“Women, Know Your Limits”

Optimism has never been my thing. I blame it on the rather high percentage of Irish blood I have in this body of mine. We Irish hold our traditions of pessimism dear, and if I am any kind of woman, I am a traditional one.

Nevertheless, as the election grows closer, I’m having an awfully hard time remaining true to type. There’s this strange feeling growing inside me that can only be described as hope. I am increasingly hopeful, with the occasional moment of confidence, that Mitt Romney will take Ohio and the presidency next Tuesday.

I’m also increasingly hopeful that this election cycle will deal a serious wound, if not the ultimate deathblow, to the whole idea of “women’s issues.” Or at least to the idea of women’s issues as politically conceived.

How Obama Sees Women: Alone, Dependent, In NeedI don’t want to let my hopes get too high on that count, but with Romney’s campaign finally closing the gender gap, I can’t help but dream of a day when certain politicians don’t think that the fastest way to secure a woman’s vote is to promise to be her substitute father, husband, lover, doctor, teacher, and friend (ala The Life of Julia).

Nor can I stop dreaming of a day when those same candidates don’t assume that all women are keen on having the right to kill their unborn children, and recognize that, in fact, more women identify themselves as “pro-life” than “pro-choice.”

Try as I might to stop it, my mind continues to wander to a halcyon future when liberal politicians acknowledge that women own small businesses, have investments, and worry about pesky things like job creation, debt, and runaway entitlement spending.

In that future, they also recognize that women are rational creatures, with thoughts on war and peace, education and energy policy, trial lawyers and unions. In other words, they recognize that there’s a veritable laundry list of issues we consider more important than government-sponsored birth control.

Heck, since we’re dreaming, let’s just go for it and imagine a day where all politicians show some real concern for women’s health by pledging to put some of those government research dollars to work studying the many links between birth control and cancer.

Baseline minimum, I’m hoping for a future where presidents of the United States don’t think it’s anything other than nauseating to equate the act of voting with losing one’s virginity…where fathers of two young girls don’t have campaign ads mocking abstinence…and where those entrusted with safeguarding the Constitution realize that women might—just might—be more worried about the government violating the First Amendment and depriving Christians of their right to live their beliefs than they are about seeing Big Bird lose his government paycheck.

Okay, okay, maybe I’m getting a little out of control here. I should probably reign the fantasizing back in. It will take more than one electoral defeat to send the message to liberal politicians of Obama’s ilk that women are reasonable, intelligent creatures, who use our pretty little heads to think about more than sex and shopping. Indeed, that we think all sorts of thoughts and that those thoughts aren’t the same as every other woman’s.

Which I suppose, even more than the assumptions underlying President Obama’s particular approach to the politicking of women, is what really bothers me about the idea of “women’s issues.”

You see, just like men, women are capable of caring about a world that’s bigger than our own. Just like men, we work, pay bills, and worry about our children’s (or potential children’s) future. Just like men, we read and think and observe the world around us, then make decisions based on what we read and think and observe. And we do it all as individuals, not as a sex. Again, just like men.

But despite the fact that both women and men do all those things, no politician ever insinuates that men base their vote on their gender or their sex lives. They don’t cater exclusively to men’s self-interest, nor do they pander to men as a political monolith. They respect men as individuals, capable of independent thought and action. They acknowledge the differences in the opinions men hold.

That same respect isn’t given to women, not by President Obama and not by countless other politicians. Which is why the whole concept of “women’s issues” is laden with sexism from the start.

And yes, I know, there are bigger problems in the world than a president who puts his stamp of approval on raunchy, demeaning political ads. But ideas, as they say, have consequences, and in this administration, the persistent sexism of our president has had more than a few of those. The most serious infringement of religious liberty by the national government in our history is one of them. Christina Hoff Sommers uber-ably pointed out many others in an essay that ran earlier this week for National Review.

What concerns me most, however, are the numbers of otherwise intelligent women who still don’t have a problem with this administration’s conception of women. Who, in fact, seem to share it, and in doing so, are failing to grasp the deepest truths of their own dignity and worth.

What, I wonder, will it take for them to see beyond President Obama’s talk of being “pro-woman” and see the sexism underlying his every word?

What will it take for them to realize that if you strip away the Hollywood Starlets and armband tattoos, this video…

Says much the same thing as this video…

That’s Obama’s message to us lady folk in a nutshell: “Women, know your limits.”

