What does the Catholic Church mean by Unitive?

My friends and I were having our weekly catechism discussion and this past week concerned the 6th commandment against adultery. It was mentioned in our discussion that in order for a sexual act to be morally valid and licit, it would have to be three things:

• Procreative
• Unitive
• Marital

My friend would give examples of sexual expression and ask whether they met the three conditions listed above.

During this exercise, a question came up for me which was how does the Church define "unitive". I had assumed that unitive meant two married people uniting in the sacrament of marriage. Therefore, it would have to be open to life, non-contracepting, between a married couple.

It seems I was wrong.

I looked around and no one was really providing a good definition of what constituted "unitive". However, I eventually ran across an article written by theologian Ronald L. Conte Jr. In the article, he goes on to explain what constitutes unitive and basically answers objections to this line of reasoning.

I was surprised to find out that a sexual act can be unitive even if it involves contraception or even if it occurs outside of marriage. Of course, as mentioned, not one, but all three of the above conditions must be met in order for an act to be morally valid. However, just because some of the conditions are not met, does not automatically mean they aren't all met.

I guess logically this makes sense. If this were the case, there would not be three conditions, only one or two. In other words, unitive could just simply be an aspect of procreative if it was implied in the definition.

So what is the answer? Unitive simply means a sexual act involving a man and a woman. This could be between a married couple that is contracepting or between a man and a prostitute. To bolster this idea, Ronald L Conte Jr. quotes St. Paul in the Book of 1 Corinthians 6:15 when he says:

15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two shall become one.”

St. Paul is saying that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes on body with her, i.e. it is unitive. It doesn't make it right, but that one aspect is fulfilled.

In terms of married couples who contracept, this too would be considered unitive. To show how this is the case, Mr. Conte quotes from Humanae Vitae, which came after the Second Vatican Council, in 1968. I will also quote what Mr. Conte had to say about it:

The Vademecum for Confessors: “Special difficulties are presented by cases of cooperation in the sin of a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund.” [n. 13]

Here the Holy See calls contracepted marital sex “the unitive act”. It could not be called by that term if contraception deprived sex of its unitive meaning.

Mr. Conte explains it well. It would be illogical to call an act unitive if it wasn't. It's quite simple. And the act they are referring to is a contracepted marital act. Therefore, the Church would consider such an act to remain unitive.

However, are all sexual acts unitive? Of course not. Unitive sexual acts must involve a man and a woman engaging in intercourse. Homosexual acts are not unitive, nor is self-pollution (masturbation). The latter is obvious since an act involving one person obviously cannot be unitive. The former is not unitive, however the exact reason why not I am not sure. It could simply be because the real definition of sex is sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. It's sufficient to say that homosexual acts fulfill none of the three criteria.

I hope this clarifies things for people. Please comment if you have any comments or questions.

CTV, gay marriage, and Pope John Paul II

It's easy to see that CTV has its priorities straight...not. I was watching the news tonight on NTV (who use the CTV national news). My TV situation leaves a lot to be desired and channel 5 is the only channel I can get. Anyway, I was hoping to hear what they had to say about the beatification of Pope John Paul II. It took me a while to even get reception, but I finally did. There were several stories which aired. Eventually they started talking about a gay couple and a lesbian couple who were renewing their "wedding" vows. This hardly seemed like news. I assumed if they were going to mentioned the previous pontiff, they would have by now, but I was wrong.

After the gay "marriage" story and a few more, they did have a piece on the late great pope, but it was nearly 25 minutes into the show. TV channels these days, except for a few, definitely have their priorities out of place. It's pretty ridiculous when they place a renewal for a "marriage" that no mainstream religion recognizes as valid above the beatification of one of the most important and beloved world leaders of the past century.

Pope John Paul II was the leader of over one billion Catholics and is almost universally loved. He is just one step away from being declared a saint. How is this significantly less important than the renewal of vows of the invalid marriage of some unknown people?

The reason for this is simple. John Paul II represents religion, specifically Catholicism. Anything that has to do with religion is placed low on the totem pole of Canadian news reporting. Stories about abortion, IVF, contraception, gay "marriage", etc. get top spots. It seems any time a news item somehow undermines morality, the event is lauded by the mainstream media. Anything that brings disorder is congratulated. But when a man stands up for Good and Truth, it's seen as offensive.

The Church is presented as outdated, if it is presented at all. To further water down the message of the Church, equal air time is given to every other religion and belief system (including atheism), even if their numbers in Canada represent 0.02% of the population. On the news, the Church is seen the same way one might visit a museum. We see it from behind a glass shield. It may be interesting, but it's just one culture among many hundreds which obviously has no say in our lives. Most people know so little about the Catholic Church, even in predominantly Christian countries that when a news story comes on about the pope or the Vatican, it may as well be about the rites of passage of the natives of Borneo.

Any news stories about gay "marriage", in-vitro fertilization, legalization of prostitution, euthanasia, cloning, abortion, etc. gets front-page status because they represent a new religion. One where every inclination an individual has, no matter how disordered, receives the label of a "right".

The Church is like a gym. It says you can feel good about yourself because you are so important and valuable in the eyes of God. They have equipment to help you realize your great potential. If you are spiritually overweight, lazy, unmotivated, the Church has the solution. If you use what the Church has to offer, you can get in great spiritual shape. The media, on the other hand, creates a policy that says they cannot tell anyone they are overweight, lazy, or unmotivated. No negative words are allowed. There is no right or wrong. Everyone is simply "different". The five-foot eight guy who weighs 400 pounds is no different than the guy with low body fat and in good physical condition. They have simply chosen their own unique paths, both of which are equally valid. The problem is words do not change reality. The fat guy remains fat. The media may convince him that he is not fat, just different. But that doesn't change the reality. It doesn't change the fact that he gets winded by walking up stairs, or that he has trouble sleeping.

