying to get the church out of irish schools. More parents are sending their kids to Educate Together schools rather than the catholic schools which were the only option forever! I went to an all girls 'catholic' secondary school. it was run by nuns but most of the teachers werent and in our religion class, we had free reign to discuss whatever we wanted to. Subjects ranged from adoption to abortion to divorce to sex to alcohol to self esteem etc. This is now the norm on religion classes in school here which is brilliant. i work for many voluntary organisations and not one of the regular volunteers do the work for religious reasons. We do it because its the right thing to do and because when we are dead, we are dead. there is no after life to buy tokens for throughout your life. the church is on its way out of Ireland and its grasp is being loosened bit by bit. When its in the tiniest of minorities, then that will be a time of celebration.

• eiriamach | Jun 16, 2012, 08:50 AM EDT

  Ciaradexy, go raibh maith agat, agus an abairt seo: Irish and American women have good reason for solidarity, working together, on the issues you list, despite whatever cultural differences there may be between us. Caring women like you and thousands of other Irish and American women and mothers and American nuns, etc., we face many of the same continuing threats. Ní neart go cur le chéile!

• Collette2 | Jun 15, 2012, 11:12 PM EDT

  He has some track recorded shenanigans within some "spiritual community" connected to a wealthy Catholic family who donated millions to refurbishing the Perth Cathederal. Women were being groped left right and centre and he refused to admonish those running the show. Money being the root of all evil the saying goes.

• ciaradexy | Jun 15, 2012, 08:14 PM EDT

  Eiriamach, youre right in everything you say! The Catholic Church is anti-women especically in Ireland. they are responsible for Magdalene Launderies, taking babies from their mothers and selling them or forcing them to give them up for adoption,symphysiotomies, contraception ban till the 90's and the rape and abuse of 100s of thousands of children. The news that less than 10,000 people all under the age of 60 turned up at the mass for the Eucharistic Congress and half of these werent from Ireland relived my heart and filled me with joy! Celibate men in dresses telling women how to control their fertility while butchering them and raping their kids just sickens me.

• eiriamach | Jun 15, 2012, 06:29 PM EDT

  I's posted this before: Planned Parenthood is the US's largest reproductive health care resource for women: PP provides, free or at low cost, medical procedures that would be expensive at gynecologists' offices and unaffordable by many: cervical, uterine, ovarian, and endometrial cancer screening; breast exams and referrals for mammograms; tests and treatments for STDs and yeast and other infections; HIV tests; exams for contraceptives; treatments for fibroid tumors; endometriosis and osteoporosis testing and treatments; pregnancy testing; pre-natal and post-natal care; adoption referrals; wellness clinics; training for health professionals, counselors, and teachers; and sexuality- and family-planning education for millions of teenagers and adults. It is no argument at all to cite the fact that 3% of PP procedures relate to abortion: there is NO federal funding of abortion services. And no excuse for the Catholic Church's war on Planned Parenthood, which really is its war on women.

• eiriamach | Jun 15, 2012, 06:22 PM EDT

  "Western Imperialism" at the hands of your Church, Gearoid4, imposes death on African mothers and fathers who have HIV (RCC missionary doctors will not treat infected parents) while it provides medicine to save the lives of their fetuses in the womb. I call that kind of "charity" imperialism with selective genocide. The Vatican is forever fighting UN and other organizations' efforts to supply contraceptives and medicines to women in need. These services have proven effective and ESSENTIAL to "economic and social transformation of such societies." And I've replied before to your claim that PP is "the largest abortion provider"-- it's a large provider only because RCC lobbying helps the GOP shut down other gynecology clinics. In doing so, it deprives millions of poor women of their only access to health screenings and preventive services. Cancer rates and mortality of both women and their babies will rise as a result of Catholic campaigns against PP. Gynecologists have already been assassinated and clinic staff wounded as a result of your demonizing these essential women's health care facilities. Finally, the teens do hear about abstinence at PP clinics, but they are free to choose a contraceptive (NFP has an appallingly high failure rate among teens).

• Gearoid4 | Jun 15, 2012, 05:41 PM EDT

  @Eiriamach, My point concerning the use of contraception and sterilization in the past by the forerunners to today's abortion providers, is pertinent to the history of the mentality that promoted it's widespread use. One has only to look at the involvement of such organizations in the push for these "reproductive" services to be uses in countries of the so-called Third World. It is a form of insidious Western imperialism which is imposed upon mothers which is the last thing they require. The economic and social transformation of such societies are much higher priorities than such ideological-driven campaigns. In terms of sex-education, why cannot the PP branches across the US encourage teenagers to respect their bodies and say NO to the temptation of promiscuous sexual activity. But this would be a bridge too far, as it would go against the whole basis of the existence for such organizations. As I have stated before, PP is the leading purveyor of abortion and contraceptive services in the US. So it seems that any noticeable diminution in the need for such services, would badly effect their profits and "ethos".

