My column this week will only be available on my website....

You would never know Sean Hannity is a pro-life Catholic by his interview March 9 with Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, president of Human Life International.

Euteneuer is a highly respected leader in the pro-life movement and a priest. He appeared on Fox's Hannity and Colmes by invitation to challenge Hannity on his unorthodox support of contraception. Euteneuer said he previously wrote Hannity in 2004 an unanswered request to meet.

Euteneuer was prompted to publicly denounce Hannity's departure from Catholic (and sola scriptura as well, I believe) teaching after listening to Hannity's March 2 radio show when Hannity glibly apologized for accidentally eating meat on a Lenten Friday.

Euteneuer responded in a newsletter...

If apologies are the order of the day, then the repentance I would like to hear out of Sean Hannity's mouth is for his shameless - even scandalous - promotion of birth control. Yes, I have heard him personally say, "I have no problem with birth control. It's a good thing." (Another bit of profound theological reasoning.)....

The moral of the story is that Catholic men and women in the media need to be truly Catholic or at least stop being hypocrites.

... which is what prompted the call to appear on Hannity and Colmes.

If you haven't watched the video, you should.

I was appalled not just by the disrespect Hannity showed Euteneuer but also by the same cheap shots he dispensed toward Catholic leaders as would a liberal. After all that, Hannity bizarrely challenged Euteneuer to a credentials duel....

Hannity began by invoking, "Judge not lest you be judged," certainly the best known and most abused verse in the Bible, solely flaunted by those being called to account. Any year now I expect "Matthew 7:1" signs to replace "John 3:16" signs behind football goalposts.

In context this verse means not to judge hypocritically or self-righteously. In actuality, the Bible cautions us to judge carefully between good and bad people and things.

I'm sure Hannity does this all the time. When his daughter begins dating, for instance, Hannity will certainly "judge" poorly the boy knocking at his door dressed in Goth with a nose ring and pupils the size of pinheads.

Hannity then hit below the belt: "Maybe you ought to spend a little more time that our Church covered up one of the worst sex scandals and I wasn't involved in it. And the fact that public people after that are willing to still be Catholic is something you should be applauding. Considering the levels of corruption at the highest levels of the Church was frankly embarrassing to every person."

I could not provide a clearer or meaner example of the psychological defense mechanism called deflection - when someone mentions something that embarrasses another person, and that person redirects the conversation to someone else as bad or worse.

In other words, Hannity was saying the Catholic Church has no moral standing because amongst its leaders have been found sinners, for which it has repented, by the way. Hannity's rule would silence every Christian church since Jesus ascended.

Does Hannity really want his Church to reward those who stuck with it during a nasty time by going silent on sin? Apparently so, at least Hannity's sin.

Then Hannity switched gears as if to say he knew as much or more on the topic than Euteneuer anyway: "Do you know that I went to a seminary? Do you know that I studied Latin? Do you know that I studied theology?"

I'll tell you something. I never went to seminary, I never studied Latin, and I'm not even a Catholic. But I have studied Catholic doctrine on contraception, and I get what the Catholic Church is saying about it and its connection to abortion. And I have to wonder how Hannity spent his time in seminary.

Hannity finally pulled a combo "everybody's-doing-it/lesser-of-two-evils" line from the liberal playbook: "Understanding there are self control issues for all in society, understanding that people don't share the Catholic faith... would you not rather they use birth control than abortion, sir?"

Euteneuer pointed out 60% of aborting mothers are using contraception. Had he been given time, I'm sure he would have also said some methods of contraception actually cause abortions.

There was more to the conversation, but Hannity's closing salient question was, "Why don't you work on real important issues instead of superfluous issues?"

In simplest terms, contraception means "anti-conception." The contraception mentality is merely the embryonic form of the abortion mentality.

This is not a superfluous issue.

I know Hannity is pro-life. He said it several times.

I see no problem with him calling out the priest for unnecessarily judging him. Since when did his personal views become the personal business of some random priest he did not go to for religious guidance?

I'm particularly happy that you took that Bible verse and interpretated it "correctly". See, the beauty of the Bible, in all it's faults, is that it can be interpreted a variety of ways for a variety of reasons. There is seldom only one correct interpretation. Please stop thinking your point of view trumps others, Jill. Other people see various texts different ways.

And, contrary to popular belief, just because you identify yourself with a religion does not require that belief to be rigid and exactly identical to the beliefs of the church. It really is ok that Hannity is against abortion, but smart enough to support something that stops abortion in the first place.

And cut the "liberal would have said this" crap, Jill. Your demonizing rhetoric severly undercuts the credibility of your movement.

People like you are one of the reasons why, after living in an extremely Christian home for 18 years, that I have decided to leave it behind all together. The demand for exclusivity of one perspective or one path to heaven is shameful and ridiculous.

I guess I never really understood the Catholic teaching against birth control. I understand an aversion to any method which allows for the possibility of induced abortion, but painting all forms of birth control with a broad brush has always confused me.

When my wife and I were poor and were purposely waiting to have children (there's a novel concept in our country), we used condoms and the rhythm method. No eggs were fertilized, and no fetuses were aborted. Where is the sin?

If the Catholic church is relying on the Old Testament story of Onan for its doctrine on birth control, then it has really missed the boat. God clearly punished Onan, not for simply spilling his seed on the ground, but for flagrant disobedience to God. It wasn't the act that got him killed -- it was the motive.

Jen said:

I'm particularly happy that you took that Bible verse and interpretated it "correctly". See, the beauty of the Bible, in all it's faults, is that it can be interpreted a variety of ways for a variety of reasons.

Only in the anti-intellectual postmodern utopian dream world could your statement be true. We all know that liberals, opinionated non-thinkers, radical Muslims, Dan Brown and other anti-Christians think they are qualified to tell us what the Bible really says.

Thanks again for your leadership in heading off the abortionists. God will blesss you mightily.

Another great article Jill, thank you so much for writing about this one--I missed it on H & C. I like the way you think and write. It always makes me ponder and isn't that an important concept, to make me think for myself--in the Light of God's Word. I can read scripture and see it's not an interpretation. It's truth.

If the Catholic church is relying on the Old Testament story of Onan for its doctrine on birth control, then it has really missed the boat.

If the Catholic Church relied on the story of Onan for its teaching against contraception, that would imply that before Onan sinned, the Catholic Church believed that contraception was not sinful.

This would be akin to saying that the Catholic Church relies on the story of Sodom and Gomorrah for its teaching against homosexual acts.

Suffice it to say, this is not the case.

Contraception and homosexual acts -- and, for that matter, any sexual act in which the possibility of procreation is deliberately eliminated -- are always immoral, and always have been immoral, since they violate the natural law that God has written on every human heart.

Hillary Clinton also claims to be pro-life. Heck, I could claim to be a firetruck, but that doesn't make it true. Sean Hannity's personal views became the business of a random priest (and the entire American public as well) when he chose to air them in public.

Jill did not "interpret" the Bible correctly. That is the OFFICIAL meaning of that passage according to theologians of every denomination since the birth of Christianity. That is why, as Jill ALSO mentioned, the Bible tells us to "judge wisely the things of heaven and Earth". We ARE to judge, but not hypocritically. We are to remove the beam in our own eye before we can attempt to remove the splinter in our brother's.

The fact that Fr. Euteneuer maintained an air of gentleness and respect towards Sean while offering necessary correction to an errant Catholic indicates to me that he took the right approach.

It is true that certain less crucial elements of scripture have been debated among Christians for thousands of years, but ALL Christians agree on core Christian doctrine, and core Christian doctrine states that birth control is inherently wrong - though there are those who have been influenced by popular culture who still think it is OK to dissent on key issues like this and be in good standing as a Christian or a Catholic.

Birth Control does not stop abortion. Many forms of BC actually CAUSE abortions - the birth control pill has as its secondary function the inducing of a chemical abortion should the primary function of preventing pregnancy fail, plan B chemically aborts the child AFTER the egg has been fertilized, and an IUD crushes the child to death. Other forms of BC like condoms and spermicide have lead to countless abortions (and STDs)because they continue to encourage the risky sexual behavior that leads to unwanted pregnancies without being 100% effective.

I am sorry to see that you left the Church, and even sorrier to see that you did it because of how OTHERS have behaved. If your faith is only as strong as your faith in others, it will never withstand the test of time because we are all sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God. That is the most BASIC point that Christianity makes, but one point it will never make - no matter how politically incorrect it is in this day and age - is that there are "many" paths to heaven.

The Catholic stance against artificial birth control, sterilization, IVF and related problems are all founded in the understanding that Jesus is the Bridegroom, the Church is the Bride.

As Paul points out in Ephesians, a man and a woman are called to image in their marriage as precisely as possible the relationship between Christ and His Church.

Jesus gives us His whole self, we are to give ourselves entirely to Him. Jesus is the Life-giver. He doesn't just give a part of Himself, He doesn't hold anything back. Anything that comes between the Bridegroom and the Bride violates the image of Christ and His Church, thus no artificial sterilization is possible, nor is any form of life-giving wherein a third party interposes himself during the course of the intimate communion between God and man, man and woman.

Fertility is participation in the life-giving power of God, a power that even the angels do not possess, the power to create an immortal person. Natural family planning is acceptable because it does not actively try to subvert the divine gift of fertility, rather, it simply doesn't act during fertile times.

This is explained at a lot more depth in my book, Sex and the Sacred City. But I don't have room for 100 pages to discuss the subject properly.