Hasn’t the time come for us to say the same thing to him and the whole idea of “women’s issues”?

This Tuesday, we’ll get our chance.  Here’s hoping we take it.

Emily Stimpson is a Contributing Editor to “Our Sunday Visitor” and the author of “The Catholic Girl’s Survival Guide for the Single Years,” where she dishes on the Church’s teachings about women, marriage, sex, work, beauty, suffering, and more.



88 thoughts on ““Women, Know Your Limits”

  1. Me and Folly says:

    Nice post, and very true. Here is a related editorial cartoon: http://meandfolly.blogspot.com/2012/10/blog-post.html

    Enjoy. You can “like it” on FB for updates of future cartoons as well, fyi.

    The point in your post and in the cartoon are the same: women are being treated like children by Obama

    1. Holly holy says:

      Unlike the great respect given to women here at CV.
      Issues are irrelevant here. Just make sure to keep women in their place as they cannot not think for themselves. CV must provide the words.

  2. FrankW says:


    Thanks for an excellent post. I too am hopeful of a positive outcome and a change at the White House. That said, I also think this election, like 2000 and 2004, will be close in terms of the electoral college count.

    There has not been a candidate for President who has received over 400 electoral votes since 1988. In the ten Presidential elections between 1952 and 1988, the winner of the election won at least 400 electoral votes 7 times.

    What this is a sign of is a divided nation. No matter how popular or unpopular a candidate for President is, he/she will carry at minimum at least 150 electoral votes. I think the driving force behind this is the division in our nation over social issues, including so-called women’s issues. It started with abortion, and now has expanded to government mandate free birth control, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and the best current example of that today, gay marriage.

    As an example, there are 31 states who have pass laws and/or amendments to their constitutions defining marriage in the traditional manner. Despite that, we have an all-out push on the part of the opposition to get the federal government to override the will of the majority of citizens in 31 states and force them to recognize it. No matter which side you are on, it is not possible for this issue to be settled in a manner which satisfies both sides. The same has held true for the issue of abortion for the last 40 years.

    No matter who wins this election next Tuesday, the fights will go on, and those of us who adhere to Catholic teaching on these non-negotiable issues will need to keep up the good fight. But the idea of a nation united (over more than a few weeks/months following a national tragedy) is a thing of the past.

    1. Why Frank? says:

      Frank the one truth you say is that your willingness to “fight” will keep the nation from being united. It is sad to see that this is a goal for you.

      1. Phil Steinacker says:

        You evidently wish to see the nation united under your visoin for us porr ignorant peasants.
        We will NEVER unite under the Anti-God, fascist hell you’ve planned for us, and so we fight to deny you the attainment of your goal..

  3. JenB says:

    Mara, why do you see female priests (et al), abortion,contraception (ie the use of women for men’s sexual pleasure and treating her body as less than as God intended) and Nuns who speak against the very Husband they pledged their lives to NOT suppression of the Female Genius?

    Put another way, why is the priesthood, which is dedicated to the full laying down of a husband’s life (male) for the service of the Bride (the Church) suppression? Why is killing the child within your womb not suppression? Why is wanting men to treat you as God intended-ie able to bear life-and not for selfish gain suppression? As for the Nuns, well, I’ve already asked that question.

    Could it be that we have bought in to the lie that we are gods to do with ourselves as we see fit? Who made us god?

    What if-just go with me here-what if there is a Creator who made us so sublimely wonderful that we can go to Him and find out how He wants us to live as women-as He intended for us all along?

    I would say that men, as God created them, are the best fit to be in the person of Christ, to lay down their lives (Eph 6) for the Bride, the Church. Fruitful union (ie new Christians) come from the nuptial union of men and woman, not men and men or women and women.

    Which leads me to contraception. Our very cycle tells us that we have the capability to bear life inside of us-and that all the workings of it should be respected. Why in the name of heavens would you want to make yourself like a man, disrupt the very cycle God created in you and allow yourself to be used for a man’s sexual needs-or be slave to your own? Wouldn’t that be suppression?

    Speaking about both the priesthood and motherhood-did you ever stop to consider that a woman gave flesh and blood to God? To divinity? That her flesh-and only hers-was incorporated into the the Son of God? If you think it’s about power, think about that!

