Sorry, I don’t know how to embed the video. Click on CN8 link above or go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBO9tNNejo
This election is not going to be decided on birth control. Santorum made it clear that he was voicing his personal belief and not proposed policy.
While I don’t agree with Santorum on this, he is certainly correct to point out that there is a downside to contraception.
Lots of cold showers?
A real Catholic doesn’t support birth control. That makes sense as a rule that benefits society. Societies who don’t reproduce die out. When you have an enemy culture like the Muslims reproducing at a much more rapid rate, you hurt your society in the long run by being overrun by them. We can see how it’s happening in Europe with collapsing birthrates among whites and massive Muslim immigration and reproduction.
Low birthrates also hurt the economy as we’ve seen in Japan and Europe. They make a society weaker, less productive and gradually smaller.
God didn’t intend to make it easy for people not to have children. Sex was not created for human gratification, it was created to be a functioning process for reproduction. Birth control perverts the process in a completely unnatural and unintended way. The introduction of widespread birth control massively changed society and it’s difficult to see any of those changes as improvements.
Rick is right as some non-barrier forms of birth control actually kill babies as their function is to prevent a baby after he or she has been conceived from being able to implant his or her self in the womb.
This is Catholic teaching. Unlike the other “Catholics” in government, it seems Santorum is willing to actually obey their teaching. I’m not a Catholic, mind you, but it is something honorable to note.
However, I still prefer Perry over Santorum. Santorum strikes me as a mediocre candidate, but kudos on him for being brave enough to state an unpopular opinion.
The year is 2012, not 1612, go see a doc, he can fix you in about five minutes. Now don’t be scared, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasectomy
Rick is giving the traditional Catholic teaching on the subject. I am Catholic.
Here’s a relevent scoop from the current version of the Catechism, straight from the Vatican’s website:
“2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.
2361 “Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death.”143
Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, “Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety.” So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, “Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.’ I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together.” And they both said, “Amen, Amen.” Then they went to sleep for the night.144
2362 “The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.”145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146
2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.
* Conjugal fidelity
2364 The married couple forms “the intimate partnership of life and love established by the Creator and governed by his laws; it is rooted in the conjugal covenant, that is, in their irrevocable personal consent.”147 Both give themselves definitively and totally to one another. They are no longer two; from now on they form one flesh. The covenant they freely contracted imposes on the spouses the obligation to preserve it as unique and indissoluble.148 “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”149
2365 Fidelity expresses constancy in keeping one’s given word. God is faithful. The Sacrament of Matrimony enables man and woman to enter into Christ’s fidelity for his Church. Through conjugal chastity, they bear witness to this mystery before the world.
St. John Chrysostom suggests that young husbands should say to their wives: I have taken you in my arms, and I love you, and I prefer you to my life itself. For the present life is nothing, and my most ardent dream is to spend it with you in such a way that we may be assured of not being separated in the life reserved for us. . . . I place your love above all things, and nothing would be more bitter or painful to me than to be of a different mind than you.150
* The fecundity of marriage
2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,”151 teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.”152 “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”153
2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.154 “Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility.”155
2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:
When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156
2369 “By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood.”157
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160”
I don’t honestly know much about his current stances for other things. I do agree with his pro-life statements I’ve seen, as well as those on marriage and birth control. Whether you like him or hate him, you may wish to consider that the media is doing it’s best to attempt, again, to influence perception of Republican candidates, in hopes of us getting a relatively weak one to run against Obama. Don’t fall for their schtick. Check out the video of Alan Colmes on Fox. We’ll see more of that sort of liberal/progressive tripe, as the year rolls on.
Rick assumes facts not in evidence.
And the circular firing squad will form here.
“Birth control” is a wide category. He does limit his list to “artificial birth control.” (Which includes the rhythm and more scientific natural family planning.)
However, he assumption is that birth control is relevant outside of marriage. Sex outside of marriage is always wrong.
However, there is no sin in sex within marriage and there’s no sin for committed couples to use birth control that doesn’t endanger any children who do result and who would never consider abortion for serendipitous pregnancies.
Newt thinks oral isn’t sex. We aren’t voting for their most intimate beliefs. Palin had many private beliefs that didn’t enter the equation when she was potentially running for office. Santorum will not run on a no birth control platform.