Order my book here: http://bridegroompress.com/zencart/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=6

You can download free talks on this topic at the following link: http://bridegroompress.com/zencart/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=10

Jill--

As one of those weird protestants who are against contraception, I have to say I agree with you. Hannity was defensive and disrespectful to one of his elders. If I spoke that way to my pastor, I would be severely rebuked.

nate

As a Catholic who used to be a dissenting Catholic like Sean, but who is now an obedient Catholic, I truly appreciate your article, Jill. Thank you so much for your thoughtful analysis. I will be passing this along to many of my friends who are appalled at Sean Hannity and are so grateful for priests like Fr. Euteneuer.

PS: To the Protestants who can't see the big deal about birth control, or its connection to abortion, you should know that all Christians, Protestant and Catholic, called birth control evil until a mere 75 years ago, when, one by one, the churches began to cave in to the culture on this issue. There is now, thankfully, a Protestant movement to go back to the millenias-old Christian teaching against birth control. Read The Bible and Birth Control, or Open Embrace, both written by Protestants/evangelicals.

I'm fine by this article, and I understand Jill's position.

I didn't like this one sentence:

"I was appalled not just by the disrespect Hannity showed Euteneuer but also by the same cheap shots he dispensed toward Catholic leaders as would a liberal."

You're implying that it would be okay to treat a "liberal" that way. Hannity does, of course, treat everyone that way if he disagrees with them. He's the worst of the worst. Not for his opinions, but his attitude.

I find no evidence Sean Hannity is pro-life except to the extent he can push people to vote for the GOP. I find no evidence of any strong advocacy for doing anything meaningful on abortion, just the pray and wait while the holocaust continues - but vote GOP so we might get the supreme court changed. He makes excuses for pro-abort republicans, yet doesn't support pro-life democrats.

He is a heterodox or heretical Catholic, or not a Catholic at all. Catholics have to follow church teaching on some few things which have been declared Dogma, and that includes contraception. He cannot be both Catholic and pro-contraception.

You can find the information in detail on why in the theology of the body (a 10 CD talk is less than $10 from http://www.giftfoundation.org/pages/naked_without_shame.htm) or the encyclical Humanae Vitae.

But put briefly, any act not open to the transmission of life is using the other person for your own pleasure. That is lust, not love. If contraception is OK, then so is masturbation, pornography, etc. (isn't it just as much better to do those things than to have an unwanted child if you can't control yourself at all).

JP2 said when we act, we communicate. And we communicate via our bodies. When we block the critical procreative power, it is a lie. The same kind of lie bulemics engage in - they want to gorge on delicious, delicatable foods, but don't want to gain any weight, so they reject the nutrition. If they had a pill to prevent the electrolyte imbalance caused, would you still think a bulemic was ok because they were doing good watching their weight but not controlling themselves?

Or to pull this together, according to Hannity's theology of contraception it should be equally all right to eat meat on friday, but just stick a finger down your throat to throw it up afterward.

I echo the remarks by the woman who said she had been a dissenting Catholic and now obedient. Thank you so much for your defense of the Catholic teaching on contraception.

Another good resource for understanding this teaching is Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body." This rich work is made more understandable to the lay person by Christopher West. He has books and CD's that explain this very biblical teaching.

Thanks, Jill, for a good column on the Hannity and Euteneuer "debate." Cafeteria Catholics abound. We who are faithful to the teaching are frustrated by public figures who do not understand what their faith actually teaches about these important issues.

Contraception, IVF, abortion have lead us to fetal tissue experiments, human embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, and, shortly, cloning. I know that some people get tired of talking about the "slippery slope". I think we are past all of that and are in "terminal velocity" where we are freefalling and unless we deploy our parachute right now, we are doomed.

By the way, I stopped listening to Sean over a year ago when he began fawning over Rudy G. I have always known that he wasn't truly pro-life because he would allow some babies to be killed (rape and incest and life of the mother)and sees nothing wrong with freezing others. (IVF embryos)

Thanks for all you do to bring truth to light.

In 1972, as a 14 yr old Catholic girl, I sat down with a friend to discuss contraception in depth. We came to the conclusion that all contraception was wrong if you believe what God tells us about His creation.
I grew up and did use contraception for a time in my marriage and I regret it very much. After reading the Bible, (now Protestant) I became even more convinced that it is an offense to God to prevent conception. He gave us intercourse to show love AND to procreate -- the TWO are not separate -- unless you know you're infertile, lovemaking should always be with the knowledge a baby could be conceived. I am now 100% anti-contraception.
On Hannity, I was agape at his treatment of his guest and that he could be so dismissive of his Church's teaching on contraception. He dissed the Church and the priest and was arrogant beyond belief -- I walked out of the room.

Jeremy, 1:23p, said, "When my wife and I were poor and were purposely waiting to have children (there's a novel concept in our country), we used condoms and the rhythm method. No eggs were fertilized, and no fetuses were aborted. Where is the sin?"

Jeremy, do you agree that in the Bible God is clearly the One who opens and shuts uteruses? There are numerous examples.

Do you agree with this premise in Jeremiah 1:5, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart for my holy purpose"?

Another basic premise is we trust God to provide for us (Matt. 6:25-34).

If we believe God plans each conception, and if we say we trust God, who are we to say we can't afford the baby God plans for us?

Thank you Jill for your excellent column. The Theology of the Body by the late Pope John Paul II explains how God created man and woman to be open to life, not to block the life giving marital embrace.
Artificial contraception is intrinsically evil, it makes the marital embrace a lie. Instead of being a complete sharing, it holds back the life-giving power of the husband and wife sharing. Periodic abstinence, or Natural Family Planning, is not "Catholic birth control." It is a generous form of regulating births, when necessary for a serious reason. It is not to be used lightly. It brings about greater unity and communication between couples. It does not intentionally put a barrier, either physical or chemical, between the husband and wife. On the other hand, artificial contraception says in effect that the husband and wife are using each other to obtain pleasure without the proper responsibility for what the marital act should be capable of producing--someone and something very, very good--a child. Furthermore, not only the "morning after pill" (aka Plan B) but also other oral contraceptives actually can cause chemical abortions by making the uterus hostile to the implantation of the newly formed human embryo.
Therefore, all artificial forms of birth control are intrinsically gravely evil. Those Catholics who practice artificial contraception and expecially those who espouse it in public need to repent and confess their sins before receiving the Holy Eucharist. Fr. Euteneuer wsa totally correct in saying that he would not give Sean Hannity Holy Communion (i.e., unless he publicly recant his support of artificial birth control and confess his sins). Thank you for exposing this heresy.

Hal, 2:02p, stated: "I didn't like this one sentence: 'I was appalled not just by the disrespect Hannity showed Euteneuer but also by the same cheap shots he dispensed toward Catholic leaders as would a liberal.' You're implying that it would be okay to treat a 'liberal' that way. Hannity does, of course, treat everyone that way if he disagrees with them. He's the worst of the worst. Not for his opinions, but his attitude."

Hal, what I meant was Hannity was making the same sort of cheap shot a liberal would make when speaking to a Catholic priest in a similar situation.

I used to not care and really thought there was a disconnect there between abortion and contraception.

There isn't, however, because it's the beautiful union of man woman and God to create a human life.

Contraception takes God out of that equation, and we all know what happens when God is removed from life's equations - the misery that liberals heap on society are clear and abundant evidence of this.

Liberals aren't the only ones capable of heaping misery on society - conservatives do their fair share as well. Actually, all humans are capable of such a thing, regardless of their political beliefs.

We can only stop giving him credence by not watching or listening to his programs. The more mail he gets on this the more impact it may make . Encourage everyone to write. Thanks Jill , for covering it so well.

I absolutely love how I can say several things during my comments, yet only one seems to resurface for attack.

Regardless if the interpretation of a Bible verse is extremely common or condoned by a lot of people, doesn't mean you have to be 100% church worthy to call yourself a Catholic or anything else.
You can really identify with a general or several messages of a group and still have differences with some. That's the beauty of individual perspective.

I left the church not because of faith, but because I don't like to be associated with the church. I have a great personal relationship with God that does not fit me into one label or another. I don't believe that Jesus was the son of God, I don't believe in the divinity or holiness of Mohommed, and I don't identify with Judaism. I've researched several smaller religions and still could not find one I was comfortable associating with. What's great about all this is that it works for ME, which is kind of the point of faith in the first place.

I think Hannity should be given the same allowances. So what if he's Catholic and is ok with birth control? It's his belief, worry about your own shortcomings.

It's not that the embracement of a "many paths" ethic is PC or trendy, it's that you should stop being so ethnocentric because you do not own the corner on truth any more than anyone else does. If you were born in India, you would probably be Hindu and would think Christianity is a total lie. What makes Christians so much more "right" than anyone else? What makes the Bible so much better than the Qu'ran? Both are ultimately texts written by man, no matter how much they claim divine inspiration. I mean, if I wanted everyone to believe my social edicts and moral judgements, all I would have to do is write a book and say at the end that it's divinely inspired? I mean cmon! Take a critical look at your own faith before judging everyone else for not measuring up to your standard of "Catholic" or "Christian".

I really like a lot of the messages that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism send. Peace, love, forgiveness, realizing something greater than yourself, respect, honor, and non-violence are all common in each religion, as well as many other smaller religions. I like all of them, so why marry myself to one?
It works for me, so that's what I'll stick with.

IF WE WANT LOOK AT THE MARITAL ACT OF SEXUAL INTERCOUSE IN THE WAY IT WAS INTENDED, WE MUST FIRST UNDERSTAND MARRIAGE TO BEGIN WITH.

MARRIAGE IS THE ACT OF GIVING ONESELF TO ANOTHER PERSON. GIVING. WHEN YOU GIVE SOMEONE SOMETHING, THE PERSON YOU ARE GIVING IT TO, RECIEVES IT.

THE PROBLEM TODAY IS THAT THIS BEAUTIFUL ACT OF GIVING AND RECIEVING HAS BEEN LOWERED TO ONE OF GIVING AND TAKING.