• Gearoid4 | Jun 15, 2012, 05:30 PM EDT

  @IrishRgreat Ctd, In general terms, I could counter your distortions regarding Catholic history, by pointing out the incalculable but low-profile work that the Church has done with regard to the provision of global health/social care, education and charity to the most needy and impoverished in the world. In fact the Church is the main provider of such care outside UN NGOs. I could cite the work done by Catholic Peace and Justice networks around the globe in terms of peace-making. Also I could at length discuss the unparalleled Catholic contribution to Art,Music and Architecture, but I will stop there. In summary, you try to depict the Catholic Church as some sort of evil conspiracy about to subvert the world, despite the above vast evidence to the contrary. To put the Church on the same level as genocidal nazism or communism is clearly ludicrous and cannot be taken seriously. I do not dispute that there dark periods in Church history, but this has been so, since the first apostolic age. But with the Grace of God, the Church will clean house and restore Her reputation.

• Gearoid4 | Jun 15, 2012, 05:30 PM EDT

  @IrishRgreat, Your posting just consists of a regurgitation of half-digested truths, black legends(patently false) and distortions regarding the history of the Catholic Church. You start off with a scattergun approach, by depicting the whole Vatican as protectors of pedophiles and persecutors of homosexuals etc. The present Pope has been involved in a clean-up prora in relation to the sex-abuse crisis. In 2010, he considerably tightened up Canon law to make it easier to remove priests guilty of such crimes, from the priesthood. Indeed since his days as head of the CDF)Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), he has been on the reforming side of the Vatican Curia, seeking to systematically root out the scourge. He has also met on numerous occasions with victims, during his journeys abroad. Cardinal Dolan(while Archbishop of Milwaukee) was offering financial inducements for those guilty or heavily suspected of such crimes, to remove themselves from the priesthood. This was done, partially out of charitable reasons and to obviate the interminable process of waiting for a canonical trial, which may not get the desired result. It is not a course that I personally favor, but I can see the reason behind it. The very distressing Brazilian case concerning the rape of the little girl, resultant abortion and excommunication of the doctors who procured it, caused divisions within the Vatican. Archbishop Fisichella, then head of the Pontifical Academy of Life,criticized the haste and necessity for such a decision. There were 3 victims here, the young girl who was violated and the twin foetuses who were aborted.

• eiriamach | Jun 15, 2012, 05:18 PM EDT

  Gearoid4, 1) I did not deny the FACTS of history you alluded to; I pointed out the fallacy in trying to discredit an organization by attacking the character of one of its founders. The "unsavory" ideas of one of its founders has absolutely NO BEARING on the value and morality of its services today-- or even its services at the time of its founding! 2) Teenagers' lives: PP is one of the few organizations that undertake sex education of teens and their teachers. This is an invaluable service at a time when states and churches--such as your own church--are doing everything they can to eliminate sex education from the schools. Many a sexually active teenager who visits a PP clinic for treatment of a vaginal infection is shocked-- and educated-- to hear the clinician ask when she plans to buy her baby's layette, since she has a 90% chance of becoming pregnant within a year if she does not use contraceptives. That's the beginning of responsibility for many teens, who will never learn to take responsibility for their reproductive lives in your church.

• Gearoid4 | Jun 15, 2012, 04:59 PM EDT

  @Lokionline, I don't mind if the public consensus is against the views that I believe in. But ultimately truth cannot depend on the vagaries of public opinion to base itself upon. Certain truths are eternal and will stand the test of time. You state that my views presage the kind of legislation that Republican local admins would put through their chambers. But I do not want to impose anything but propose. People are free to accept my arguments or not. Theocratic societies are not favoured by me. You ask if I'm a priest. No, I'm just a Catholic lay person who believes in the life-giving message of Christ, and likes to convey his opinion on important moral questions which effect society.

• Gearoid4 | Jun 15, 2012, 04:38 PM EDT

  @Eiriamach, My points are in no way "fallacious" logic, and can be verified by a look-up of the past histories of the organizations that I mentioned and their association with the Eugenics movement. You are trying to divert attention away from the points that I'm making regarding bodies like Planned Parenthood and their unsavory past. I assume that you mean that pregnancy is a disease when you mention it in the context of PP saving the lives of teenagers. There is little doubt that this type of situation, is fraught with a lot of tension and worry for families. But one does not add to to one wrong by committing another i.e destroying the growing life in the womb. PP is the biggest provider of abortion in the USA. A boast that no organization can be proud of. In surveys, clinics report that over 50% of their referrals are for failed contraceptive measures. Thus the two are closely interlinked.