The media has created the idea that there is no right or wrong, just different. One person says IVF is wrong, another says it is right, but ultimately YOU decide. Moral questions have become personal whims. Therefore, it is no surprise that news stories about the Catholic Church are not the headliners. Opinions and editorials come AFTER the hard news. But don't be fooled. Morals are objective, universal and unchanging guiding principles set out by God. The Catholic Church infallibly speaks for God in matters of faith and morals. Instead of one moral voice among many, the Church was established by Christ to spread Truth throughout the world.

Why the Church is right about Condoms

Over the past few days, much hoopla has been made about the pope's most recent comments where he spoke about condom use. As I've mentioned in previous blog posts here and here, the pope did not say condoms are now permissible.

In this article I will explore why the Church's stance on condoms is the correct one.

The Church is officially against the use of artificial contraception, including condoms. It is important to make some distinctions here. Officially, the church is only concerned with marital relations, because sex outside this context is considered grave matter. This means objectively it is sinful, although subjectively it may not be. Therefore, official teachings concerning the specifics of a gravely immoral act would usually be superfluous. For example, the Church has not yet made any comment on the use of a condom during a homosexual act, because homosexual acts are considered gravely immoral anyway, and the use of a condom is irrelevant in this case.

Having made those clarifications, let's explore the main point of this article. The pope said last year that condoms are not the solution to AIDS in Africa. He was met with outrage over these comments. The reason is many people rely on the following mentality when dealing with the HIV/AIDS epidemic:

1) HIV and AIDS is a serious problem in Africa
2) People spread HIV through promiscuous sex, which is human nature and thus unchangeable
3) Condoms reduce the risk of transmission in a given sex act
4) Condoms are the solution to the problem.

Anyone would agree, which includes the pope as well I would assume, that the first and third premises are correct. It is scientifically shown that a condom reduces the risk of transmission of HIV/AIDS in a particular sex act vs. not using one. Nobody believes that the rate of transmission stays the same with or without condom use. Of course, everyone also agrees that HIV and AIDS are a serious problem in Africa.

It has been shown that condoms are 85% effective against HIV/AIDS, so naturally if there is a given sex act, there is a reduction in the risk of transmission.

Above, the conclusion (4) that condoms are a solution, automatically follows if the other three premises are correct. However, I believe, as does the pope, that premise #2 is false, and that is the specific premise that is being challenged by the pontiff. He believes the only real solution to the AIDS crisis in Africa is through a change in behavior.

This change includes not having sex outside of marriage. Just imagine if the rate of AIDS in a country started off at 1%. If everyone followed the rule of waiting until marriage to engage in sex, at most the rate would go from 1% to 2% and then drop. The disease could only spread to another partner and that's it. What happened in reality though was that the 1% infected many others who then infected many more and so on until the rates grew exponentially.

If condoms were introduced, the exponential growth would not stop, but would only be slowed. There is an 85% rate of effectiveness with condom use, and therefore a 15% failure rate. That means that with everyone using condoms, AIDS would be spread at 15% the normal rate, assuming behaviors do not change. This may sound great, but really it is only delaying the inevitable. Also, I am assuming a lot here. I am assuming a 100% rate of use within a country from a 0% rate to begin with, which is unheard of. However, this is the goal of many organizations such as the UN. Many people believe that with complete condom use, AIDS will decrease. It will not. Even if the rate of transmission slows, it is still there. Their perfect solution just reduces the rate of spread, based on the assumption that behavior is unalterable. Plus, it will continue to grow exponentially by definition.

Let's take the rate of HIV transmission for heterosexual sex without a condom of around 0.75%. The UN and others' perfect solution is to reduce this rate to 0.1125% and leave it at that. Of course, once again, this is assuming the country goes from 0% use to 100% use. The main problem with this "solution" is that the rate will continue to increase. Think of it like interest rate. If you are getting a 0.75% interest rate, your money will grow faster, but with 0.1125%, your money will still grow and continue to grow faster and faster. This "perfect" solution does not solve the problem at all.

On top of this, using condoms have been promoted as "safe sex". They are not presented as offering a reduction in the risk of infection, but rather as solving the problem. People use them as complete security against disease and therefore people are far less inhibited when it comes to sex. It gives them a sense of invulnerability.

Of course, everything I've said so far has been based on the assumption that people are incapable of changing behavior. That going from promiscuity to fidelity is impossible. But I disagree. I have much more confidence in people than others do. I think society can change for the better.

What the pope is proposing is a perfect solution. If people waited until marriage to have sex with a single partner, there would not be an exponential growth of the AIDS epidemic. It would flatline and eventually disappear.

Some may ask about married couples where one partner has AIDS. The Church would say that the loving thing to do is NOT risk infecting one's partner with a terrible illness. Whether that risk is one in 150 or one in 900, putting someone at risk of contracting a lethal disease is always immoral.

Therefore, if people listened to the Catholic Church, AIDS would cease to spread COMPLETELY. It is not an 85% solution, it is a 100% solution.