TAKING AND RECIEVING ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. ONE "TAKES" WHAT ONE WANTS, OFTEN REGARDLESS OF THE PERSON THEY ARE TAKING IT FROM AND OFTEN TO FULFILL A NEED.

RECIEVING IS A SHARED ACT. WHEN WE GO TO MASS, WE RECIEVE THE EUCHARIST. WE DON'T "TAKE" IT. IN ALL THINGS WE ARE TO MODEL OURSELVES AFTER JESUS (THE BRIDEGROOM) AND THE CHURCH (HIS BRIDE), BUT ESPECIALLY IN MARRIAGE. WHEN HE DIED FOR OUR SINS WE WERE GIVEN THE OPTION OF "RECIEVING" FORGIVENESS. WHEN WE DO WORKS OF MERCY, OR PRACTICE THE VIRTUES OR TAKE PART IN THE SACRAMENTS WE "RECEIVE" GRACES.

CAN YOU IMAGINE THE CHURCH IF EVERYONE WENT AROUND "TAKING" THE EUCHARIST, "TAKING" FORGIVENESS OR "TAKING" GRACES?

JESUS CANNOT FORCE US TO ACCEPT HIS GIFTS ANY MORE THAN WE CAN FORCE HIM TO GIVE THEM TO US. IT IS A SHARED EXPERIENCE.

MARRIAGE SHOULD BE THE SAME THING. AGAIN, AS I HAVE SAID IN A POST ON A DIFFERENT TOPIC, A CONTRACT IS ABOUT THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY. BUT A COVENANT IS THE EXCHANGE OF PERSONS. ANYTHING LESS, CHEAPENS THIS BOND. THIS IS WHY MARRAIGE HAS LOST IT'S VALUE. IT HAS BECOME A MERE CONTRACT. THIS IS WHY WE DON'T CONDONE GAY MARRIAGES. WHAT THEY WANT IS A CONTRACT TO ENSURE SHARED INSURANCE POLICIES. REAL MARRIAGE IS SO MUCH MORE. OR AT LEAST, IT SHOULD BE.
MK

This is the letter I sent to Mr. Hannity:

Dear Mr. Hannity,

I realize you are being inundated with letters on both
sides of this issue, but I must add my piece.

One of the main reasons I am a Catholic is because I
seek the truth. I believe I have found it. I
searched for a very long time.

In seeking the truth, one must be open and willing to
constantly change and grow. Father Euteneuer was
speaking the truth and faithfully representing the
church. He was trying to correct you in an error,
however well meaning, that you were promoting. Not
once did you listen to him. Not once were you open to
the possibility that you were wrong.

You diverted the conversation of your culpability by
focusing on the priests involved in the sex scandal
and bashed the church for its reaction to this
scandal. But you are guilty of the same crime.
Refusing to face the truth and deal with it. Refusing
to admit that you were wrong and change. This is
exactly what the church did with the scandal. It
refused to face the truth and admit that it was wrong.
This is exactly the same tactic that pro choicers use
in the abortion issue. Divert the focus of the real
issue, murdering babies, to one of choice. If
everyone is focused on choice, no one is focused on
the child being slaughtered. If you could focus our
attention on the sex scandal, you could take it off of
yourself. I expected more from you. It's like the
six year old who says "He hit me first"...Being an
adult means admitting when you are wrong. I saw
Father Corapi speak last night on leadership. One of
the things he said was that in the military he learned
that the only acceptable answer when called to task
was "No excuse, sir". I think you could learn from
this example.

The contraception mindset and the obsession with sex
in our culture is what caused those priests to perform
such evils acts to begin with. I would never say that
rape was okay for non-catholics because they don't
believe the way I do. I would never say that
pedophilia is okay for non-catholics because they are
of a different mind set. Wrong is wrong no matter
what faith you belong to, or if you believe nothing at
all. What you are touting is moral relativism. But
the Catholic church believes in an objective, and
absoulute truth. As a catholic you are obliged to
share this truth. With everyone, not just Catholics.
I understand your defensiveness. No one wants to be
called onto the carpet in public. But the disrespect
you showed to a leader of our church reflects your
lack of respect the church herself. This was not
Father Euteneuer's view. It is the churches view. It
is in the Cathecism.

Jesus did not tell unbelievers that it was okay to
continue sinning, only believers had to change their
ways. That would be ridiculous. What he said was, we
will be judged according to our merits on the final
day. Father Euteneuer, out of love, was trying to
make your judgement day a little less painful.

As a journalist you are required to report the truth.
As a Catholic you are required to do the same.

I fear you failed on both counts. I am disappointed.
You sounded like a petulant 5 year old, and even worse
you sounded like a pro-choice feminist...

You owe Father Euteneuer, the church, your public and
God an apology. And you owe it to yourself to let go
of your defensiveness and hear what the good priest
was trying to teach you. Or are you too old to learn?

MK

Jen,
you say:
That's the beauty of individual perspective.

THAT MAY BE THE BEAUTY OF INDIVIDUAL PERSPECTIVE, BUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS NOT BUILT ON INDIVIDUAL PERSPECTIVE. SHE IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. AND SHE HASN'T BEEN AROUND FOR 2,000 YEARS. SHE HAS BEEN AROUND FOR 6000 YEARS. SHE CHANGED IN HER OUTWARD APPEARANCE AT THE TIME OF JESUS, BUT SHE IS THE SAME CHURCH THAT THE JEWS FOLLOWED PRE-CHRIST.

YOU DON'T LOWER THE RIVER TO FIT THE BRIDGE. YOU RAISE THE BRIDGE TO ACCOMODATE THE RIVER. WE CAN'T LOWER THE STANDARDS THAT JESUS HIMSELF SET TO APPEASE AN IMMATURE AUDIENCE. WE MUST INSTEAD, TRY TO RAISE THE IMMATURE AUDIENCE TO THE HIGHER STANDARDS OF THE CHURCH. NAME ME ONE CHURCH THAT EXISTS TODAY AS STRONG AS OURS, THAT CHANGED IT'S WAY OF THINKING IN RECENT YEARS. THEY ARE ALL FALLING APART PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THIS MENTALITY. ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS STRICTLY AND UNREMITTINGLY ADHERED TO THE ORIGINAL STANDARDS LAID OUT BY GOD HIMSELF. ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH STILL STANDS, STRONGER TODAY THAN EVER!

You say:
What's great about all this is that it works for ME, which is kind of the point of faith in the first place.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT BY CAPITALIZING THE WORD "ME", YOU HAVE IN ESSENCE, PERFECTLY EXEMPLIFIED THE REASON YOUR FAITH WILL EVENTUALLY FAIL YOU?

THE POINT OF FAITH IS NOT, ABSOULUTELY NOT, ABOUT WHAT WORKS FOR YOU. FAITH IS ABOUT UNCOVERING THE TRUTH. AT ALL COSTS. THE ABSOULUTE, OBJECTIVE, TRUTH. NO MATTER HOW PAINFUL. NO MATTER HOW DIFFICULT. TO BE SATISFIED WITH ANYTHING LESS THAN THE COMPLETE TRUTH IS TO FAIL.

IF YOU CLAIM THAT YOU LEFT THE CHURCH BECAUSE IT WASN'T FULFILLING YOU, THEN YOU NEVER UNDERSTOOD THE CHURCH TO BEGIN WITH. IF YOU DUG DEEP, AND ASKED THE RIGHT QUESTIONS OF THE RIGHT PEOPLE, YOU WOULD HAVE REALIZED THAT THE CHURCH IS INCAPABLE OF FAILING YOU. PEOPLE WITHIN THE CHURCH? THEY COULD FAIL YOU. BUT SHE HERSELF, COULD NOT. BECAUSE TRUTH CANNOT FAIL. MAYBE YOU MEANT TO SAY THAT YOU FAILED...TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT. MAYBE YOU JUST GAVE UP TOO SOON. IF SO, I AM SORRY. BECAUSE THE CHURCH AND HER TRUTHS ARE AMAZING. AND ENDLESS. AND YOURS FOR THE ASKING.
MK

Jill - I signed in to TypePad, but on your site I do not appear to be signed in?

"And, contrary to popular belief, just because you identify yourself with a religion does not require that belief to be rigid and exactly identical to the beliefs of the church. It really is ok that Hannity is against abortion, but smart enough to support something that stops abortion in the first place."

Right... Just because you call yourself a Christian, doesn't mean you have to believe all that nonsense that Christ guy blathered on about. And just because you call yourself a Catholic doesn't mean you have to care what being a Catholic actually means. It's just a word, and in this post-modern world we all make words mean whatever we want, right?

I'm Catholic -- I just believe that the Pope has no authority, Mary was not an ever-virgin, the bread and wine are not *really* the flesh and blood....

-- Michelle, the anti-contraceptive Protestant

You are 100% correct. And I know, because I am the Queen of England. I also have four legs and eat arsenic every day for breakfast.

Not.

You can call yourself anything you like. It doesn't make it true. If I believed like you do, for example, I would call myself, deluded. (At least when I was feeling charitable)
MK

MK,

using caps locks is quite rude. It implies you are screaming all over the place and it is difficult to read.

"THE PROBLEM TODAY IS THAT THIS BEAUTIFUL ACT OF GIVING AND RECIEVING HAS BEEN LOWERED TO ONE OF GIVING AND TAKING."

You know, sex and procreation has been around so incredibly much longer before any organized religion came up with the idea of it only being suitable for married people. If you look at it historically, monogamous relationships evolved in the process of people beginning to live settled lives and to own property. It did not have anythign to do with morals, but at best with selfishness and the need to maintain your genes. I am not saying we should return to this state, but keep in mind that things evolve and assume different meanings to different people. They don't just fall out of the sky and never change.