• eiriamach | Jun 15, 2012, 04:15 PM EDT

  RCC needs another watershed moment, open to discoveries in both natural and social science, open to reconciling conscience with new knowledge. It had one such moment June 23, 1964, when Paul VI, on his first anniversary as pope, said that the Church must "affirm what is her concern-- namely, the law of God which she interprets, teaches, promotes, and defends. And the Church must proclaim this law of God in the light of the scientific, social and psychological truths which in recent times have had new and very extensive study and documentation.... The question [of the morality of contraception] is under study-- a study as broad and as deep as possible in that serious and honest manner which is due to a subject of such importance.... and with the help of many illustrious scholars we hope to quickly conclude it. We will issue the findings...." Four years later, he closed the Church off from the Revelation that post-biblical ages have sought in the study of nature. He rejected his "illustrious" committee's unanimous recommendation and issued Humanae Vitae-- his last encyclical-- written 10 years before his death. Did he spend those 10 mute years repenting the burden he left on Catholic consciences, along with the heritage of overlords like Hickey and Dolan?

• ciaradexy | Jun 15, 2012, 12:53 PM EDT

  Gearoid, sex was around long before the catholic church was as was marriage and both will still be around long after the catholic church has left Ireland.

• lokionline | Jun 15, 2012, 12:01 PM EDT

  Gearoid4. Your posts are fascinating. I admire your spirit and your efforts to engage in a cordial exchange. You are clearly comfortable with your worldview.
  
  But, for many, the worldview you espouse resembles an out-of-date, tight and uncomfortable garment.
  
  You may be comfortable living within a world defined by ancient scripture and ruled by the men in the Vatican, but evidence suggests that the majority of Irish people do not agree with you today and the majority of Irish if they had actually been asked at any time in history, likely never did.
  
  Keep up the good fight Gearoid4 you provide us all with a vision of what happens when we allow folks with your outlook to set public policy. Evidence of which is coming in loud and clear from Republican dominated state houses across the US.
  
  I'm curious... what do you do? Are you a priest? What role do you play in your catholic community?

• eiriamach | Jun 15, 2012, 08:09 AM EDT

  @Gearoid4, your recourse to shoddy logic (fallacies) never ceases to astonish me. Yes, there were people who advocated even racist eugenics policies when services like Planned Parenthood were begun, just as your own organization has had many popes who advocated slavery, the deaths of women in pregnancy and childbearing rather than permitting them even life-saving contraceptives (Pius XII in 1958), burning at the stake for those who dissented on doctrinal questions, and genocide against Muslims (and Jews who lived along the way) as the Crusaders rode to the Holy Lands. Do the murderous histories of such churchmen invalidate the truths of Christ? No, of course not! Similarly, Planned Parenthood literally SAVES LIVES, gives teenagers control over their lives, and allows families to plan their childbearing to meet their financial RESPONSIBILITIES-- that's a moral approach to human sexuality. No "guilt by association" and no patent "ad hominem" smears of a handful of individuals can discredit the work of such groups as Planned Parenthood. If these laughably fallacious arguments are the best you have left to offer, you should give it up.

• IrishRgreat | Jun 14, 2012, 10:23 PM EDT

  Gearoid4, if one were to judge the diety that was worshipped by Catholics today I would say that diety is concerned with protecting pedophiles, persecuting homosexuals, having lots of children and hating condoms. I suppose that just about sums up the state of the Vatican and its princes these days. We are now finding that Dolan paid off pedophile priests to go away while telling the victims how sorry he was. Over in Garden Grove, CA, the church just moved into a 57 million dollar Crystal Cathedral. Not bad for poverty. How about the 9 year old and her family who were excommunicated because the girl had an abortion after a rape. Note that the church did not excommunicate the rapist or any of the pedophiles or the Vatican bank thief. I can go on for hours Gearoid4 but I suggest that you don't point fingers at anyone or that you don't defend one of the most evil organizations in history. If you are Irish then I simply ask you this: what came first, the Irish or RC church? The Irish came first. So, the Irish stick together and the RC church can go you know where. I think that the One Who made the Universe will understand.

• Gearoid4 | Jun 14, 2012, 05:58 PM EDT

  Sexual activity is the most intimate and profound expression of a mutual love between man and woman in marriage, which is a revelation of the natural compatibility between them. It is also a sign of the couple's willingness to procreate. You may not accept that definition, but that is your choice. The Church preaches about the natural order in relation to human relationships, and this unavoidably includes the nature of sexual relationships, whether you like it or not.

• ciaradexy | Jun 14, 2012, 05:39 PM EDT

  gearoid, theres nothing crass about my comments. Sex acts of any description are nothing to do with the church. what people do consentually in the privacy of their own lives are no ones business but their own and for so called, 'celibate men' who have never had an intimate relationship in their lives to tell the rest of us how we should live our lives or who we should have sex with, gay or straight, well that just takes the biscuit.

