The American Conservative‘s own Michael Brendan Dougherty puts in a Bloggingheads.tv appearance with Sarah Posner of Religion Dispatches to discuss what Benedict XVI said — and meant — in his recent remarks about condoms:
The Pope and the Condom Controversy
Posted in Religion.
9 Responses to The Pope and the Condom Controversy
-
Mya says:
Wow. That is epic facial hair. Kind of like what a middle relief pitcher may have.
-
Michael Brendan Dougherty says:
Thank you, Dennis.
-
With that phone to his ear MBD looks like he’s being visited in jail. “Ohh, Billy!”
-
Nice try, tbraton.
Alfred C. Kinsey was preeminent among the sexual psychopaths who avowedly set up the sexology industry, from scratch, in order to supplant the Christian sexual ethic. They fabricated research, and relied heavily on current and former prostitutes, and on convicts. Kinsey held that children in the earliest stages of infancy could experience orgasm. How, exactly, was such “research” conducted? He and his followers were largely funded by the pornography racket and other organized vice.
So practically the only views any longer permitted to be expressed about sex are based on fraudulent research and extreme criminality carried out by a clique of sexual psychopaths. Unsurprisingly, adherence to a model designed by and for sexual psychopaths has resulted in a massive increase in sexual psychopathology. Yet that is the only model for the training of anyone who needs a certain number of credits in “sex education” in order to qualify as anything. Kinsey and his followers had created an intellectual climate conducive to the likes of those who frequented The Stonewall Inn and who founded the North American Man/Boy Lovers’ Association (NAMBLA).
Just as the entirety of sexology goes back to Kinsey, so the entirety of homosexualism, the emergence of which postdates by several years the humane and necessary decriminalization of male homosexual acts between consenting adults in private in many jurisdictions (including my own), goes back to the buggery of boys as young as eight, if not younger. Thus, homosexualism has organized around demands for apparently endless reductions in the age of consent.
The Catholic Church of the late 1960s and early 1970s lost confidence, due to the misappropriation of Vatican II’s name by pre-existing secularizing tendencies in the Western world, rather than from anything in the Conciliar documents themselves. This loss of confidence made the internationally trendsetting American Catholic Church, which might have held the line against Kinsey and then against Stonewall and NAMBLA, susceptible to those twin forces of evil. So the views and methods of Kinsey and his disciples were incorporated into the training of priests and into the selection of candidates. At the time, the advocates of sex between adult men and adolescent boys were the most vocal of the lobbies looking to Kinsey, and so they had the most influence over that training and selection.
We all know what happened next, although it is worth pointing out that the acts which have brought such shame on the Church have hardly ever involved pre-pubescent children, or indeed girls of any age. Rather, they are acts between men and teenage boys, which anti-Catholic media, academic and political types have been seeking for decades to make legally, socially and culturally acceptable. Such hypocrisy over the scandals in the Catholic Church has been, and remains, sickening.
Given this enormous amount of medical malpractice, consumer fraud and other offences, class actions need to be filed against the Keepers of the Kinsey Flame: Johns Hopkins University, the Kinsey Institute at the University of Indiana, the San Francisco-based Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, AASECT (American Association of Sex Educators, Counsellors and Therapists), SIECUS (Sex Information and Education Council of the United States) the SSS (Society for the Scientific Study of Sex), Planned Parenthood, the ever-generous Rockefeller Foundation, and numerous subordinates around the world. Just for a start. Those interested should contact Dr Judith Reisman, who describes her own perspective as non-religious: jareisman@surewest.net.
-
Neal Murray says:
That facial hair is indeed rad.
-
I share Mr. Dougherty’s curiousity about how the Christian Zionists would react to downtown Tel Aviv.
-
I’m not sure, David, that your reply is as helpful as you intended for it to be, especially with your dragging the nefarious Kinsey into the picture.
But tbraton does need to be corrected.
Here’s what Benedict says:
“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.”
Pace tbraton, it is decidedly not the case “that the exception only applied to male prostitutes”. This is what is called an example. Bare with me, here, and repeat after me: “Ex. Am. Ple.” The male-prostitute case is one possible situation. And it’s, perhaps counterintuitively, the best example to make. Why?
If Benedict had used the married couple as the example, it’d would have been far too easy to contort the statement into “It’s okay for a married couple to use condoms.” Full stop. Just as it may be moralising — but decidedly not moral (Again, bear with me, tbraton. Tell me if I’m going to fast for you.) — for the male prostitute to use a condom to prevent the spread of disease, it may be moralising, just the same, but, again, not moral for a married couple to use a condom when one spouse carries a disease and the other does not.
It makes further sense for him to have used this example because, presumably, cases such as that of the male prostitute are more likely to involve someone’s being infected with a deadly disease than it is for a married couple, particularly in Catholic Europe and Catholic America.
When I saw that the exception only applied to male prostitutes, I immediately concluded that the Pope was merely trying to protect that endangered species otherwise known as Roman Catholic priests—in pretty much the same way that the R.C. Church hierarchy did their most to protect their pediphile priests.