To now give the appearance that sex is only sanctioned when performed in a certain way under certain circumstances is a a subjective opinion, but there's certainly nothing essential about it.

Catholics using the rhythm method are just as much trying to cheat themselves out of the 'open-to-life' rule. they are just doing it half-assed but God pretty surely knows they want the gratification but not necessarily procreate. And if God wants to open a uterus, He would not let a condom get into his way, as someone else has already rightly pointed out here.

By using birth control , we are actually saving His creation. If every woman had 6 kids as many 'good Catholics' end up with, the planet would be exhausted at an even quicker rate.

Post-modernism has a lot of flaws. But it also offers some valuable insights in case you are interested in thinking outside the box. Which the majority of the posters here unfortunately seems to refuse to do.

I am grateful to Sean Hannity for causing Jill to produce her great article and this enlightened, largely respectful discussion between Christians on this timely topic. Before 1930 all Christian Churches opposed birth control, as they recognized what it's legalization would do to society. The Episcopal Churchin the Lambeth Conference approved it, and the other mainline Protestant denominations followed suit. In the 1965, thanks to Griswold v Connecticut, the birth control pill was made available to unmarried couples, largely due to the efforts of an abortion clinic owner, Bill Baird who took the case to the Supreme Court.By the way the so-called right to privacy found by Justice Douglas in this case was the basis for the Roe v Wade decision. Unmarried pregnancy, abortions, and child abuse all skyrocketed, exactly the opposite promised to us by Planned Parenthood, which, by the way, is the nation's biggest abortion business.See the connection? Pope Paul predicted in Humanae Vitae that birth control would cheapen the role of women in society and lead to their exploitation. I have just spent a weekend in Hollywood, and there, the culture is absolutley toxic towards women. I had to shield my innocent daughter's eyes repeatedly. Pope Paul also predicted that governments would use birth control to control individuals, as we see in the Chinese one child policy. Fr. Tom Euteneuer with his work in Human Life International has been fighting the worldwide exploitation of women and children which has resulted from the 'freedom' of birth control, and,it's backup when it fails, abortion. He knows of what he speaks. Women were once revered as mothers and wives, now they are almost universally viewed as sex objects.Once you divorce childbearing from sexuality,committment flies out the window, and women are objectified. Funny how a celibate old man foresaw that 40 years ago.Perhaps he was the only one listening to the Holy Spirit.

I am just wondering how many children the previous writers have? Truthfully! I don't think it is possible today to provide for all the children one could possibly have in their fertile years. I have seen many families who could not provide and didn't see much help from the church.

Sean Hannity is on a program that communicates to many religions,not just Catholics. so I can understand how his personal beliefs on such a private matter may not be the one he is portraying to a wide audience. Sometimes, as a Catholic myself, I don't feel like forcing my beliefs on people of different faiths.

I find it odd that Jill Standek, not a Catholic found this subject so necessary to attack. I believe her interest was more of a political, personal vendetta against Sean. Her object was to demean him. I don't buy her crusade!

Just another case of moral relativism at work. Even the so-called conservatives pick and choose their morality these days. The fact of the matter is that the Roman Catholic Church is the only organization that has not and will not change it's beliefs based upon popular opinion or the fact that "everybody's doing it". Props to Fr. Euteneuer for not being afraid to stand up for the truth.

Leticia,

"Pope Paul also predicted that governments would use birth control to control individuals, as we see in the Chinese one child policy."

And the Church controls women by having them carry pregnancy after pregnancy. It does not allow for much else other than cooking and staying home, but that is what the Church wants a woman to do, right? In fact, organized religion is THE way to control people.

What the Chinese are doing is trying to preserve quality of life for people already alive. What good are 2 Billion people if they don;t have any food?

"Women were once revered as mothers and wives, now they are almost universally viewed as sex objects"

Now, women can be revered as whatever they choose to become in life. Hooray for being respected as an intelligent and decent person, not only as a preggo mum.
And women have been viewed as sex objects long before Christ walked the earth. Read ancient Greek and Roman poetry. Relatively speaking, it would be equal to Porn nowadays.

"Once you divorce childbearing from sexuality,committment flies out the window, and women are objectified"

Do you mean divorcing sexuality from childbearing? Cause it makes little sense the other way around. And why all this worry about the woman? The respect a woman is treated with should not solely depend on her reproductive functions. A man who objectifies women for taking Birth Control needs to work on his world view and leave the woman alone. Birth control has saved many a woman;s life, and also marriage, for that matter.

I am just wondering how many children the previous writers have?

6

I don't think it is possible today to provide for all the children one could possibly have in their fertile years.

Without the help of God you are right. It would be very hard. But with God, all things are possible.

Sometimes, as a Catholic myself, I don't feel like forcing my beliefs on people of different faiths.

This is a sin itself.
2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray. ccc

and

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." ccc

and

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."

and

1740 Threats to freedom. The exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything. It is false to maintain that man, "the subject of this freedom," is "an individual who is fully self-sufficient and whose finality is the satisfaction of his own interests in the enjoyment of earthly goods." Moreover, the economic, social, political, and cultural conditions that are needed for a just exercise of freedom are too often disregarded or violated. Such situations of blindness and injustice injure the moral life and involve the strong as well as the weak in the temptation to sin against charity. By deviating from the moral law man violates his own freedom, becomes imprisoned within himself, disrupts neighborly fellowship, and rebels against divine truth.

and

It is written (James 4:17): "To him . . . who knoweth to do good and doth it not, to him it is sin."

Before you belong (or claim to belong) to a faith, you would do well to learn said faith...otherwise you appear a fool.
MK

Jeremy,

You said:
"When my wife and I were poor and were purposely waiting to have children (there's a novel concept in our country), we used condoms and the rhythm method. No eggs were fertilized, and no fetuses were aborted. Where is the sin?"

I am now the mother of 7 children. 10 years ago, we had 1 child and thought we couldn't afford more, so we were using birth control. Then we got a revelation from God's word. Among the verses the Lord showed us were:

Psalm 127:3-5 "Children are a gift from the Lord; they are a reward from him. Children born to a young man are like sharp arrows in a warrior's hands. How happy is the man whose quiver is full of them! He will not be put to shame when he confronts his accusers at the city gates." (NLT)

Psalm 128:3 "Your wife will be like a fruitful vine, flourishing within your home. And look at all those children! There they sit around your table as vigorous and healthy as young olive trees." (NLT)

Malachi 2:15 "Didn't the Lord make you one with your wife? In body and spirit you are his. And what does he want? Godly children from your union. So guard yourself; remain loyal to the wife of your youth." (NLT)

It was very scary to believe God and stop using birth control, in faith, but God has been faithful to us. Until that point in our marriage, we had not been financially blessed. We had to have both our incomes to be able to meet our bills each month.

Since we stopped the birth control and began to welcome our babies with open, joyful arms, we have been blessed financially. Often, the financial provision to meet the increased expenses has come AFTER the baby has been born. I am now able to stay home with our children. My husband makes an excellent salary in a stable job with opportunity for advancement. We have never lacked, not only for our needs but also for many of our wants. That has held true even during layoffs and after we have made stupid financial decisions.

God is faithful, and He wants His people to trust Him in faith. Hebrews 11:6 "So, you see, it is impossible to please God without faith. Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that there is a God and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him." (NLT) If you trust Him and move in faith, He will not let you down.

You can read more about our journey from users of birth control to radical faith in our book called QuiverX - Children: God's Special Blessing. It includes our testimony, a Scriptural foundation for avoiding contraception, a summary of the history of the birth control movement, a detailed outline of the main forms of birth control with their side effects, and an explanation of how we believe the acceptance of birth control has opened the door to legalized abortion.

Jill, thank you for your continued work against all forms of anti-procreation propaganda. Your efforts are not in vain. May God continue to bless you and your family!

MK,
Wow, didn't know I was worth screaming over. And by the looks of your post, it's clear you know how to use a caps lock key, so please, try to use it appropriately. I have not been rude or snide with you, I only request the same.

I'm really not sure why it's important to label me a failure. Or necessary. I don't like being a Christian because of a lot of reasons. I did mention that I didn't believe JC is the son of God. That's a pretty big part of being a Christian. So, logic follows, I should stop labeling myself a Christian.
Now if I only had small qualms with the church, but still believed in the defining tenet of Christianity (Jesus), then I would be comfortable calling myself a Christian. I don't, so I just believe in God and leave it with that.
I don't care if you think my faith will fail me. Does it really matter to you? Does it have any impact on you whatsoever? Why can you not be content that people think differently than you, and that doesn't make you a better or worse person?

Again: What makes you so much more special/truthful/right than any other religion? I understand what makes Christianity different, but what makes it better? The answer is it's not any better than any other religion. It works for Christians, and that's cool with me. Just leave me out of it.

Truth may actually be objective and ultimate. What makes you so sure that Christianity owns the corner on that ultimate truth? It would be just as likely that whenever we get judged for our time on earth, God could say, "You know what? Islam/Wiccan/Judaism is actually closer to the ultimate truth than you, a Christian. Looks like you went down the completely wrong path."
And he could just as easily say Christianity had the asnwers all along. So what? I'm fine with living a generally good life and trying to minimize the harm I inflict on people and leaving the rest up to God later. If I fucked up, well I guess that sucks, but I have no way of knowing which way is the TRUE way. And neither do you.

Please stop responding to just one of my arguments, and look at my posts as a whole. The arguments work together.