• Gearoid4 | Jun 14, 2012, 05:12 PM EDT

  @Eiriamach, Do you know the association of the birth-control industry with the eugenics mentality as typified by Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes International. Their founders were promulgators of policies which favored the use of sterilization and contraception to prevent "inferior" individuals and ethnic groups from having children. These are hardly good associations for the contraceptive industry and are no recommendation for anyone who wants to dispute the Church's ban on artificial birth-control. You claim that the Bible has no clear teachings regarding contraception. It must be stated that there are no unambiguous words in the scriptures outlawing it. But one must the general bias that the Good Book has toward the procreation of life and by extension this precludes the use of contraceptive methods to frustrate it. One has only to think of the burdens which barrenness brought to such biblical personalities as Sarah (Genesis 21:6-7 and Hebrews 11:11-12), Rebekah (Genesis 25:21), Rachel (Genesis 30:22-23), Manoah's wife (Judges 13:2-3 24), Hannah (1 Samuel, chapter one), the Shunammite (2 Kings 4:14-17), and Elizabeth (Luke, chapter one). Also God exhorted the people of the tribes of Israel to "Go Forth and Multiply"(Genesis 9:1). I think therefore there is ample proof within the pages of the Bible which treated fertility as a sign of God's Providence and the Christian Church from it's earliest Apostolic age, taught against the use of contraceptive methods to prevent conception.

• Gearoid4 | Jun 14, 2012, 03:23 PM EDT

  Rather silly crass comments in the last couple of commentaries, that add nothing to this debate

• ciaradexy | Jun 14, 2012, 03:11 PM EDT

  Catholic priests are obsessed with what people do in the bedroom! Theyre all on for hetero sex so are straight people who have anal sex going to hell or is that just reserved for gay men?

• ciaradexy | Jun 14, 2012, 03:09 PM EDT

  He'd probably be disgusted if paedo priests used condoms when they were raping kids. Thank feck his generation and ilk are due to die soon.

• eiriamach | Jun 14, 2012, 12:15 PM EDT

  Thanks for the kind words, lokionline. It's always a delight to read your comments. I mentioned the bible only because the Catholics who defend RCC teachings against contraception claim their teaching to be "from God." And they claim scripture is "the word of God." And they claim that their authority to teach "comes from God" (ultimately from Jesus' words as recorded in the New Testament). But I completely agree with you that the interpretations of scripture and natural law by today's bishops should have little influence on a rational thinking person! "Cult" is the right word for a religion whose teachings have ossified in slavery to an over-interpreted past that excludes current science and theories of knowledge, a cult whose liturgy and practices amount to a formulaic approach to salvation. What would Jesus do? He'd laugh them to scorn.

• lokionline | Jun 14, 2012, 11:56 AM EDT

  ..."If the OT prophets or the NT evangelists who knew Jesus (or knew his words) considered contraceptives immoral, surely one of them would have written down such an opinion."...
  
  eiriamach, a chara. I respect your opinions, you consistently offer up the most cogent posts on this site.
  
  However, I do not understand why you feel the opinions of these men from so long ago has the influence you wish to ascribe to them.
  
  They may have represented the tenor of their times but they were not well informed about the world or nature. In fact, to suggest they or the leaders of our current religious cults have any authority when it comes to pronouncing on the "Natural Law" is ludicrous. Our body of knowledge about the natural world has left that worldview far behind.
  
  Their opinions therefore have little relevance except for folks who see cults as the answer to our modern challenges.
  
  But then again... I guess the folks you address with these posts do act as if they are part of a cult.

• eiriamach | Jun 14, 2012, 11:10 AM EDT

  Andrew007, everything I've read on the subject indicates that your explanation at Jun 13, 2012, 11:10 PM is an accurate interpretation of Genesis 38:8-9. When I wrote at Jun 13, 2012, 09:03 PM, I just wanted to work in the point that contraceptives were in use by the biblical-era generations in most of the ancient world. If the OT prophets or the NT evangelists who knew Jesus (or knew his words) considered contraceptives immoral, surely one of them would have written down such an opinion.

• SingleDonald | Jun 14, 2012, 10:44 AM EDT

  esatdigiwank, I like your post, below! For the Lord to dictate every matter concerning intimacy leads me to wonder where he is coming from! Dose he feel it is his domain to threaten us all with "eternal damnation", if we deviate, and don't then say, "I'm sorry Lord", after each "transgression"?? A just God would not conduct Himself that way. He would accept us with dignity, and expect us to lead decent lives, respecting our fellow human beings. In matters of male/female attraction, He would expect us to RESPECT our partners, not deny our natural feelings. That is the goal we should all strive for!