In order to really understand the Church's stance vs. the rest of the world, we must look at real world examples. In Uganda, there was a dramatic reduction in AIDS cases, unlike anywhere else in Africa. Why? Because they started to employ the ABC strategy, which is Abstinence, Be faithful, and if necessary, use a Condom. This is unlike other African countries whose main focus was the distribution of condoms. The countries with the highest use and availability of condoms experienced an increase in infection rates. Only Uganda which focused on Catholic values saw a reduction.

In this case, we can see that people really can change behavior, and the impact is positive. If condoms were the solution, Africa would have been rid of HIV and AIDS long ago, or at the very least there would be no new cases. However, that scenario is a mere dream. The rates have actually increased. They say it is easier to find condoms than it is to find clean water in Africa. Billions of Western dollars flood Africa with money for condoms every year with little impact.

What the pope is constantly saying is that the real and sustainable solution to the AIDS epidemic is a change in values and actions. If people were faithful to marriage and those with HIV/AIDS did not infect others, the disease would disappear completely. Why must we have such little confidence in humanity?

Some believe that the pope is unconcerned with AIDS in Africa, but the fact is most people suffering from AIDS receive treatment from the Catholic Church. Many scientists have explicitly or implicitly confirmed what the pope is saying. A Stanford University study found that the ABC approach was the most successful because it emphasized abstinence and faithfulness, as the pope has.

Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, said the evidence shows that the pope is correct in his assertion that condoms are not the solution.

This debate is rarely about science, it's about ideology. Condoms are seen as sexually liberating. No longer must a couple be completely committed in order to have sex, but sex can be enjoyed as a casual activity between people. Condoms in some way undermine the old paradigm of sex being connected with birth and have "liberated" us sexually. It's a fairytale that, despite the evidence, has continued to survive. To suggest that the solution lies in sexual morality is anathema to modern society's notion that sex is only about self-gratification. I believe most of the attacks on the pope are motivated less out of concern for HIV and AIDS patients in Africa but more out of a fear of religious conservatism which argues that not all sexual activity is permissible. If you doubt this theory, I suggest you read comments on articles concerning the pope on condoms. Nearly all of them are personal attacks on the pope and refer to his age or position and say he has no authority on sexual matters. Rarely do these comments reflect a concern for the people of Africa unless they are accusing the pope of somehow indirectly killing them.

The world needs a strong moral voice instead of more condoms. I hope the pope continues to speak up for what is right despite voices of opposition.

Opposition to gay marriage: not an exclusively Christian position

I find people often characterize the debate on same sex marriage as a progressive, liberal, and even society-at-large vs. Christianity issue. Christian beliefs on homosexuality are characterized as bigoted, intolerant, hateful, and homophobic. Many often assume that other religions are much more lenient on the issue and either take a pro-gay stance or none at all. But after doing some research, I discovered that far from being hateful to homosexuals, Christianity, and specifically the Catholicism were probably the most understanding.

Every religion I found, especially the largest ones, were all against homosexual activity and condemned it in various ways. Here's a sample of some of the condemnation:

- Orthodox and Conservative Judaism are strongly opposed to homosexual activity and many Biblical references refer to this as being evil.

- Islam completely condemns all homosexual activity.

- Zoroastrianism is against homosexuality and says: "The man that lies with mankind as man lies with womankind, or as woman lies with mankind, is a man that is a Daeva [demon]; this man is a worshipper of the Daevas, a male paramour of the Daevas"

- Ancient Hindu law books from the 1st century onward characterize non-vaginal sex as impure.

- Buddhism refers to homosexuality as a deviant behavior

- In 2005, the world's highest Sikh religious authority described homosexuality as "against the Sikh religion and the Sikh code of conduct and totally against the laws of nature," and called on Sikhs to support laws against gay marriage.

- In Jainism, marriage is the only place in which sexual activity is appropriate, and homosexual acts give bad karma.

- Taoism is about yin and yang, male and female, and it believes sex must be complementary in order to bring harmony.

But if you think there are religions that do not have an issue with homosexual activity, you're right. The one religion I found that had no problem with homosexual activity is neopaganism. Surprise, surprise.

Catholicism has one of the most compassionate positions with regards to homosexuality. First of all, the Church does not regard same-sex attraction in itself to be a sin, like many Christian denominations do. They only regard acting or lusting on these attractions to be sinful. For someone to simply consider themselves "homosexual" would not be sinful.

Secondly, the Church recognizes it as a struggle, or cross to bear, and considers it in a similar way as it does with other sexual temptation, such as adultery, fornication, masturbation, etc. The Church believes these can all be gravely sinful.

The point is, the Church does not wish to gay-bash. She simply recognizes that a person is most happy when he or she fulfills his or her nature. A man is designed to be with a woman, a fact which is obvious from our biology. Homosexual relationships do not fulfill the deepest desires of a person's being. Violence is much higher in gay relationships than in heterosexual relationships. Children grow up happiest and healthiest in a home with a mother and a father. There are many reasons why a marriage must be between a man and a woman and that sex is reserved for marriage.

Let us pray for those who struggle with the cross of same-sex attraction, that they may find Christ's healing.

Reaction to Tim Hortons and Traditional Marriage Post

To date, I have not received the kind of reaction I have for the blog I wrote concerning Tim Horton's and its on-again, off-again support of a gathering in support of traditional marriage and families. After receiving some flack from gay-marriage groups in Canada, Tim Hortons decided to scrap its sponsorship of the program in Rhode Island. I feel this was an unfortunate choice.