Around sixteen years ago, a priest, who was faithful to the teachings of the Church, talked me out of taking the birthcontrol pill, which my doctor, a Catholic, had given me. In doing so the priest saved my life. I did not know at the time, but I had a type of cancer which was susceptible to estrogen. Had I taken those pills, it is very doubtful that I would be alive today. My female gynocologist at the time told me I would have been in deep trouble if I had taken those pills. Because I did not take them, I had minor surgery, radiation treatment, and I am alive sixteen years later. Fr. Thomas Euteneur is right.

Obedience to Holy Mother the Church is a virtue. Ask the good Lord for it.

Again, and to Michelle, I see nothing wrong with having small qualms with a church as long as you believe in the big tenets of the religion. For instance, a big part of Catholicism is pope infallibility, immaculate conception, and the divinity of Christ. Those things are pretty integral to Catholicism.
Other things? Not so integral. It's kind of weird you would limit your personal beliefs just so you could be identitical to an institution that uses man to claim divinity. It's not impossible to believe that man had illusions of grandeur when all religions were born, so all of them seem a little arrogant to me.
And so what if you didn't believe in any Catholic things but labeled yourself a Catholic? That's your business, and it doesn't really affect anyone else. The label is only to show other people which group you identify with. I'm pretty sure God wouldn't care if you called it "The Soul-Train Religion", as long as your beliefs were pretty close to this "ultimate truth". Your heart and actions matter a lot more than what you write down on your census or what church you attend.

Diane:
Not everyone has cancer susceptible to estrogen. I'm really glad you didn't worsen your health, but birth control doesn't hurt a lot of women. Leave it for them and use something else for yourself.

I don't get it. What makes Christians think they are the authority on truth for other people? It is the height of arrogance to assume that.

Way to go, Jill. I would never have guessed. What a wonderful example of how when you get a big issue like contraception wrong, you don�t really understand the other big issues. You are right on.

Joe,

Now, women can be revered as whatever they choose to become in life.

YOU COULDN'T POSSIBLY HAVE MEANT THE WORD REVERED...

re·vere1 (rĭ-vîr') pronunciation
tr.v., -vered, -ver·ing, -veres.

To regard with awe, deference, and devotion.

[French révérer, from Old French reverer, from Latin reverērī : re-, re- + verērī, to respect.]

SYNONYMS revere, worship, venerate, adore, idolize. These verbs mean to regard with the deepest respect, deference, and esteem. Revere suggests awe coupled with profound honor:

And how exactly does sleeping with multiple women, and asking them to kill your children show reverence exactly?

.......................

Now, women can be revered as whatever they choose to become in life. Hooray for being respected as an intelligent and decent person, not only as a preggo mum.

ARE YOU IMPLYING THAT PREGO MUMS (REVERENT NAME, THAT) ARE NOT INTELLIGENT, DECENT OR WORTHY OF RESPECT?
.......................................

And the Church controls women by having them carry pregnancy after pregnancy. It does not allow for much else other than cooking and staying home, but that is what the Church wants a woman to do, right? In fact, organized religion is THE way to control people.

THE CHURCH DOES NOT CONTROL ANYONE. SHE INVITES. IF YOU ACCEPT THE INVITATION, IT IS ASSUMED YOU WANT TO PARTAKE OF THE MEAL. AND I THINK MOTHER THERESA WOULD ARGUE WITH YOU ON COOKING AND STAYING HOME THING...SHE WAS MORE INTO PICKING WORMS OUT OF PEOPLE AT DEATHS DOOR.

.............................................

What the Chinese are doing is trying to preserve quality of life for people already alive. What good are 2 Billion people if they don;t have any food?

LET'S NOT FEED THESE PEOPLE. THAT WOULD BE TOO EASY. NO, LET'S IMPRISON OR KILL THEM FOR PRODUCING MORE THAN 1 CHILD. SO BASICALLY YOU ARE SAYING THAT A GOVERNMENT HAS THE RIGHT TO CONTROL YOU SO THAT YOU CAN EAT. OR DID YOU MEAN ONLY FORIEGN GOVERNMENTS? BECAUSE OTHERWISE, BY YOUR LOGIC, YOU HAVE JUST GIVEN OUR GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT TO PROHIBIT US FROM PROCREATING IF THEY DECIDED WE NEEDED MORE FOOD.

YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE GOVERNMENT TELLING YOU THAT YOU MUST HAVE CHILDREN, BUT NO PROBLEM WITH THEM TELLING YOU THAT YOU MUSN'T? OOOOOKKKKAAAYYYY.!

Jill, I'm disappointed. My pro-choice cohorts get banned left and right, but MK is perfectly justified in yelling and being degradingly sarcastic?
Maybe you just aren't at your computer. I trust you will hold every poster to the same politeness standard and at least confront MK and her e-yelling.

Joe,
I apologize for the caps. I explained elsewhere that I was just trying to find a way to differentiate between when I was speaking and when I was quoting. It would be too hard to rewrite everything in caps that I paste, so I opted to put my response in caps. It was an experiment. Apparently, it failed. I was not yelling and never meant to give the impression that I was. Mea Culpa. All smalls from here on in...

It's just that sometimes it gets so confusing reading the posts when you lose track of who is posting. If I was more computer saavy, I would use different colors. Again, I am sorry.

Honestly, as I was typing this I found myself whispering in my head...we're all a little silly, aren't we?

MK

Jen,
my apologies to you as well...
MK

MK,
Understandable. Generally people interpret caps as e-yelling, so I'm just letting you know that your posts came off as hostile and mean. I'm sure you aren't, so we're cool.

Please review my posts. I posed several questions about the exclusivity of some faiths, and answered your questions and some of your arguments, particularly ones regarding my own personal faith.

I only ask that you take my posts into consideration, and try to look at things from this "ultimate truth" perspective you prescribe to.

Seriously, MK.

Stop using the CapsLock key. It's actually kind of annoying.

LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME I'M SHOUTING AREN'T I COOL?!?!? YAAAAAYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!

This book review and commentary by Jon Trott at JPUSA succinctly debunk the legalistic and biblically unfounded arguments against contraception.

Jen,

Many women far younger than I have died of breast cancer(which I had on both sides)or have had mastectomies at a very young age. I am 64 years old. Neither happened to me because I did not take those birthcontrol pills. I only had two lumpectomies and radiation. Since my estrogen level was just right, I did not even have to have chemotheraphy. That should tell you something, Jen.

Do you really believe that putting something into the female body to make it think it is pregnant every month is healthy or safe? As the old saying goes, "It ain't nice to fool with Mother Nature." And least not to that extreme.

Diane,

My aunt didn't use birth control either, and she had a complete mastectomy. Anecodotal evidence doesn't tell me anything. There are exceptions to every rule.
And yeah, I'm ok with taking birth control, I have been taking it for 3 months. I've had minimal side effects, have reduced my menstrual pain, and it has definitely regulated my PMS symptoms and acne. I'm getting a lot out of it. I'm sorry you got unlucky and couln't benefit as well.

For the record, people put a lot of things in their bodies. BC is safe, so I'm not worried. I got this information from my state health department and my doctors, so I'm ok with believing the science in this matter.

P.S. to my above e-mail to Jen.

Jen, and all you women out there. The woman gynocologist/surgeon who helped perform my lumpectomies refused to give out the pill because she knew what it did to women. It was my family doctor, a male, not her, who had given me the pill. Many doctors will not admit to the consequences of the pill because they prescribe it, and if anything happens, they could be sued. Do you get the picture????

i am seriously ashamed of most of the people on this bored.

as a religious person who believes god loves us all no matter what our short comings are, you should take a good long look at yourselves and evaluate if you are really true. i'm disgusted that you are quarelling about a few things in the bible and not seeing the big picture. you're being rude and hateful. we're all his children. how is nitpicking at each other and getting enraged and fighting about this bringing us together? did you forget anything you learned in sunday school?

jill, you are wretched. plain and simple. how dare you think you're better than other human beings just because of your disposition. as women, we should be compassionate, not spiteful and degrading. you aren't a true christain if you have this much hate in your heart. you and ann coulter should run off together.

and from a political stance, stop trying to blame one side. liberals blaming conservatives. conservatives blaming liberals. what's the point? it's not getting us any closer to living peacefully on god's earth. he gave it to all of us. stop this eye for an eye crap and offer some solutions, not accusations. stop seperating each other and spewing hateful things.

Jen said: I think Hannity should be given the same allowances. So what if he's Catholic and is ok with birth control? It's his belief, worry about your own shortcomings.

If he were Catholic, and was ok with artificial contraception, that is between him and God (through his confessor) it has nothing to do with me.

If he is a famous man who is listened to by millions each day, and he claims to be Catholic and espouses views contrary to Catholic teaching, he is committing scandal, and should be discpilined by his pastor, and/or local ordinary.

This priest tried to contact him privately to entreat him to change his views, or at the very least stop espousing them publicly, leading Catholics astray, and giving a false impression of the Catholic Church to non-Cathoics. Hannity never returned his call, so he was forced, as St. Paul recommends to take the next step. Go to the "community".

P.S.S. Jen,

There are better ways to control menstrual pain than the Pill. Get on some of the pro-life Catholic and Christian websites such as the Couple to Couple League, American Life League, La Leche League, etc. and you ways to contact doctors who can help you.

I meant in the above, "you will find ways to contact doctors who can help you."

p.s. why would god have created us all so different, with different mind-sets and such, if we are all meant to be the same.

Diane,
I did not get on the pill to help my menstrual pain. That was just a beneficial side effect. I take birth control so I don't become pregnant. Like most women.
The pill did more for my acne than any treatment. And believe me, I've tried everything. Now I have clear skin and no side effects (and more importantly, no unwanted pregnancy). I'm pretty content with my personal decision.