• SingleDonald | Jun 14, 2012, 10:33 AM EDT

  Thanks, Portia777! I always try to balance what is right with traditional teachings. As a teenager, I basically rejected Matthew 5:28, and vehemently do so today. Any demonization of sex before marriage, or fantasies of the same (even after marriage)constitute an unnatural control the Church/Bible seeks to impose on the masses. As I have said, I answer to the woman I am with, not Jesus or the Church! If I treat her right, I feel I am a decent man, which Jesus should respect. That's a more democratic & realistic outlook thsn what those repressive brothers said, in that 1970's movie, during a high school dance: "Be sure to leave some room for Jesus"!!

• Portia777 | Jun 14, 2012, 10:03 AM EDT

  SingleDonald. Well said. This man has never known intimacy- in to me see.........and should we dare ask why he does not wish anyone to see into him?

• Portia777 | Jun 14, 2012, 09:57 AM EDT

  Just a distraction from their own crimes, is all this is. Try to keep everyone busy discussing contraception which is not the same as raping and torturing children, is it? The old mind games again "it is all her fault". S/he used the pill without asking the hierarchical man in the fish hat for permission.How can people even bother to listen to men like this who has no knowledge of marriage or sex with women.Is it that these men fear wombmen for they are creators?Are they jealous ?

• robertsgt40 | Jun 14, 2012, 09:50 AM EDT

  Easy for the archbishop to make this comment. Alter boys don't get pregnant

• MichaelRivero | Jun 14, 2012, 09:40 AM EDT

  "If you want to have sex without procreation then screw the altar boys up in the choir loft like we do!" -- Father O'Flaccid

• esatdigiwank | Jun 14, 2012, 05:38 AM EDT

  If only the constructs of 'God' & 'Religion' did not exist to complicate daily living, and ceased to fool all of us . “Such defiance sets up an inner conflict which undermines faith and causes mistrust of Christ’s mandate to teach on matters of human sexuality.” Not sure JC had a valid mandate to teach these matters if He Himself had never consummated things with Mary Mags' I'd say the rc control freak Hickey has many inner conflicts within his mind to deal with, not to mention contradictions. RC should stay out of tampering with family life and stick to what its best at: hoarding/banking.

• Andrew007 | Jun 13, 2012, 11:10 PM EDT

  @eiriamach, in this issue (regarding contraceptives) I agree with you. You're correct in saying that there is "NO scriptural prohibition against contraceptives", and I would strongly suggest that Onan was condemned not for his deliberately spilling his seed onto the ground per se, but rather doing it so that his brother's widow, whom he'd married, would not have a son that would carry her first husband's (his brother's) name, in line with the practice of Levitical Marriage that the ancient Hebrews adhered to (at least until the time of Jesus). Levitical Marriage was an institution in which widows would marry the brother(s) (or nearest male kin) of their husbands, so that they and their children would be cared for, and if childless so that their future children would carry on the name of the deceased husband, so that his family and clan name would not die out. Hebrew society was clan based (hence the tribes), and in the endemic warfare and disastrous famines and plagues of the era, it was considered crucial that family lines and clans would not die out (this was reinforced by the fact that virtually all (agricultural) property was organised according to clanship). It was clearly patriarchal and deeply traditional, but it was also a system in which everyone knew their place (BOTH male and female) and was provided for. An example of this is the story of Ruth: Boaz marrying Ruth wasn't just an act of love, but was him carrying out his expected duty by his dead kinsman, Ruth's dead husband. But, before he married her, Boaz ensured that he had the legal right to do so.

• Andrew007 | Jun 13, 2012, 10:42 PM EDT

  @Gearoid4: yes, it is true that the Pill facilitated the "era of casual sex", but it certainly didn't cause it, as people were already having casual sex and behaving sexually immorally before that, as indicated by the evidence provided by eiriamach (Jun 13, 2012, 08:55 PM EDT), as well as Christian publications before the 1960's (RC incl.), and statistics regarding children born out of wedlock and the fact that babies from single mothers were very often confiscated and given to married couples up until the 1970's. Furthermore, I would suggest that the Pill by itself did very little, as it was the so-called "Sexual Revolution", sparked by the unprecedented but fraudulent works on human sexuality by the deviant monster(s) Alfred Kinsey et al, coupled with increasing godlessness, which created the mindset that increasingly rejected traditional sexual morality. I'd also like to see the studies showing the efficacy of "NFP", can you post them? Lastly, I agree with your comments regarding God's laws on gender and marriage, which many liberals seem to ignore or twist out of shape to suit their own agendas/ideologies.

• eiriamach | Jun 13, 2012, 09:03 PM EDT

  Also, Gearoid4, "God 'made them male and female,'" is pretty far from "God told them not to use condoms or hormonal contraceptives." There simply is NO scriptural prohibition against contraceptives. The closest anyone has found to it is the story of Onan, who would have escaped censure if he'd used an ancient sheep-intestine condom.