This the type of thing that will get picked up by the left and used to freak out people on all sides of the political spectrum.
No one on the Left is prepared to have that conversation, however. Their howl will have an opposite effect as more Americans than the Left is are prepared to believe are willing at least to admit this possibility, and without feeling "threatened."
How Santorum "surfs" that issue, and others like it, will say a lot about his ability to communicate Conservatism.
Perhaps he will do well, perhaps not. We will be watching closely, especially if he can prove he has even a fighting chance to win, if polling in Iowa actually means anything.
Now, using the Left's outrage to pierce their default blackout to reach their wider audience (that thinks very differently than the elites) is precisely how Reagan often got his message out.
Santorum's "large" family already offends the Left, by the way. That he makes the Left uncomfortable and defensive can be a very positive thing for him.
So Santorum can prove himself ready for the White House IF he understands that the opinions he needs to worry about are not those of the press but those of the people beyond the gates that the press presumes to guard.
Responsible persons do not pollute the oceans and rivers with gene mutating carcinogen hormones so they can have sexual intercourse.
Artificial birth control has been around since long before Christianity and all denominations considered it sinful up until the middle of the 20th century. Judaism allows it in many circumstances(for wives)...after the birth of a boy and a girl or in the cases of health concerns.
If married persons don't want to have children and still want to have sexual relations, there are natural forms of birth control.
The Catholic Church (Santorum is Catholic and not CINO) teaches that sexual activity belongs only in marriage as an expression of total self–giving and union, and always open to the possibility of new life.
Regardless, there is no reason for you to be concerned that Santorum believes this about birth control nor any reason for you to be concerned about being Pro Choice and irresponsible, if that is your preference for yourself and society and the environment.
Santorum (because it will take so much more than only him) can do nothing to change the evil laws and amorality that are already in place which permit the ills of artificial birth control.
What one should see in his statement is that Santorum does have moral values and is not simply a hollow reed blowing in the winds of popularity.
If a person chooses the immoral (in Christian, Catholic, environmental, health and cultural perspective) choice of artificial birth control, then that is their choice and nobody will ever be able to stop them.
Consider the subjects of suicide and murder and abortion and premarital sex...two of the four are illegal, but mankind can do them all and who is going to be able to stop them? Nobody.
No debt goes unpaid, in the end. Yet regarding artificial birth control...be it increased prostate and breast cancer rates, birth defects, degenerative diseases, altered sexual development of future generations, moral decline, loss of soul, etc, in this life or extended cleansing duration in purgatory or even eternal damnation - the “choice” is one’s own free will to make.
That being said, why would one be concerned that Santorum views birth control from a Christian and Catholic perspective, when he is a Catholic? This is a good thing, for all who consider ethics and principles to be assets and desirable attributes for a leader.
Unless one is seeking the immoral atheistic secularist humanist or the an anarchist to run this nation, there is no problem. If that is who one desires as their president, then, perhaps that person should be supporting the candidates with no real moral principles and no core ethical values who have sold their souls, believing the lie they can buy new ones, and we all know who they are. And, it appears, currently, that is who is leading in Iowa right now. Go figure, huh!?
It’s not about birth control. It’s not about abortion. The real issue is a culture and tax structure that discourages middle-class women from wanting lots of kids.
You “married folks” should accept the teachings of Christ passed to us through the Catholic Church. Read about Onan.
Just because it is convenient and it is something I want doesn't translate to it being right or good. And no, I am not Catholic.
Birth control is a cornerstone of both the sexual revolution and the modern 2.4 children lifestyle. Both have had large negative effects on Western society.
FYI...Santorum will be on Beck’s radio show in the second hour (10 EST)...he just finished an interview with Rick Perry.
If Santorum is talking about federal laws maybe you got a concern. Of course, he's not. He's expressing an opinion based on the teachings of his church.
Maybe you should grill Romney about the degree to which he accepts the teachings of his religion. Or better yet, Obama about his.
I don’t think that he proposes banning it, but that he is simply stating his personal attitude towards it. Honesty should be appreciated, even if we disagree with the opinion.