MK, are you ever going to answer my posts? Or anyone for that matter?

i went on it to regulate my menstruation and i wasn't having sex. it helped me to get on a schedule instead of the annoying little suprises i would get randomly. i love it.

To Tony:
Sean Hannity hosts a secular show. It's not a religious instruction talk show or a predominately Catholic message deliverer. My personal views of Fox bias aside, I think Hannity has every right to have his own beliefs on a secular, political show.
He has a right to his own beliefs regardless of what show he hosts. Get off the mans back.

i can't believe that i'm actually siding with HANNITY of all people on this one.

whatever. he's still a horrible host with nothing good to say.

I am a mother of one of those families who dared to have more children than our "allowed 1.5". My husband (of 20 years) and I have 5 children. Some friends of ours have 10 children and other friends of ours have 12. No, we aren't Catholic and we don't belong to a cult. We just trusted the Lord to build our family. I don't even work outside the home. Wow! We aren't wealthy, but we have everything we need, a nice home, a nice vehicle,and plenty to eat (which is incredible considering we have teenage boys).God does provide. People just want to make God small so they can justify their opinions. I don't want a god that thinks like me. I want the God, our Creator to guide me in my decisions because His ways are the only way. He is the creator of human life and the Bible is the instruction book.

MK, are you ever going to answer my posts? Or anyone for that matter?

Oh my gosh, everybody has been telling me to be quiet! Refresh me. Which posts.

Julie,

That's truly wonderful. I'm glad you found happiness in staying home and raising children.
I personally would like a different life. I respect your decision, I only hope your respect for mine wouldn't manifest itself in legislation that would make birth control hard to access or abortion an impossible choice. It would be only in that case that I would cease to respect your way of life.

MK
My 7:25 post was directed to you. My 7:32 post was directed to Michelle, but I would like you to read it too.

You can find more on the Catholic teaching of contraception by reading Humanae Vitae (spelling?)or listening/reading "Theology of the Body" by Christopher West, Fr. Thomas Loya (from Homer Glen Catholic Parish) or Jason Evert.

Mike

I guess I never really understood the Catholic teaching against birth control. I understand an aversion to any method which allows for the possibility of induced abortion, but painting all forms of birth control with a broad brush has always confused me.

The sterility of marriage in the contraceptive culture is why it has become so difficult to argue against "gay marriage."

...oh and Dr. Janet Smith's audio cd called "Contraception Why Not" is also very good. You can read it here..

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

Mike

Julie,

God bless you and your family no matter what religion you are. You seem to understand His ways well.

I lived thru the '60s and the '70s, and I saw the birthcontrol pill destroy family after family, marriage after marriage as Pope Paul said it would. I heard and knew of wives and husbands having afair after afair because they thought the woman was "safe" from getting found out. Most of the abortions are of this kind: We got caught so now let's kill the kid.

Here are a few audio tracks you can listen to on Christopher West's website on "Theology of the Body"...

http://www.christopherwest.com/hearnow.asp

He also has a very good easy to read introductory book on the "Theology of the Body".

Mike

Jill,

Thanks for your well written column. When I watched the video of the incident with Sean and Fr. Euteneur I, too, was appalled that Sean would exhibit such rudeness towards a priest who was trying to explain the Church's teachings on birth control. But one good thing has come from it, this vibrant, lively debate on a very important topic.

I used to argue for contraception, too, despite being Catholic but when I realized that I needed to do something about birth control, I decided to learn Natural Family Planning (NFP) because I was afraid that I would be wrong on this issue as I had on another previously and would again cause pain and suffering not only for myself but for everyone I loved, as well.

I'm so glad I did. It was the best thing - after our kids - that we ever did for our marriage. As I came to understand NFP I realized as a nurse how much sense it made. I also began to realize that chemical contraceptives (pills, shots, IUDs, implants) are actually designed to cause a malfunction of a healthy reproductive system, which is why they cause so many health problems from so called minor things such as headaches, weight gain, nausea, and loss of interest in sex to the major ones like gall bladder disease and blood clots that cause heart attacks, strokes, etc.

After spending a number of years teaching NFP, I wrote a booklet titled "The Best-Kept Secret - Understanding Fertility." If anyone would be interested in a copy, I invite them to contact me at my email address - kb9wka@yahoo.com

diane, pills don't ruin marriages. people ruin marriages. what kind of statement is that.

Jen,

MAYBE YOU MEANT TO SAY THAT YOU FAILED...TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT. MAYBE YOU JUST GAVE UP TOO SOON. IF SO, I AM SORRY. BECAUSE THE CHURCH AND HER TRUTHS ARE AMAZING. AND ENDLESS. AND YOURS FOR THE ASKING.
MK

These caps are leftovers...i promise!

I didn't say that you were a failure. I said that perhaps you failed to explore the Catholic Church fully.

You are right that you have the right to believe anything that you want. I would never force you, nor condone anyone else doing so, to believe in my faith.

My problem was when somebody (stephanie or michelle, I am sooo tired right now that I can't remember which) said that she called herself Catholic but didn't believe a single thing that Catholics believe. This is ridiculous to me. I can't fathom why anyone would claim to belong to a religion that they hate and disagree with on every issue.

You said that you don't call yourself a christian. So if you don't believe what christians believe, that is perfectly okay.

But surely you can see why any group would be upset if someone claimed to belong to them and then bashed everything that they stood for...and misrepresented what they stood.

As to why I believe that I (Catholics/Christians) are right and you are wrong.
Well, to begin with my faith wouldn't be very strong if I believed anything else. What kind of a faith would it be if I said "well, I sort of kind of believe that we have the truth, or maybe not, but that's how I feel and I'm stickin' to it?"

If I tried to make you become a Catholic, then I would be wrong. As I said earlier, Catholocism is something you are invited to, not something you are dragged kicking and screaming to.

My words about failing were in response to your admission that you left the church. I'm curious as to why. What needs weren't filled. Perhaps you justs didn't understand Her.

And it matters to me because it always makes me sad to see someone leave our church. It has so much to offer and if there is a chance that misunderstandings could be cleared up so that you could feel comfortable reexamining Her, well, I feel obligated to make that offer.

But of course you can belong to any church that you want or no church at all.

I hope that I answered all your points. If not, ask again, and I'll try. I really want to, but sometimes it's hard to know what part of a post is a question and which part is rhetorical.

Peace,
MK

Sean Hannity hosts a secular show. It's not a religious instruction talk show or a predominately Catholic message deliverer. My personal views of Fox bias aside, I think Hannity has every right to have his own beliefs on a secular, political show. He has a right to his own beliefs regardless of what show he hosts. Get off the mans back.

Of course he does. Since it is a secular show, he can stop calling himself Catholic. That would solve the problem too.

As long as he claims to be Catholic, there's certain public behavior that is expected of him. If he doesn't want to follow it, there are 33,000 other Christian denominations he could join.

I don't understand why people will allow any association or club to dictate the behavior of their members except the Catholic church.

Hannity always grates on me simply because of his style of constant interruption.

What's worse is his pride in thinking he knows the doctrine better than a priest, and rather than taking the time to learn why he's wrong, he simply blames the Church for scandal X and scandal Y.

Euteneuer is right in calling him out as a public figure misrepresenting his faith.

Hannity sees the shallow, and in a superficial world of punditry, it's OK. But when he gets into the realm of the Catechism, he really should listen rather than talk.

I related how birth control & gay marriage teachings are related over at my blog, http://the-autopsy.blogspot.com/2007/03/hubris-and-gay-marraige.html if you're interested, stop by.

Yes, Erin, people ruin marriages and their bodies--by taking the pill in the first place. They are being given to young women, without parental notification, whose bone structures are not even fully developed. The doctor who gave me the Pill told me later he had a niece who had breast cancer at twenty years of age. That was unheard of when I was younger. I bet she was on the Pill.

Good column, Jill! Keep up the good work.

Erin:

You assert that we should all love one another, yet you call Jill "wretched" and "hateful."

That doesn't sound very loving to me.

Which goes to show that those who preach tolerance and nonjudmentalism are often, well, intolerant and judgmental.

Diane - I have a wonderful gynecologist who answers all of my questions about my medication. My mother has breast cancer, and so I am certainly worried about things which might increase my risk of breast cancer. My gynecologist, knowing about my family history, told me that there was no connection between birth control usage and breast cancer. In all my research of scientific journals, none have found a significant correlation between breast cancer and the birth control pill. And even if a correlation were found, correlation does not equal causation. (And, my mother never took birth control and is a devout Christian, and I am on birth control to prevent my extremely painful and debilitating ovarian cysts) I think that God led me to find the medication in birth control so as to prevent me from having to deal with the needless pain of ovarian cysts again. I understand that he led you differently, but that doesn't mean that it is the wrong choice for every woman.

MK wrote:

I didn't say that you were a failure. I said that perhaps you failed to explore the Catholic Church fully

My mistake. When I said church I mean the protestant church. I wasn't very clear with that and I apologize.
I explored several churches within Christianity. The things I liked about Catholics? I liked the prayers, they were beautiful. One of my extremely good friends is a Catholic and she's a pretty wonderful person and is really firm in her faith. I also love her because she completely accepts other people. And I would love for someone to tell her that she wasn't a real Catholic because she thinks birth control is ok. She is probably the most devout Catholic I've ever known. I believe she thinks the Church can maintain the big tenets while being flexible with scientific discoveries that have impacts on our health and lives. That doesn't make her a "bad" or "fake" Catholic.

MK wrote:
But surely you can see why any group would be upset if someone claimed to belong to them and then bashed everything that they stood for...and misrepresented what they stood.