• eiriamach | Jun 13, 2012, 08:55 PM EDT

  Gearoid4, every summer, right after the first dandelion releases its wispy seeds to the wind, someone drowns on a Jersey Shore beach. These two events always happen in this order, one after the other, for as long as I've researched them! We can prevent these drownings, by your way of thinking, if we keep the lawns and park grass mowed so the dandelions can't go to seed. You use the same post hoc reasoning-- Y happened after X; therefore X caused Y-- when you write, "The Pill facilitated the era of casual sex." Read the *1932* pamphlet "The Truth About Birth Control" (Rev Dr Rumble, Aust Cath truth Soc No. 662a). Its author tries to answer the charge "Your [Catholic] law against avoiding children is not observed by a great many of your Catholic people." There was plenty of casual sex in the 1930s! Catholics used birth control, not just abstinence, for generations before the Pill debuted in the 1960s and the alleged "sexual revolution" began. The fact that you offer this post hoc argument suggests that you know your natural law argument is thoroughly unconvincing. It's a male-imagined "law" that relegates women to the role of baby makers and sole childraisers. Since natural law is knowable by all competent human beings, and since the overwhelming majority of Catholics see nothing immoral in contraceptives and only churchmen consider them "unnatural," isn't it possible that churchMEN misread natural law on sexual matters?

• NMcK | Jun 13, 2012, 08:46 PM EDT

  @Gearoid4 NFP works by separating the unitive from the procreative. With NFP, one pinpoints the time one is fertile, rejects it, and only has sex when it's exclusively unitive and NOT procreative. Duh. Also, the practice requires the woman to reject sex when she is at her most desirous of sex (because women don't count and women enjoying sex is probably sinful in the eyes of that old scold). Also, the pill is no less safe than any number of over-the-counter drugs people take every day. Ibuprofin and Acetaminophen are both more dangerous than the pill. And there are non-hormonal methods of birth control a couple can use so the woman doesn't have to deny herself sex when she's most desirous of it. As always, with the Catholic Church, it's always the woman who is disregarded and considered second class.

• Aliciarose | Jun 13, 2012, 08:26 PM EDT

  Archbishop Hickey, keep out of it. This is the 21st Century not the 18th, where women had no choice but to have 16 kids and probably die. Why don't you give it a go and see what it is like to rear 16 kids. Look after your priests that are doing the wrong against children.

• lokionline | Jun 13, 2012, 08:03 PM EDT

  I'm not going to waste time arguing points about this fatuous business going on in Dublin.
  
  To Archbishop Hickey and his friends I offer the wisdom of Sponge Bob: "Good luck with that" -- accompanied by the requisite forced goofy grin.

• seanomelb | Jun 13, 2012, 06:44 PM EDT

  The hypocrisy of Hickey to use the separation of sex and marriage led to the exploitation of young women.For centuries ALL the Christian churches exploited women and in the 20th/21st centuries the exploitation of young women and children by the RCC was ignored and covered up by the likes of Hickey.The last liberal thinking Australian auxiliary bishop Pat Power of Canberra has just resigned out of frustration with the RC's handling of pedophilia and other issues.Gearoid4 never ceases to amaze with his approval of the despotic status quo who run the Vatican,maybe he is a member of opus Dei or the Pious x society.

• Ms.Gail | Jun 13, 2012, 06:29 PM EDT

  My friends sister had a sever hormone imbalance and was put on estergen and told that she was sinning, yet she had no intimate relations. In another case a cancer patient was urged to not have surgery as she wouldn't be able to get pregnant, she was not married and wouldn't have lived long enough to bear a child. God made male and female but no specification about the relationships between and among them. Abraham had more than one wife at a time. Famous Irish American Catholics have more than one wife in a series. People worry about abortions and not about the welfare of living infants. I would wish for more "trying to help" than "trying to dictate."

• Gearoid4 | Jun 13, 2012, 05:42 PM EDT

  Archbishop Hickey speaks the unadulterated truth about the widespread use of contraception in Western society. The Pill facilitated the era of casual sex without consequences i.e promiscuous behavior without pregnancies. Sex in turn became nothing more than a cheap thrill and this impacted disastrously on marriages in terms of rocketing divorces. The numbers of abortions have risen exponentially which freely available contraception has failed to diminish in many countries e.g UK and the US. As for your assertion, Eiriamach that Christ did not teach about the gender make-up of genders regarding couples. This is an naive assertion in the extreme. Jesus stated in Matthew, 19:4- "And He answered and said to them, 'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,'". I think that that is pretty conclusive about how He viewed the gender make-up of a couple in married union. @NMcK NFP respects the fertile periods in which a woman finds herself pregnant and does not form an unnatural barrier between the spouses to prevent conception. There is no separation of the unitive aspect of sex from the procreative. Also it does not have any harmful medical toxic side-effects like modern contraceptive pills, heavily coated with synthetic progestins. It is also as effective as the Pill when used properly with up to 90% success rate reported in some studies.