I would like to respond to some of the comments I received. Most of the comments were angry, and some were personal attacks. Some were quite vitriolic. I even had to remove some of the comments because they had absolutely nothing to do with the argument, or were practically spam. I know they were not pure spam because in order to post a message on my blog, you must enter a code, which proves you are human.

For some reason, the comments completely went off track and started to become a theism vs. atheism debate. One particular individual posted the same link several times to an atheist website. Another affirmed his belief that Jesus did not exist and that Constantine invented him. I'm not sure what these things have to do with the gay marriage debate. Perhaps it is because as a philosopher once put it, if God doesn't exist, nothing matters. This came from an atheist. He understood that logically, once you remove God from the picture, morals have no force anymore. It's simply one person's desires vs. another's. Therefore, the argument perhaps was that if God doesn't exist, then gay marriage is valid, but so is any other "sin", such as adultery, or rape. Once morals are personal and relativist, one person cannot claim their set of morals is superior to another's and the weakest are forced to accept the dictates of the strong.

Humourously, one person posted a comment which seems to indicate that Hitler was a Christian. This must be an example of the Godwin's Law, which states that "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." The user's comment, as can be seen on the bottom is:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior" - Adolf Hitler

This quote represents an incomplete truth and something of an academic dishonesty. I'm not saying this particular poster is dishonest. Perhaps this quote came from somewhere else. The complete quote is as follows:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. .. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison." - Adolf Hitler

Now, we have a completely different picture. Hitler was not affirming his Christianity, he was turning Jesus into an anti-semite. Hitler is claiming that Jesus fought for the world against what he calls a "Jewish poison." He downplays Christ's suffering and flips him around into a fighter against Jews. Is there someone else you can think of who fought against Jews and who considered them a poison? Hitler. Bingo. Hitler's only point here is that he wants to make those who fight and kill Jews heroes, and he wants to be the foremost.

The real story is that Jesus loved Jews, and most of the first followers of Christ were Jews. Christians constantly remind each other that it wasn't Jews that killed Christ, it was all of us, with our sins. Hitler was simply using Jesus as his justification for genocide.

Another commenter asked for a passage in which Jesus condemns homosexual activity. Jesus does do this.

In Matthew 19: 4-6, it reads:

He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female'5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?

Jesus does not mention homosexual acts. He reaffirms the Old Testament view on marriage and confirms its goodness.

Anther passage where Jesus refers to homosexual activity is Matthew 10:15, where he says:

Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

All people who were hearing Jesus at that time realized that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their sexual activity including homosexual activity.

I want to just emphasize something. I believe there are many sins, and homosexual acts are just one of them. Premarital sex, masturbation, and other sexual sins which affect heterosexual, as well as homosexual, people are big problems also. Am I saying I'm above these? No, of course not. I must hold myself to a high sexual moral as well. People with same sex attraction have a great deal of struggle and life is sometimes difficult. They are asked to try their best just like everyone else is. God loves gay people like he loves everyone.

Let's say a prayer for all people who suffer from sexual temptation and sin.

Conversation about homosexuality

Last night, I was with friends. They accused a man I know of being gay. He wasn't there and there's no evidence that he is gay, so I defended him and said he's not. Eventually a girl who was with us asked "So what if he is? Why do you care? What difference does it make?" Later, she said "Oh, you're religious aren't you..." This particular person makes statements like this and every now and then will remind people that she is not at all religious and in fact she seems rather anti-Christian.

There are several problems with her statements anyway. Her implication was that I am against gay people because I am religious and that's the only reason. All I said to her in response was that I am religious but that's not the point. The point is I don't think he is gay, so we shouldn't accuse him of that. If someone said she's "lesbian", would the better thing to do is just accept that, even if it's false?

I am not against gay people. I think God loves gay people just like he loves everyone else. With regards to sex and so on, I believe sex is reserved for a man and a woman inside marriage. Anything outside of this is immoral. When it comes to immoral sexual behavior, anyone could potential fall into that category. If a self-identified "gay" person falls into that category, so be it, but others can just as easily.

I think God created marriage as the union of a man and a woman for love between spouses and a good environment for children. Sex ought to be inside this marriage because outside of it, it is not a good environment for the raising of children. I do not think sex and procreation can be completely divorced. God has linked them together. So therefore, sex has a natural consequence of conception. A conception should only happen within the loving bond of a couple who have made a lifelong commitment to each other. Isn't this so beautiful? Isn't a child most loved in this special place? I think so.

It is an unfair statement to say I am against gay people. What is more accurate is to say I am against anything which involves sex outside of marriage. This could be adultery, fornication, masturbation, rape, incest, and homosexual sex. That means I am not just sitting on my pedestal condemning people, because I too am vulnerable to many of these sins. I am not immune to them.

I think to say someone is against gay people because they are religious is avoiding the issue. My religion is against homosexual activity, not just because it decided this haphazardly. The Catholic Church is against this because it is not for the good of society. But the Catholic Church is against many types of illicit sexual behavior.

We all have a narrow path to walk. Let's follow the course set out by Christ.

Cher's daughter needs help, not "transistion"

Sonny Bono and Cher's daughter Chastity Bono needs medical and psychological help and not a sex change operation. Recently, the famous daughter of Cher and Sonny Bono has said she wants to "transistion" from a female to a male. In today's society, it might seem out of place to criticize this, and we are obliged to see it as a personal "choice", rather than a mistake.