I can see why that would anger some people. I belong to several groups (secular ones) that ask their members to embody a certain ethic or protray a good image. That's totally understandable. My sorority asks me not to drink while wearing my letters. I get that, not only because it is illegal for someone my age, but because they don't want to be associated with the bad decisions some drunk people make or that the girls are only about drinking.
That being said, I don't think the fact that Hannity supports birth control casts such a bad light on Catholics. I've heard them refer to birth control as a chemical and emotional barrier between those being intimate, but you could just as easily make the arg. for Natural Family Planning. You are taking sex, which most Catholics argue is for procreation only/mainly, and use it for pleasure and try to avoid pregnancy. Just because you didn't take a pill doesn't mean you didn't try to stop "God's Will" from impregnating you. Monitoring hidden ovulation cycles could be construed as interfering with this message. I just think that to be consistent, you can only condemn birth control pills if you also condemn NFP. It's still interference, it just differs in chemistry.

More to come, this post is too long already. I will answer more of your arguments shortly.

MK wrote:

As to why I believe that I (Catholics/Christians) are right and you are wrong.
Well, to begin with my faith wouldn't be very strong if I believed anything else. What kind of a faith would it be if I said "well, I sort of kind of believe that we have the truth, or maybe not, but that's how I feel and I'm stickin' to it?"

I think you miss my point. I'm saying that unlike a lot of faiths, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism demand exclusivity. Not only do they demand exclusivity in faith (one true Deity, one son/prophet/etc.), they demand exclusive lifestyles (marriage before sex, no homosexuality, abortion is not an option). That to me is what turns your faith, or a personal relationship with your God, into rules or edicts that a predominately Christian/Islam/Jewish/Whatever society requires me to follow, even if I do not identify with those beliefs. I am completely firm in my relationship with God, but I'm not completely sure my path is the "right" path or the "only" path. No one can ever be truly sure of that, and I think it's wrong to demonize or chastize others when they don't conform to those ideals. I'm personally leaving it up to God, not man.

Also, I made a hypothetical that I really want you to reconsider. If you were born in India, you would have a very high probability of being raised a Hindu. If someone told you the Christian message, you could be just as hostile or disbelieving. You would never know anything different. Because of this ability to literally exchange one religion for another in terms of "rightness" depending mostly on your country of origin, it's hard to say all the "right" ones were divinely placed in the wombs of Christian American women.

This is not an argument for the horrible, demonic moral relativism that an earlier poster treated with disgust. Just because I am a "moral relativist" does not mean I think child molestation is ok for some people or that murder works for others. The idea is that there is no exclusive "right" lifestyle as long as you try to be non-violent/minimize your harm to others. The right to follow your own path stops when you keep another from following theirs. Child molestation and murder are pretty good examples of infringing on anothers right to carve their own paths.

I stopped labeling myself a Christian when I noticed that everything I said about it was rehearsed, some key phrases I learned at Sunday School, some glib Bible verse. I noticed I was not thinking or really speaking for myself. So I took a critical look at my faith and beliefs and how I expressed them to other people. I found I was incredibly judgemental of other people, and did so from a place of priviledge and convenience. I was never pregnant, questioning my sexuality, or born to consider a different faith, so who was I to play judge, jury, and executioner to those who had? I realized the shocking wariness I felt when man was writing, and then later authenticating, the Bible. The origins of Christianity were particularly telling. Why exclude some texts? Why was Eve automatically Adam's helpmate, and not the other way around? Why did I have to believe in the divinity of Christ to get to heaven? Why isn't God good enough?
These questions and doubts, along with a lot of research and discussion, led me too disillusioned to just merely put my faith back in the Bible. Once I started doubting the Bible, how could I maintain my faith in Jesus when the Bible accounts for his life, divinity, and demands exclusvitiy in belief? I decided that if I didn't believe in Jesus, or the Bible, I didn't really need to call myself a Christian. I'm pretty content with "Believer in God", because that's all I really am.

But that's just me. Your path is just as valid as mine. I like my belief because it doesn't exclude any one way of life, as long as it's nonviolent/doesn't try to limit the paths of others. I'm free to believe in what feels right to me, not conform to what some church authority tells me to.

Jen:

NFP is not the same, morally speaking, as contraception. See:

http://ccli.org/nfp/contraception/NFPvsContraception.php

Lynn:

It's my understanding that, morally speaking, if one is taking the pill for a reason other than to prevent pregnancy (such as in your case, apparently), there is no sin involved.

But taking the pill to prevent pregnancy is (objectively) sinful.

Re the pill and breast cancer, see:

http://www.omsoul.com/pamphlet123.Breast-Cancer-Risk-from-The-Pill.html

Yeah see Matt here is my problem.

The Catholic Church asks for responsible, unselfish regulation of pregnancy. I'm not really sure how BC automatically makes a couple or any sexually active individual for that matter more selfish or less responsible.
Plus, sex predates marriage by a LONG time. What did those poor, unfortunate souls do? Live in sin until the church could come around and institute marriage?

This whole "marriage is sacred and so is procreative sex" argument always irks me. It's the same argument against homosexual marriage. I think The Bachelor tv show and Drive-Thru Vegas marriages do more to desecrate marriage than a loving, homosexual couple or BC ever could.

"I think The Bachelor tv show and Drive-Thru Vegas marriages do more to desecrate marriage than a loving, homosexual couple or BC ever could."

Actually, all those things desecrate marriage.

And speaking of history and the Catholic Church, see:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0601fea3.asp

MK,

"YOU COULDN'T POSSIBLY HAVE MEANT THE WORD REVERED.
To regard with awe, deference, and devotion".

Oh I did mean the word revered. Many women I know , including my humble self, have been treated with awe, deference and devotion for as long as I remember- and most of us have not been mothers yet and some don;t even want children. We receive respect on the basis of being human persons, not whether we adhere to some dusty gender roles that lack any reasonable foundation. We are revered for the way we trust, follow our vocations, work hard, and aspire to be good people. That is how it should be. We might be men and women but foremost, we are people.

"And how exactly does sleeping with multiple women, and asking them to kill your children show reverence exactly?"

The individual man in question is the asshole here. Not the woman who didn;t stay demurely behind the stove. Why make the victim the perpetrator? Do you only qualify for decent treatment when you stick to your gender role? Welcome to the 21st century.

"ARE YOU IMPLYING THAT PREGO MUMS (REVERENT NAME, THAT) ARE NOT INTELLIGENT, DECENT OR WORTHY OF RESPECT?"

Of course not. Pregnancy does not make you any less intelligent, decent or reverend-worthy. It just is not the only thing that makes you worthy of respect. I wouldn't have much revereance for a dumb and evil woman if she was pregnant, but I wouldn;t either if she wasn;t pregnant; get me?

"THE CHURCH DOES NOT CONTROL ANYONE. SHE INVITES. IF YOU ACCEPT THE INVITATION."

They invite you to be controlled. I did not say control was always a bad thing.

"LET'S IMPRISON OR KILL THEM FOR PRODUCING MORE THAN 1 CHILD."

That;s not how it works, MK. You can have more than 1 child in China. It is mainly enforced in cities where people already live in rabbit-hole like boxes. It generally works by incentive more than punishment. Of course, you have the horror of forced abortions in some rural areas, which is absolutely terrible and should stop, as it violates women;s privacy in the worst manner possible. But don't forget the Chinese have an authoritarian regime, not a liberal democracy like in the US, you can;t compare the two.

"YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE GOVERNMENT TELLING YOU THAT YOU MUST HAVE CHILDREN, BUT NO PROBLEM WITH THEM TELLING YOU THAT YOU MUSN'T?"

You can;t feed people if you don;t have the soil for growing food. I am not saying what they do is great or right. I explained why they do it. Unlike Jill I believe in the possibility of smaller evils.

And I have a huge problem with a government telling me anything about my private sexual/medical/bodily decisions and issues. However, as we have decided to have a government so it can keep society a safe place for us, when the compounding decisons of individuals begin to steer society towards a very real catastrophe, government has legitemacy to intervene.

Joe,

However, as we have decided to have a government so it can keep society a safe place for us, when the compounding decisons of individuals begin to steer society towards a very real catastrophe, government has legitemacy to intervene.

Well now, that's exactly what we're saying...
When the compounding decisions of individuals (people who want abortion legal) begins too steer society towards a very real catastrophe, government has legitimacy to intervene.

And there is more than enough food to go around...yes, even around to the other side of the planet. If we took near the time and money we take to slaughter 50,000,000 children, and spent it and sent it to places where food is an issue, we would not only solve world hunger, but be able to look ourselves in the eye, knowing we are part of the solution and not part of the problem. Eliminating millions of children does not eliminate hunger. It just eliminates millions of children.
MK

MK,

'When the compounding decisions of individuals (people who want abortion legal) begins too steer society towards a very real catastrophe, government has legitimacy to intervene.'

Give me at least one sound reason how abortion steers society towards a VERY REAL catastrophe. Note: 'ARGH God will make the country go up in flames' is NOT a sound reason. As a liberal democracy should be based on the separation of Church and State, this would not legitimate government intervention whatsoever.

In fact, all societies have had abortion aroudn for thousands of years. And the societies most thriving at the moment all have abortion legalized. In Sweden, which according to various UN studies ranks far above the US in terms of quality of life, education and caring for children and teenagers, women can access abortions freely on the NHS. There is no correlation between abortion and catastrophe in society. If US society is getting out of control it is due to unbridled capitalism, a crap education system, racism and the failure of political liberalism to provide for those falling behind in an increasingly unequal race.

I agree that starvation is not due to a food shortage. We have indeed a food surplus. Nevertheless, more than 20 000 people die EVERY DAY because of preventable hunger- it could be changed by changing the economic system and distribution. But even so, a country like China would probably never want to make itself dependable on other countries for feeding half its population.