• NMcK | Jun 13, 2012, 04:56 PM EDT

  @seamus60 Exactly. But have you noticed that bishops tend to crack down just after their own sins have been revealed? Seems to be a pattern. Everything's grand until they themselves get caught doing something unspeakably evil, and then all of a sudden they're barking at us to toe the line. Seems like they're deflecting our attention away from their particularly vile sins by trying to paint us as the sinful ones. That might have worked decades ago, but it doesn't work any longer. Maybe when we no longer pay for their housing and their upkeep, they'll get the point. When they start working, then I'll start caring. Until then, they're just glorified welfare recipients who are too stupid to realize it doesn't pay to bite the hand that feeds you.

• seamus60 | Jun 13, 2012, 04:43 PM EDT

  Come to think of it, his first port of call should have been an apoligy on behalf of the Catholic Church in Australia. Up until the 60`s just how many children were stolen from young unsuspecting mothers etc, taken to Australia and used as slave labour underhand of creul regimes, meated out by christian brothers, priests and nuns alike. Neither educated or trained in proper social skills in the hope they would remain when of age.

• seamus60 | Jun 13, 2012, 04:36 PM EDT

  He and the rest will need to get with the programme shortly or they`ll be left as wealthy shepards with no money making sheep.

• Andrew007 | Jun 13, 2012, 04:13 PM EDT

  @eiriamach: I *think* the prelate means, in his very badly constructed sentence, that to artificially separate sex from the potential consequence of pregnancy within marriage, causes infidelity, adultery, casual sex and general sexual immorality and the break down of marriage and families. I would suggest that Hickey's conflating the choice a married couple makes to prevent unwanted pregnancies from occurring with the general break down of marriages and families and the rise of sexual immorality is, logically, a VERY long bow to draw indeed. His claim regarding "Christ’s mandate to teach on matters of human sexuality" is also specious, especially if we consider that while Jesus Christ did indeed uphold the Law & Prophets and did call adultery "sin", He in no way mentioned birth control (upon which the Old Testament is also almost totally silent). While I agree with Hickey's remarks concerning the endangerment of Christian marriage in post-modern society, contraception within marriages is in no way a cause of this - especially if we consider that varying forms of contraception were used for 1000s of years before "The Pill" arrived (eg pre-ejaculation withdrawal). But rest assured, there are priests around who possess more wisdom and compassion than this prelate, such as the one who (privately) said to my grandma in 1950's Ireland, after her 8th baby, that she was OK to discreetly use contraception to prevent her already impoverished family from having yet another mouth to feed.

• NMcK | Jun 13, 2012, 03:18 PM EDT

  @eiriamach The biggest hypocrisy of all about this statement and about the Church's approved of method of birth control is that it does exactly that -- separate fertility from sexual intimacy. The approved of method strives, via all sorts of technology, to separate out the fertile time so that couples can have sex without having babies. NPF sites brag about how their new, technologically advanced method of Church-sanctioned birth control is as effective as the pill (near 100%). If this ejit can't see the complete logical disconnect between reality and the Church's own teaching, then he shouldn't be in any position to comment on these matters. I'd have more respect, actually, if the Church banned ALL birth control instead of playing these stupid semantic and rhetorical games trying to make it sound like their method is something the others are not. At least that would be a stand that involves logic and integrity, rather than this hare-brained blather about NFP. The Irish Church destroyed normal human sexuality for generations of Irish and Irish Americans. Those of us who've suffered as a result see through this control-freaky, out-of-touch, power mongering teaching. If the Church needs more babies so badly, then let their priests and nuns marry and make their own babies. They're sure not getting mine!

• eiriamach | Jun 13, 2012, 02:21 PM EDT

  I struggle to make sense of this prelate's patter! I followed the Irish Times link in the article and read that the Archbishop said, “artificially separating sex from its possible consequences has led to the separation of sex from marriage." What does he mean? Couples who use "artificial" birth control don't really have sex? They have sex "separate" from their marriage? If one of the "possible consequences" of sex is transmitting the HIV virus or some other pathogen to a partner, then the "artificial" part, as in condoms, would be a good thing, no? Does this Archbishop make sense to anyone else?

• connemaragirl | Jun 13, 2012, 01:57 PM EDT

  When the Catholic Church started charging a fee to get married, at least here in the States I started to question the Sacrament of marriage,as for contraception ,I would have loved to have have more than two children but in reality it wasn't practical as my husband and I couldn't afford it ,now that they're both in College ,one in a Catholic University and the other at a State University ,guess which one cost's the most,and working on Construction we can only help them so much they will have the equivalent of a home mortgage when they Graduate ,will the Catholic Church help them pay it off,no they won't but they want their weekly stiffen every Sunday irregardless of how much our kids struggle or my husband and I .I'll keep my God,but I have long stopped listening to the RCC

• SingleDonald | Jun 13, 2012, 12:41 PM EDT

  I like the comments posted below. This Archbishop really has his head in the sand! True, men should respect women, and not use intimacy as a promise of marriage. What about the countless other times that neither the man nor the woman is anticipating marriage? They simply love one another, something that the Archbishop is incapable of understanding! Intimacy is an expression of affection and/or love first, and the means of procreation second. It is time for the flock to tell the clerics to GROW UP!!