But unless we recognize something as a problem, the people involved will never get the help they need. God does not make mistakes and give a male soul to a female body. The Catholic Church believes homosexual desires can be a burden on some people, but that they must strive to be pure and holy and live a chaste life.

This is what the catechism says on the issue:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.


It's sort of ironic that this woman's name is Chastity, since that's exactly what she's called to in life unless she can overcome her same-sex attraction and live out a heterosexual lifestyle.

If a disease or psychological illness is not seen as such, those in a similar situation will never get the help they so desperately need. Many people have overcome their same sex attraction and went on to lead a happy normal life.

There are many psychological issues which make people believe things which are not true concerning their bodies. For example, Body Integrity Identity Disorder is a psychological illness which causes an individual to believe he must remove one of his limbs. It is listed in the DSM-V. It would not be good to advise this person to remove a limb to satisfy their perceived affliction. This would be horrific. Attempting to mutilate oneself in this way is against our nature, but this is just a different kind of mutilation, just as a sex change operation is.

Another psychological illness listed in the DSM-V is Body dymosphic disorder. This illness causes people to imagine there is something in particular wrong with their body when in fact there is no disorder. It causes the individual great distress and psychological trauma. It is distinct from issues such as perceived obesity.

Many people, such as Michael Jackson and Jocelyn Wildenstein have undergone countless plastic surgeries believing they needed to change their bodies. We know the results can be quite unattractive.

What all these things have in common is that just because an individual feels they must fundamentally change their appearance, we mustn't automatically accept this and simply call it a "choice". A sex change operation is no different. There have been people who have believed they were meant to be animals, so they put themselves through countless surgeries to achieve a look like an animal. This of course does not mean God "accidentally" put them in the wrong species. We as humans are rational creatures with a rational soul, and can never be an animal.

The point is, our minds, bodies, sex, and soul are all united and coherent. Any attempt to toy with our nature is immoral and violates our design. We must always strive to become more perfect in our nature, not to deviate from it completely.

Catholic thoughts on Nadya Suleman (aka Octomom)

Nadya Suleman is the lady who received fertility treatment and gave birth to 8 children. She was not married at the time, didn't have much money and already had 6 children. She now has 14 children. She has been called Octomom (perhaps it is sometimes spelled Octamom). This name makes her sound like some alien species, mutant, or X-Men character. She has become the object of ridicule of many people who say she did the wrong thing. But how would her actions square with Catholic teaching? We know that the world and especially the media are rarely aligned with the Church in their thinking. So what would the church say concerning the Nadya Suleman case? I believe her story has good and bad elements.

First of all the bad. The Catholic Church is firmly against in vitro fertilization, or the creation of embryos outside the womb of the mother. That's because it contradicts the natural design established by God for how babies ought to be conceived and born. Babies are designed by God to come into existence within the marital embrace in the marital act. He did not design babies to be products of a science laboratory with a scientist fusing together sperm and egg. Therefore the use of embryos in this fashion is gravely wrong. Also, this procedure often destroys embryos. More are created than are needed and because of this, the embryos are often left frozen indefinitely or they are disposed of (usually without a funeral or without the destroyer being charged with murder). So we know that Nadya used fertility treatment that may have destroyed embryos. Society at large has no problem using in vitro fertilization. They view it as a means to an end and in a Machiavelian world like our own, any means is acceptable as long as the end seems desirable. Now, what about the rest of her situation?

Once the embryos were implanted in her uterine, eight clung to the uterine lining and survived. Nadya decided to keep them all. In other words, she did not selectively reduce or murder any of the eight. Strangely, this is where a lot of the world seemed upset. They called Nadya irresponsible, not for having fertility treatment or even for having eight or more embryos conceived, but rather they were upset that she wanted to keep them all. Society said it was irresponsible not to murder some of her children. The Church would disagree strongly, of course. She, the Church, would urge Nadya to keep caring and loving the eight babies in her womb, regardless of how they were conceived. The Church views every child equally and as a gift from God, even those born by in vitro fertilization.

Therefore, the Church and society have disagreed on two points. One point the Church may agree with society is whether she should have had more children in the first place. Since she already had 6 children, it was probably not a great idea for a jobless, husbandless woman of little means to seek out more children than the 6 she already had to support. The Church first of all says people ought to be married before they involve themselves in the act of procreation. But even when they're married, they should practice planning when it comes to children. People should not have more children than they can properly afford. This does not mean every child must have a car when they're 16, and go to the top university and have the best life imaginable. It just means that every child must receive basic care and attention. If someone is unable to supply this, they should probably wait a little while to attempt having another child.
It's a really great thing that Nadya decided to keep all eight of her children. Imagine having to tell, for example, the 6 she decided to keep that they were the lucky ones to have survived and that two of their brothers and sisters didn't make it because they were selectively reduced. That would be very sad and would leave the others asking where their other siblings are and why they themselves are alive but their brothers or sisters are not.

Let us pray that the world heads the words of Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae, "Of Human Life", where he says in the opening statement:

"The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator. It has always been a source of great joy to them, even though it sometimes entails many difficulties and hardships."

Why legalizing gay marriage hurts gay people

Gay marriage is a big topic nowadays and many people are confused. The debate has entered nearly every Western country. Some have embraced gay marriage with open arms, while others at first did not allow it but reluctantly made steps towards its full legalization. Then there are others which have not legalized homosexual marriage, and the question is still open for debate. One such country is the United States. Right now, homosexual marriage is legal in various states, but not the majority. People are confused as to how they should vote in the case of gay marriage. The prevailing thought is that since gay marriage does not affect them personally, why would they oppose it. This is promoted by its defenders who make anyone who opposes gay marriage look like a bigot and intolerant person who only wants to prevent people from having freedom. Unfortunately this tactic has worked.