    Abortion then, should be a forgone conclusion. But let me add, why should the baby pay for the sins of the rapist? Or for the lifestyle of the mother? Why does it proceed that a baby should die-and die a horrible and absolutely violent death? Why-no HOW can you be ok with that?

    And the nuns. God love the nuns. Many of them-even the dissenters-have given their life in service of the Church. But what in God’s name are they doing airing their fight with their Husband (God) in public? Why are they so dead set against Him and his Church? Could it be that they lack the humble attitude that so many of the great saints had?

    Could it be that many of us lack the humble attitude to let God be God and not tell Him how it’s gonna be?

    I speak to this because I’ve had to have my own intellectual conversion on topics such as contraception. I invite you to do the same. What Emily proposes is worth the study if you don’t agree with it. I’ve laid out a few points, but I do hope that you would research this further.

    God made woman so wonderful, so beautiful. Did you know that Pope John Paul II wrote a beautiful letter to us, telling us of our “Feminine Genius” encouraging us to be fully who God created us to be and share that gift with the world? Did you know that the Theology of the Body, also by JPII is a beautiful study on the dignity of man and woman and our worth as the Bride of Christ-that He laid down His life for our snotty selfish, yet wonderfully created beings?

    What Emily proposes is far from suppression. Kudos to you, Emily, for calling out the crazy in feminism and calling us to a true expression of who God created us to be-and reminding politicians to treat us with the dignity God gave us.

    1. MARA says:

      JenB, thank-you for your well thought out response. I obviously don’t agree with you but I certainly appreciate your sincerity. I’m also happy that you didn’t attempt to politicize these points, unlike Emily.

      1. JenB says:

        I don’t think she is politicizing it at all. I think she is standing up for the rights of women as God made us to be. I gave you the background to her arguments and they are solid and reasonable. She is fighting the fight that we all should fight.

        And I, for one am entirely frustrated that any politician would think that birth control is more important than the price of gas, bread and having a job. Treat me like I have a brain, not a just a libido (is what I want them to hear)

        1. yes she is politicizing it says:

          I can guarantee that there is no one, absolutely no one, that is at all interested in your libido.
          Most would be interested in your brain if you were to actually use it, but you betray this when you make a statement that people assume for women that birth control is more important than gas, bread or employment.
          Clearly the only ones who see to promote that are the dear bishops. They are being too quiet on the bread and employment, and not just the political end of it, but the Catholic in the pews responsibilities for it.

          1. Phil Steinacker says:

            No, she is not politicizing anything. It is you and those who agree with your views who have used the political process to impose political, social, & cultural changes upon this country that, as a matter of our faith and our correct understanding of it, we must exercise our rights toutilize the SAME political process to resist and undo.
            You are the pot calling the kettle black, and your side started it all by pushing these changes which damage everyone – both men and women, but mostly women. Your feminist movement has delivered millions of young women into the groping hands of men be falsely preaching to them that “equality” with men is achieved by mimicking men’s worst instincts in pursuing sexual pleasure.
            As for what heads the list of what’s most important to women, we benefit by poll oafter poll (done by a vaiety of polling firms) asking that same question, and they are answering in droves that economic issues like employment rank first. Your social/sexual issues were near the bottom fo the top 20 for months until your false messiah needed to raise them instead of running on his record. It is so abysmal he can’t, so he is ginnning up the motivation of his base, which DOES answer the way you do.
            You are a hypocrite for using the political process to ovewhelm the religious mores, beliefs, and practices of Christians in America, and then scream that we are politicizing issues YOUR ILK created without any input from us.
            Yyou CANNOT have it both ways, and we are going to take back from you what you have tried to steal – a truly Christian nation.

          2. JenB says:

            Says the poster who offers little to no intellectual rationale to this discussion. If you think that the Bishops don’t care, then you are sadly misinformed. The Bishops have reminded us that in some areas the absolutes must stand-abortion, religious liberty, etc. while others are left to the laity’s prudential judgement ie how we care for the poor, what tax rates should be, what to do for the unemployed etc. The Bishops are not the only ones with reason, a sphere of influence or a vote.

            But then again, you’d know that if you used your brain.