• luckodeirish | Jun 13, 2012, 12:26 PM EDT

  The 'family' is not under 'fierce and hostile attack'! Families in all their many forms have survived for millennia without the intervention of any governance from any religious hierarchies. Families are about people!! What constitutes a family may vary from person to person but they exist nonetheless. It's just the party line which the Church must preach and which we as practicing or non practicing Catholics are free to ignore.

• eiriamach | Jun 13, 2012, 12:18 PM EDT

  The Archbishop is self-deluded if he thinks he has "Christ’s mandate to teach on matters of human sexuality.” What Christ taught about human sexuality sums up as loyalty to a relationship with one's spouse-- no "definition" of "spouse" and nothing about their genders-- and leaving the judgment of sexual immorality to God. Where in scripture is the AB's imagined "mandate"? Is it in Jesus' words "Their worship of me is empty, because they insist on teachings that are human commandments"? (Mk 7:7). Or in the parable of the thugs who take over the owner's vineyard, beat up his servants, kill his Son, and try to kill the owner himself? (Mk 12:1-9). AB Hickey can whitewash the tombs of Church "teaching" until they shimmer like silver, but they are still "full of dead bones and decay" (Mat 23:27). He should forget about mandates, read Sr. Farley's book, and put some new flesh on those dead old bones.

• CitizenWhy | Jun 13, 2012, 12:03 PM EDT

  My Catholic mother from Ireland used to say of priests when they talked about sex or marriage, "What do they know? Have they tried it?"

• CitizenWhy | Jun 13, 2012, 12:02 PM EDT

  This year Cardinal Dolan's NY archdiocese ordained one priest, a non-US citizen. Is this archbishop trying to reduce the number of people in Australia (besides women) who would be willing to be priests under the current "leadership" of the church?

• kerryknorpp | Jun 13, 2012, 11:35 AM EDT

  All in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church should be required to serve a year in areas of the world where babies are born just to die. Is that "...Christ's truth about life, love and marriage..."??? Many Christian Churches are guilty of creating God and Christ in their own image, and try to make their religion comfortable for them. Bless those who go out and do work in the name of Christ and for him, not just to get new members.

• pilib04 | Jun 13, 2012, 10:43 AM EDT

  One more member of the hierarchy completely out of touch with the faithful.

• jamieLM | Jun 13, 2012, 10:28 AM EDT

  Portia777, on target. No one, especially a celibate man, is going to dictate to my husband and me about how many children I'M going to give birth to and we're going to support until adulthood. "Ain't gonna happen." Since some of the RCC hierarchy can't control their own sex lives properly, they're in no position to dictate to my husband and me about ours. If my marriage should ever fail, I can guarantee you that it won't have jack-squat to do with whether gay people are allowed to marry or not. Heterosexual marriages have been failing long before anyone was even thinking about gay people, let alone the marriage issue. If every gay person in the world jumped off a cliff, hetero marriages would still fail.

• NMcK | Jun 13, 2012, 10:08 AM EDT

  Oh, what a joke. When the Church no longer wanted to provide for the wives and children of their priests, they came up with the celibacy solution, which begat the sex abuse crisis. And now they're going all Gestapo on hardworking Catholic men and women who choose to responsibly plan their families via birth control methods that actually work. What a pack of hypocrites. Let those fat, lazy bishops all get off their precious arses, get real jobs, and learn what it takes to actually be a man and support yourself, much less a family, and then they can get back to us. That lazy POS probably doesn't even make his own bed, and I'm going to listen to him about how I'm supposed to be a brood mare for the Catholic Church? Right.

• Portia777 | Jun 13, 2012, 09:55 AM EDT

  “Government, the churches and the community must seek to stabilise family life and strengthen marriage itself.” Stabilise- he means control of course. How can this man lecture on contraception, marriage, sex etc when he has no experience of any of these issues. Is he ever going to be pregnant? NO. Is he ever going to marry? No. Is he ever going to have to take consider contraception?No. So on whose authority does he feel he has the right to lord it over others? Did we ask for his opinion?No. Is he delusional and hearing voices from "god" telling him all this ? Probably. Is he brainwashed during his training to believe all this to be true? Yes. It is his truth, not everyone elses.it is deemed a crime if another cult forces their ideas on others, so why not the Roman cult, which as we now know has nothing to do with Jesus.