But there is an angle which you are very unlikely to hear anytime soon from the mainstream media. That is that homosexual marriage in fact hurts people with same-sex attraction (SSA). I use the term SSA because I see it as a disorder. There is a false dichotomy being presented that says a person is either heterosexual or homosexual. To me, this is like saying society is divided into people who eat healthy and people who do not eat healthy. While this may be true, we would not have terms which present both as viable possibilities. We would not say this person is a "healthy-eater", while this other person is an "unhealthy-eater" and present it as though that's an ingrained part of the person. When I say I believe homosexuality is disordered, I am not saying the people who have it are disordered. Just like the rest of the population, many are decent citizens.

In order to explain why I believe legalizing gay marriage will only hurt people with SSA, I must first take it back a few steps. As I mentioned in the last paragraph, there is a false dichotomy, which we only find in this particular area. If someone is anorexic, we see it as a disorder. Many girls are affected by eating disorders, such as anorexia and bulimia. Fortunately, we see this as problematic because it has a negative impact on their lives. We do not have protests demanding equal rights for people to have an eating disorder and that we should not interfere in their lifestyle choices. Another example is suicide. Someone may be suicidal. We would not say we should leave this person alone and not interfere with their life and if they want to commit suicide, we should let them. We recognize a disorder that must be addressed. We do not believe the suicidal person is disordered, but we believe the suicidal tendency is.

By allowing gay marriage, it will hurt homosexual people, because instead of getting help they need, society will tell them they have to accept this burden and live their lives the way they are. How could anyone ever get help in dealing with homosexual issues if all of society views it as normal. What about people who really do struggle with this? They will be left to live a life of hopelessness. Homosexuality is not a good thing and I feel sad for people who must carry that burden. We know from research that people who are identified as gay often enter into a very large number of shallow relationships. They are searching for something they will not find. It has been shown that many homosexual people were abused sexually as children. I also see this as a form of escape. Many boys may not be able to cope with being a man and all the things that it brings with it. Perhaps society presents all men as being beer-drinking, football-watching ogres, and certain sensitive men cannot identify with this. Then, the media presents homosexuality as a perfectly viable option and these boys and men may identify with this and can sink further into this deceit.

The same is true for other things as well which affect heterosexual men. I am not gay-bashing or anything or that sort. I am coming from an angle of compassion. There are sexually disordered things which affect heterosexual men, which the media, society in general, and various other sources not only accept, but encourage. For example, masturbation. Society, schools, and the media all portray this as completely normal, in fact, usually as necessary. By accepting it, you may think you are being more compassionate, but in fact it's the opposite. You are preventing people who want help from ever getting it. Often, an evil sister of masturbation is pornography. But again, society is telling people that pornography is perfectly acceptable and can't hurt anyone. So once again, these people cannot find help from mainstream organizations. But let's look at an example of what happens when these two things become legal and accepted.

Just say there's a man, 30 years old, married just recently. At first, he and his wife were quite intimate, but recently he has become more heavily involved with his old habit of pornography. His wife will wait for him in their marital bed for many hours and finally fall asleep. They are not intimate much anymore. He will spend much of the night downstairs looking at pornography. He has to get up in the morning for work, but he is very tired. He goes to work and does not do a good job. One day, his wife looks on the computer and sees all the pornography there. She is very saddened and confronts him about it. He says he will stop. While he's at work, she goes online to find information about stopping pornography. She can't find anything. It's not only legal, but encouraged. All these psychologists online are saying it's a fun pastime and maybe they should try it together. She is at first shocked that no one understands her, and eventually gives up. She starts to believe she is the strange one for not accepting it. The husband's addiction continues in secret. The wife, out of desperation, suggests they watch some porn together like all the websites say. They try it, but she realizes that he does not become more attached to her, but less so. Eventually she has had enough and decides that even if she is perceived as weird, she will demand that he not watch that filth. He complies. But eventually without proper help, he starts looking at porn at the office. He knows he risks a lot, but he does not know how to deal with his problem because no one will tell him. He eventually gets caught, and is promptly fired. He tells his wife the news. She is very upset, but now he becomes very angry with her saying he would not have gotten into this mess if she had let him continue using pornography. The arguments get worse and they become more distant. She is totally heartbroken, and they are as good as separated. Soon enough, they are forced to leave their home because he cannot support her. She finally has had enough and decides to leave. A short while later, she asks for a divorce.

This is a very sad scenario, but it is not impossible. Not identifying a problem as a problem leads to many further problems, and that is what I am saying will happen to homosexual people if gay marriage is legalized. They will not be helped, they will in fact, find no help. They will not be happy. Before 1981 in Canada, homosexuality was considered a disorder. There was hope for people with the affliction. Many realized it was not an inborn thing, but rather the result of decisions and choices in life. It may sound absurd, given the current prevailing thought, but people who have had SSA have been successful in rediscovering their true sexual identity, and finding complementarity in a person of the opposite sex. The media would never report such a thing, unless they were somehow trying to bash Christians or show mental abuse of homosexual people or something.

Remember, Jesus died for all of us, including people with struggles. Let's truly help people who are afflicted with various issues, who carry heaven burdens. As the hands and feet of Christ, let us remember his words when he said his yoke is easy, his burden light. Let's help those who struggle, with compassion and love.