  4. Normal Catholic says:

    I like the woman pictured in the top video more than the women depicted in the bottom video. Hey, who want’s to be a Stepford Wife? Mitt’s eyes are just soooo dreamy . .. Paul Ryan’s, too. . . .

    1. Abby Normal says:

      CV will be issuing a Calander with the best neoCons of 2013. Romney did not make it in but Ryan will have all 31 days of February. Oh wait there is a severe cut to only 26 days . The Koch brothers each get a day.

  5. I’m tired of these lies. This woman is voting for Barack Obama.

    1. Randall says:

      Let me guess, you’re another compulsive birth control pill popper like Sandra Fluke, who wants her promiscuity paid for by taxpayers like me. How many men have you slept with this week? Or have you lost count?

      1. John200 says:

        Come on, Randall, be charitable. It is easy to count to 5 1/2.

        1. Ubi Caritas says:

          It is against his nature to be Charitable.
          He does not know that that is a Catholic teaching. (Maybe cause the Bishops talk very little about it, and model it poorly.)

          1. John200 says:

            I think Randall was indulging in comic caricature. I was playing along, indirectly reinforcing the point that Jamie Candace Ward seems to be pointed backward, away from well-known, common sense Catholic truth. This would support Emily, the author.

            I see nothing uncharitable in Randall.

      2. abadilla says:

        “How many men have you slept with this week? Or have you lost count?”
        And then folks tell me “I’m too much!”

      3. Is Randall Romney? says:

        So Emily, is the pro-woman model that your are in support of, or do you just want Romney so bad that you have thrown all your ethics aside?

        1. abadilla says:

          Why can’t you get it through your head that if Obama right now was providing jobs for this nation, making exceptions in his Obama care for Catholic institutions to follow their conscience and Catholic teaching, not supporting gay marriage, tough on foreign policy, CV would be supporting Obama, but the very opposite is the case. You want to paint Emily as purely partisan, but that is simply NOT true!

      4. Alex_NYC says:

        Let me start with this first: “A new 21-nation poll for BBC World Service indicates that citizens around the world would strongly prefer to see Barack Obama re-elected as US President rather than his Republican challenger Mitt Romney.” It is you bunch of sick people in this country vs. the world! Oh and Pakistan. That’s right, your views are so distorted a country like Pakistan is aligned with you sick ****ers. By the way, they shoot 12 year old girls for wanting to go to school, Google it. In fact if you just google 12 year old girl rather than 12 year old girl shot in the head (which is who I was referring to), you’d get even more sickening results. CV.org, you’re aligned with f***ing Pakistan. Sad.

        So much hypocrisy, and so many lies… LOL! I see you all as sick people. No, seriously. All you CV fools could be considered in a vegetative state, because not a single one of you has a single thought you can call your own that wasn’t implanted into you by your friendly neighborhood pedophile club Church. ON ABORTION: “Republicans first made this a political issue back in the late 1970s,
        and we have as many abortions now as we had then. Despite decades of
        campaign promises and a period where 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices were GOP appointees and Republicans controlled the White House and both branches of Congress, Roe remains the law of the land”
        Google that excerpt to read the article. Do you invisible-man-in-the-sky praying fools honestly believe the GOP have your best interest at heart?

        “Forbes: For A Better Economy, Vote Democratic:

        • Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents

        • Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents

        • Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)

        • Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)

        • Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents

        • The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations


        Google the excerpt from Forbes. Do some damn research, this is only the precipice of the issue at large! I can be here till election day writing dissertations and I couldn’t even scratch the surface of all this ridiculous ****! The irony of this ALL is that it takes a god, only god can make you self hating sheeple see the way. I’m not a hardcore anything, in fact I’m considered by most as a fiscal conservative/social independant. People like me SHOULD have been the ideal Republican base, because there are some STUPID ****s in the liberal wing. Unfortunately, the Republican base has been hijacked by self-hating hardcore ultra ultra ultra conservative, racist, bigoted, hypocritical, hyperbolic (in their distortion and interpretation of reality), MORONS.


    2. JenB says:

      Jamie, can you give a reasoned explanation why? And what lies are you tired of? I sincerely want to know. Thanks.

      1. Many Reasons and Many Lies says:

        She is probably tired of Emily’s lies and all of CV lies as are most intelligent readers. She is probably voting for Obama because, despite Emily’s caluculated misinformation, Romney is about as far from “unlimiting” woman. If you had any logical judgement, you could at least do a legitimate comparrison instead of relying on third rate bloggers with very little understanding of Catholic Theology. Anyone who thinks that Emiliy is writting from a Catholic perspective, does not know what Catholicism is about. She is just a Franciscan University member of the sect that can’t stand that it is no long 1952. She pretends that abortion is an issue for her, but belies this in her constant hypocrisy. Her greatest sadness is that she wil never be in one of Mitt’s binders.

        1. JenB says:

          Intelligence on display, I see.

          I was asking for an honest discussion, but if you cannot be part of an intelligent conversation do not post here. It is less than helpful.

          And you clearly have never ever been to Franciscan where the faith is alive and well and the youth are taking orthodoxy to a whole new level of fervor and joy.

    3. abadilla says:

      My goodness, what a surprise!

  6. MARA says:

    Emily, I’m speechless. Well almost. Where are the female Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and Popes? How is forcing a raped woman to give birth not the suppression of women? How is advocating that Roe v Wade be thrown out not the suppression of women? How is making the use of contraceptives a sin not the suppression of women? How is punishing Catholic Nuns who speak out against the ancient doctrines of the Catholic Church not the suppression of women? You can’t politicize these issues and get away with it. This is not about Democrats v Republicans. This is not about politics. This is not about religion. This goes above and beyond politics and religion. This is about the right of women everywhere to control their own destinies. That you would attempt to politicize these issues is, in and of itself, the suppression of women.

    1. Randall says:

      There is no such thing as a female priest, it is an impossibility. If you were Catholic, you’d know this. Not to mention, women don’t have a “right” to control the most important biological process they were designed around. It’s not politics, it’s biology.

      1. it is politics and biology says:

        Randall – you are neither a good theologian nor a good bioogist.
        You probably should refrain from telling everyone about the absoutes that you think you know. You are quite in error on most of your assumptions.

        1. Phil Steinacker says:

          Enough with the generalizations. You betray your own ignorance; your inability to respond in any specific terms. With such weak statements, you convince no one here, so it’s reasonable to conclude you are a bitter partisan hack foaming at the mouth in fearful anticipation of your fascist leader being turned out of office next week.

          Randall is right on, and his theology is well grounded in the theology of the Roman Catholic Church which has been misrepresented by liberals for over 45 years. However, the last two popes have set in motion the movement to reclaim the Church and drive out the heretics and apostates who sow lies and confusion.

          1. abadilla says:

            “it’s reasonable to conclude you are a bitter partisan hack foaming at the mouth in fearful anticipation of your fascist leader being turned out of office next week.”
            Well, that says all I needed to know about your thinking! Yet, you don’t think with these insults you are making a weak argument, right?

    2. abadilla says:

      I’ve already replied to you on many of the issues you bring up in your post, but this time I will simply let women answer you.

      1. Thanks for letting women talk says:

        That be mighty nice of you to let these poor little women answer this time. You is such the gentlemen. All women forever are in your gratitude.

        1. abadilla says:

          Thank you so much. I thought there are issues that are better addressed by women rather than by men, but obviously, your cynicism shows I was not appreciated in what I intended to do.

          1. Abadilla knows best says:

            Of course your patenalism was not appreciated. Who really cares that you are letting women talk. How Absurd!

          2. abadilla says:

            What’s absurd is your attitude. I was not being paternalistic at all. I simply believe there are some subjects women should address better than men, and I try to stay clear of those subjects, that simple.

      2. John200 says:

        Mara is just trolling. Don’t worry about it, she does not want an answer and will not tolerate the truth. Ditto “Many reasons and Many Lies” which seems to be a descriptive name.

        1. John002 says:

          Were you making a point here or just writting becasue you found the right button?
          Make sure to find a way to dismiss any comment that does not support the lies that you want to hold on to.

          1. John200 says:

            Sure, go ahead; take a name close to mine; say nothing relevant to the article; try to cause as much confusion as possible.

            Then tell the world you are not trolling, trolling, trolling, on the river…..

            It is easy to see why we think lefty Catholics cannot make Catholic sense. You are making my point.

        2. abadilla says:

          Hi, Nice to read a familiar name after insult after insult for simply pointing out the teaching of the Church.