You want the truth? The WORLD cannot handle the TRUTH!

Pope Benedict XVI made his first pontifical visit to Africa this week. During his visit, he made the comment that condoms are not the solution to Africa's AIDS problem. Of course he is right, and that is rather obvious. The Pope did many other things, of a spiritual nature, but of course the media only picked up on his comments about condoms. I believe people are bent on maintaining their sexual promiscuity and anyone who challenges their ability to do anything they want sexually will provoke their unbridled anger. Christ's message said a lot about sexual purity, and while many would like to be considered Christian, they refuse to accept the Church's teachings on sexuality.

The Pope is right about condom use not being the solution, but rather contributing to the problem. In Uganda, they did an experiment where they placed Abstinence as a top priority, followed by "Being faithful" and third if necessary use Condoms. It was called the ABC program. People soon stopped using condoms and focused on abstinence. The AIDS rate decreased dramatically. The Catholic Magazine "This Rock" did a great article on this. Instead of paraphrasing it, I will post it in its entirety here. Enjoy:

Uganda: The Real ABC’s of an Epidemic
The first documented case of HIV/AIDS in Uganda occurred in 1982. From that small but ominous beginning, the curse of AIDS soon engulfed the country of Uganda, much as it swept across the African continent through the 1980s and into the 1990s. For Uganda, the epidemic was especially tragic given the nation’s desperate efforts to recover from the dark years of the dictator Idi Amin from 1971 to 1979 and subsequent years of political instability. By the early 1990s, the infection rate in Uganda of HIV reached 30 percent, and there was widespread agreement that if action were not taken quickly, the very survival of the country would be jeopardized.

President Yoweri Museveni, who came to power in 1986, settled on an aggressive government-sponsored plan that involved posters, radio messages, training, education, and public rallies and that called on the support of community leaders, local churches, and general public. The message was said to be as simple as the "ABCs": "Abstinence, Be Faithful, and if necessary, use Condoms."

Character over Condoms
A funny thing happened in Uganda, however. While condoms were suggested for those who refused to abstain, the greater focus of the campaign was not on the "C" but on the "A" and the "B": abstinence and faithfulness. Ugandans, especially young Ugandans, were urged to wait until marriage before having sex, or to return to abstinence if they were not virgins. Wives and especially husbands were asked to remain faithful to their spouses. And when the "C" was stressed, it did not mean condoms but the embrace of the Catholic Church in Uganda and the suggestion that the proper meaning of "C" should be "character formation."

The mantra of changing behavior rather than perpetuating a condom culture resulted in startling developments. In the late 1980s, 50 percent of females 15 to 17 years old had engaged in sex; this was down to 34 percent by 2000. Uganda’s Demographic and Health Survey of 2000-2004 indicated that 93 percent of Ugandans had altered their sexual behavior to avoid HIV/AIDS.
The results were immediately apparent when Uganda’s infection rate began declining. Adult HIV rates dropped from about 30 percent in the early 1990s to 8 percent in 2002. Today, the infection rate hovers at 4.1 percent. President Museveni spoke at a World AIDS Conference in Bangkok in 2004 and declared forcefully that condoms should not be the definitive public health intervention against HIV/AIDS. He was joined in this call to reality by the Kenyan first lady Lucy Kibaki, who regularly teaches school girls that they should delay sex until after marriage and forget about condoms. (See "Why the ABC Message Worked," page 22.) Uganda’s success made it a model for other African countries and also played a major influence in the current AIDS relief program undertaken by the Bush administration.

Uganda’s progress against AIDS is a story of promoting the culture of life. Everywhere in Africa the Church’s stand on the real ABCs—abstinence, be faithful, and character formation rather than condoms—has been adopted, the HIV/AIDS rates are substantially lower. The 2003 World Factbook of the Central Intelligence Agency reported, for example, Burundi had a 62% Catholic population and a 6% AIDS infection rate; Angola had a 38% Roman Catholic population and a 3.9% AIDS rate; Ghana was 63% Christian with a Catholic population of 12% (in some regions it is as high as 33%) and a 3.1% AIDS rate. In stark contrast, those countries that have steadfastly clung to the myth of condom use as the primary means of preventing the epidemic also have the highest rates of HIV/AIDS. In Botswana, where only 5% of the population is Catholic, 37% of the overall population is infected with HIV/AIDS. In South Africa, with a 7% Catholic population, 22% of the total population is infected.

The UN’s Failure
Undeterred by the success of the Ugandan methods and enraged by an approach that challenges the assumptions of the Western sexual revolution, the UN and other nongovernmental organizations (including UNICEF, the UNFPA, the World Health Organization, and Centers for Disease Control) are placing pressure on Uganda and other countries to offer only condoms as a solution to their problem. In an interview with LifeSiteNews, Martin Ssempa, a Ugandan AIDS activist, denounced the obdurate position of the United Nations and its UNAIDS program, noting, "UNAIDS has no success story. UNAIDS cannot point at any country where they have given advice and that country has brought HIV down" (LifeSiteNews, October 25, 2007). The situation is an ironic one. The Martyrs of Uganda gave their lives by refusing to engage in lurid sexual activities and to surrender their faith. Uganda today is being offered a similar choice by the Western culture of death. Only this time, by adhering to the faith and doing what is right, the Ugandans, along with the rest of Africa, will actually be saving their lives. In both cases, moral courage remains the key to a future of hope.