          Mara implied, and I’m just paraphasing her, that most Catholics are not conservative as they are on CV and that they believe in contraception, etc. My reply to that is simple. Mara is correct, most Catholic women somehow are able to use contraceptives and somehow live with the fact that they are Catholic. Frankly, I don’t know how a Catholic does that.

          Mara also believes in abortion and somehow thinks of herself as a Catholic. I don’t get it.

          I do however get this, no matter how many people practice a sin, a sin does not become a virtue simply because a majority of people practice it. The teaching of the Church on contraception and abortion remains, whether Mara and millions like it or not. Either one lives in conflict with Catholicism always, or one truly embraces the the faith in its entirety.

          As for CV being ultra-conservative as Mara described it, it isn’t a matter of being conservative, nor liberal, but Catholic. The minute CV departs from Catholic teaching, well, then I will reconsider my membership and the trolls will surely take over.

    3. Mara, should we execute the victims for their perpetrator’s crime? In other words, when is a child culpable for the sins of his father? Killing a child that results from rape does not reverse the crime of his father, nor does it bring healing or closure to its mother.

      Also, most abortions (98%) are done out of convenience (not rape, incest or potential birth defect.) Most abortions are performed on WOMEN who should be responsible enough to understand potential consequences of their sexual behavior. There’s all the room in the world for “choice” before one decides to participate in the carnal act. Choosing to accept the consequences of one’s sexual behavior is also not a Republican or a Democrat issue, but a life issue. It is a matter of scientific fact- a separate HUMAN entity is created at the moment of conception.
      I am not Catholic (I am a fellow Christian, a confessional Lutheran, so my views on life issues are very close to traditional Catholicism) so I have no problem with barrier method contraception such as condoms or sterilization for those who are not trying to conceive. I do have a problem with abortifacient contraception (the Pill, IUD’s, Norplant, etc.) because they can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.
      I do have a problem with the government forcing employers who are morally opposed to abortifacient contraception and abortion to have to subsidize it for their employees and I have a problem with taxpayers (including people like me who are opposed to many forms of contraception as well as abortion) being forced to pay for procedures that are morally wrong.
      I’m also a woman- but a woman who believes people are responsible for their behavior and for their outcomes. Every woman does have the right to control her destiny. Sometimes that right includes the obligation to say NO to bad choices.

    4. Phil Steinacker says:

      In a purely political (non-theological setting) you may have some valid points.
      However, every single one of your concerns is completely trumped with no wiggle room by the hard teaching of the Church (long known by science) that life begins at conception. That means ending that life for any of the reasons you listed (and any you didn’t), including so-called rights of another, is immoral and not to be sanctioned by the Church or our culture. This is why most cultures prohibited abortion throughout time – even the ancients understood better than you that we are called to loftier heights than the primordially selfish tendency to kill another out of greed, lust, or worse, inconvenience.
      We pro-lifers are growing in number. Every year the numbers of young people (predominantly girls and young women) dwarf the ranks of the older folks who’ve been attending the annual March for Life in DC. You might try to dismiss that, but the former head of NOW wrote an article for CNN last year acknowedgin it as a warning to such as you that your “rights” were in danger of being lost by the upcoming generations of females. She;s right to warn you.

    5. abadilla says:

      Mara states, “How is making the use of contraceptives a sin not the suppression of women?”
      Up until the Lambeth Conference of 1930 in England, “all” Christian religious bodies believed contraception to be sinful. Yes, you read it right, “all.” Then, the Anglican bishops by majority vote decided to make a sin a virtue overnight. Most religious bodies imitated the Anglican Church that led them into error. Pius XI said clearly that the truth is not arrived at my “majority” vote but by embracing the truth, even when the truth is unpopular. Paul VI in his Humanae Vitae made that teaching even more clear in 1968.
      Contraception, mostly the pill, hurts the health of women, but men also use contraceptives such as the condom and in so doing, he is making it impossible, most of the time, to have a fruitful marriage.
      I don’t see how you can say contraception suppresses women as if women are told by the Church not to use contraceptives within the framework of marriage, but somehow it is O.K. for men to use contraceptives, the condom being a male contraceptive.
      Once again, you have proven over and over again that your understanding of Catholic moral teaching is distorted and there is absolutely nothing to prevent you from buying and reading the “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” to improve your knowledge of the faith.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



Receive our updates via email.