Matthew E. Bunson is a contributing editor to This Rock and the author of We Have a Pope: Benedict XVI (Our Sunday Visitor, 2005) and more than 30 other books. He was a consultant for USA Today during the funeral of John Paul II and the election of Pope Benedict. He is the general editor of Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Almanac, a senior fellow of the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology, and a moderator of EWTN’s online Church history forum.

July 23, 2008: The slaughter of children made easier in Canada

Another defeat was made today for the lives of countless thousands. Canada, a bastion of pre-born murder, has made access to the early-stages abortion pill even easier. The pill I am referring to is Levonorgestrel, marketed as Plan B, and colloquially known as the "morning-after pill". This pill causes the woman's body to produce a high level of hormones which prevents implantation of a fertilized egg.

It is important to remember that the egg is already fertilized, a person has been conceived. A living person will be murdered with this pill, yet people call it the morning-after pill. First of all, what does this mean, the morning after what exactly? Obviously, this refers to the morning after "unprotected" sex. Perhaps it refers to a morning after a one-night stand, or a fling, or possibly a "committed" relationship. But the only thing this relationship is committed to is the image of the two partners, and nothing, not even the life of another human being, trumps that commitment.

The decision by Canadian "courts" is devastating. The holocaust of innocent children will continue to expand. Thousands will die. One of the sadest things is that this "product" is being marketed as a form of birth control. It should be considered abortion at least. People who are not aware of what they are doing could be unknowingly killing their very own child, and for what? Convenience?

People may not care about unborn children, but how we treat them indicates how we feel about everyone else. We should care for them the most because they are innocent. If we do not care for the most vulnerable in our society, who will we care for? Every day, that question is being asked, because every day, our culture of death finds new victims. First it is the unborn, then it is the unable, then it is the undesired. We are living in a society where your value as a human person is determined by how everyone else feels about you. This is truly a sad situation.

Let us pray for Canada that it may protect its most vulnerable, that it stands on guard for its citizens. Young and old, weak and strong, rich or poor.

Why are Christians (specifically Catholics) the only ones held responsible?

Last night I flicked on The Hour with George Stromboulopoulos. He had Sue Johanson as one of his guests last night and of course they were talking about sex. Sue's show runs in the United States now, where people call in for all their questions about sex, contraception, and everything along those lines. She doesn't care if they're gay, straight, bisexual; married, not married, extra-marital, etc. To her, sex is sex, and nothing else matters.

At one point, George asked how it's different in the U.S. compared to here, and Sue mentioned that she quivers at the thought. She derided the sex education system of the United States saying they only teach abstinence-only programming and that that's the fault of George W. Bush. They seem to easily be able to laugh about these "conservatives" who are afraid of sex and ask themselves rhetorically why they don't just accept it.

Sue at one point posited that "well, it's going to happen anyway, you might as well teach them about it", and that she's helping people to avoid pregnancy, which according to her is such a terrible thing. But let's look at what's really going on.

In 1968, when Humanae Vitae was published by Pope Paul VI, he said that the widespread use of contraception would cheapen sex, turn people into sex objects, increase promiscuity and infidelity, break up marriages and relationships, and have major negative impacts on the world in general. He was completely correct in these things. He didn't even mention however the increased incidents of STIs. The dire consequences of the increased use of contraception has been felt.

It also paved the way to abortion. Pregnancies were now something people had control over. We stopped asking God his plan, and started asking ourselves. We were in control. So when people became pregnant, dispite the availability of contraception, it didn't fit into their view of how things should go. They demanded FULL control, not partial control. Women, and their male partners, demanded the ability to end whatever was happening inside her womb. Since contraception, people tried to separate sex from childbirth, intimacy from procreation. Contraception doesn't decrease unwanted pregnancies, it increases them. It increases abortion also. In fact, it legitimized it. Once people demanded full and utter control over anything happening in their bodies, they realized there was an unintended side-effect of guilt, and horror at the realization of what they've done. No one ever questioned if what was in their womb was a child, but that denial was necessary to perform this act. Just as the Nazis declared Jews to be nonhuman, so too did the abortionists declare the unborn.

This brings my point full circle. As a Catholic, I am forced to offer an explanation for how I could kill so many innocent people during the Crusades, yet proponents of contraception and abortion would not even be asked to justify their own act. The Crusades ended over 500 years ago, was a defensive war to protect innocent civilians, was far less brutal than most people imagine. As well, the cowardly acts perpetrated by a few for their own bloodlust and greed were not authorized by the Catholic Church, and in fact were condemned by it. Yet, somehow I have to justify these people. I even have to justify outlaws, people who broke the commands of my religion, to whom I have no relation, no shared heritage.

Does Sue Johanson get blamed for reducing sex to an action between any two people with no consequences no different than a pat on the back. Do we blame her for the increase in infidelity, sexual addiction, lust, marriage breakups, infidelity, and abortion? No. If everyone practiced abstinence before marriage, which Sue and George laugh at, there would not be many of the things I mentioned above. Although people like Sue have a direct impact on the degredation of society and values, we do not blame her or anyone like her.

Why the double standard? In fact, it is not even a double standard, for this implies equality. I would argue that the Crusades were mostly a positive thing, which have little impact on our current lives, besides allowing us to be as free as we are today, especially to be Christians. However, the sexual "revolution", or sexual degredation as I call it, is having a devastating and unquestionably negative impact on our society.