"If we took near the time and money we take to slaughter 50,000,000 children" Oh please, don;t be pathetic. It makes you so much less credible.

Tim said:
"Only in the anti-intellectual postmodern utopian dream world could your statement be true. We all know that liberals, opinionated non-thinkers, radical Muslims, Dan Brown and other anti-Christians think they are qualified to tell us what the Bible really says."

Because we liberals dont know anything about what the Bible says, right, Tim? I have never read anything more hypocritical in all my life. Calling someone an anti-Christian simply because they oppose your political views is rediculous. And what is with all this anti-contraception hoopla? If you researched it, you would understand that when used correctly in females, it actually preserves the egg which may later contribute to a zygote. If Catholics were "allowed" to use birth control, they may not contribute so highly to the number of women getting abortions.

Jill,
This was a great line! I laughed for about five minutes.
t

Any year now I expect "Matthew 7:1" signs to replace "John 3:16" signs behind football goalposts....

Thank you Jill, for reaffirming my faith.. in that the general populus of "obedient" church-goers are f***ing judgemental idiots.
All of you make me sick. The Bible, by the way, should not be taken literally and there is not one simple way to translate and use it. It is a matter of personal interpretation, especially when many of the scriptures do not even apply to the culture and world of today.
You say homosexuality is a sin? Well, how about when the bible states that eating shellfish is a f***ing sin as well? How many of you can honestly say you follow every element of the bible? TO pick and choose what passages you use to apply to your everyday life is hypocritical and you are NOT the "obedient" religious freaks you claim to be.
Let people have their own decisions and opinions. While your opinions anger me, I do respect your right to have them.
So f***ing respect mine. And respect the decisions of people who ARE NOT YOU, and are NOT in YOUR body or position. Who are you to make a decision for an entire population when we are all free souls?
Just some food for thought.
Much Love!!
KISS KISS!
May God be with you!

Joe,
Give me at least one sound reason how abortion steers society towards a VERY REAL catastrophe

"The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between."
Mother Teresa

Note: 'ARGH God will make the country go up in flames' is NOT a sound reason.

Science is no wisdom. Much of modern education is making the mind skeptical about the wisdom of God. The young are not skeptics, but a false education can make them skeptical. The modern world is dying of skeptic poisoning. Bishop Fulton Sheen

In fact, all societies have had abortion around for thousands of years. And the societies most thriving at the moment all have abortion legalized. In Sweden, which according to various UN studies ranks far above the US in terms of quality of life, education and caring for children and teenagers, women can access abortions freely on the NHS. There is no correlation between abortion and catastrophe in society. If US society is getting out of control it is due to unbridled capitalism, a crap education system, racism and the failure of political liberalism to provide for those falling behind in an increasingly unequal race.

"People living in dirt hardly ever realize how dirty dirt is. Those who live in sin hardly understand the horror of sin. The one peculiar and terrifying thing about sin is that the more experience you have with it, the less you know about it. You become so identified with it that you know neither the depths to which you have sunk nor the heights from which you have fallen."
Bishop Fulton Sheen

MK

Jess,

Why don't you tell us what you really think?
Tsk, Tsk, so much anger...
Peace babe, and chill.
MK

joe,

And women have been viewed as sex objects long before Christ walked the earth. Read ancient Greek and Roman poetry. Relatively speaking, it would be equal to Porn nowadays.

And we see where that got them. The idea that something has been around forever does not make it good. You would argue the same thing about the church. What makes something good is the fruits that it produces. Abortion produces a society where life is not respected. Where woman are turned into property and something to be acquired (not as in the "old days", but in a new way. By cheapening their value) You say a woman is not just a vehicle to produce children. I say she is not just a vehicle to produce lust.

I can not give you an argument as to why abortion poses a danger that would satisfy you because you want me to cite physical dangers. You live in the natural world and all of your arguments come from the intellect. I live in a supernatural world and am concerned with spiritual dangers. My arguments come from the soul. As I have said before, you haven't recieved the grace that is needed to see with spiritual "eyes" and so cannot possibly comprehend where I am coming from. This makes debate on the dangers nigh impossible as we are beginning from different premises.

The fact that you find my abhorrence of abortion and the death of 50,000,000 million babies "pathetic" just proves my point. The fact that I believe in a spiritual morality, by your own admission, makes me incredible. So how can I possibly put forth a case which is based on things that you believe are silly...?

MK

Did you know that pornography comes from combination Greek/Latin meaning "the devils pictures?" Interesting...

I thought your column was right on point. As a devout Catholic who actually submits to the
deposit of faith in its entirety as opposed to just picking and choosing (like Sean Hannity), I just want to thank you for writing such a good
piece.

Also, just for your information, about two years ago I wrote a law review article on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and the Born Alive Infant
Protection Act and used several quotes from the testimony you gave in front of the federal judiciary committee.

MK

"The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between."

Sorry, but Mother Theresa is going bonkus on a slippery slope argument here. Women being forced to carry pregnancies will not make society a safer place. Do you think gang crime, war, murder, theft, heavy drug abuse, racism, a failing eonomy, human greed and bad public policy/corruption are all inspired by abortion? Where is your evidence apart from a quote from a nun?

"Science is no wisdom. Much of modern education is making the mind skeptical about the wisdom of God."

Well, yes it should, as His wisdom might have been interpreted wrongly before, how's that? After all He gave us common sense and an evolving intelligence. And much of modern education also increases the awe for His creation. I have met few agnostic cell biologists or physicists. Seeing how magnificent our world is helps to appreciate it.

"People living in dirt hardly ever realize how dirty dirt is. Those who live in sin hardly understand the horror of sin. "

That is an interesting statement. But it only holds when you believe in sin in the first place, and when you then believe that abortion was a sin. Which is down to religion again and I told you that in the system you live, that is an invalid argument, sorry.

"And we see where that got them."

Haha, are you one of these funny people who believe the Roman and Greek emprie fell because of sexual deviance instead of say, erm, economic and political and military problems?

" The idea that something has been around forever does not make it good"

I never claimed it was good, read my post. I just demonstrated to you that Birth Control has got nothing to do with the objectofocation of women today.

"As I have said before, you haven't recieved the grace that is needed to see with spiritual "eyes" and so cannot possibly comprehend where I am coming from"

you know nothing about my spirituality and nothing about the grace I have experienced. Unlike you, for me being spiritual and connected with things the eye can't seed oes not mean I have to ignore historical facts and make exaggerated or false statements.

"So how can I possibly put forth a case which is based on things that you believe are silly...?"

i was not referring to the content of what you said, but to the false terminology and exaggerations that you use. You might disagree but 'slaughterin a child' evokes the image of a 7 year old being maimed with a machete, quite different to an embryo dying in the process of being removed from a woman;s womb. By your logic, are miscarriages accidental manslaughter?

"Did you know that pornography comes from combination Greek/Latin meaning "the devils pictures?" Interesting..."

Maybe interesting, but plain wrong. It is Greek and means 'writing about Harlots', harlots=Porns being the cheapest whores in Greece at that time. No devil in there and certainly no Latin. Do dictionaries exist in your supernatural world?

And if you really think I advocate women are only objects of lust, then you didn;t read my post. In no way I said women are objects of lust. Why would a woman be an object of lust when she builds bridges instead being pregnant?

You can be a mother AND still be revered for other things you are doing. You can be barren and still you should receive respect on the basis of what you do. You yourself say the fruits make something good.

Jess, 10:11 a.m.: I would have deleted your post but someone responded to it. So I cleaned it up. But knock off the swearing. If you can't make your point without doing that, you're inept.

I'm curious as to why atheists read Jill's articles and blog? Is it to learn or is it to stir up strife? I appreciate the opportunity to communicate with people on this issue, but so much of this thread has been about whether readers believe in God in the first place. Is there another thread they can go and debate that issue?

Answering the how many children question: 6 (5 living)

Just want to add to the "more children, the more God provides" post...the more children we had, the better He provided for our needs. It was amazing to watch -- how the more faith I had that He WOULD provide, He DID!! We have more than ever asked for or expected (that is different for each family, of course) and I give all the glory to Him.

Jill - keep up the fantastic work you do on behalf of the unborn! You go girl!

This is the letter I sent to Mr. Hanity:

Dear Mr. Hannity:

Oh - I was so saddened to see and hear your 'talk' with Fr. Euteneuer - my friend just sent it to me via email.

Sean - normally you are fully informed and correct about the issues - and while you are strong in your on-air presence, with the issue of contraception, I am afraid that you are mislead.

I am a pro-life sidewalk counselor at our local Planned Parenthood. This is the last-ditch effort to help women and girls choose life for their baby, and themselves.

I am outside the clinic practically every Friday morning, rain, snow or sunshine. I have been doing that for over 2 1/2 years. And unfortunately, with the U of I here, the clinic is very busy.

In my position as our pro-life committee head, and as a catechist for my church, it is my job to be fully informed on issues and church teaching, and try to make a difference in pro-life matters.

As a Catholic, you know that pro-life work encompasses every issue that interferes with the dignity of human life - from conception to natural death. And for abortion - this is a primary concern, since a human life, right at it's very beginnings is in danger of death by abortion.

I want to be honest here. I have been a Catholic all my life - and I am sad to say that for a good part of my life I was not in mesh with the Church's teachings. Frankly - I thought I knew better, thought I understood them, and rejected them whole-heartedly.

I was wrong.

14+ years ago, my husband came to me, and brought to me his concern over our use of contraception. He had a spiritual awakening. While it was scary, and since I did not know about Natural Family Planning, I was not sure of what he was asking.

But I loved him so much, and did not want to see him hurt or wounded spiritually. We went to NFP classes, and dropped our use of contraception. We even used the method to conceive our second child.

Little did I know that I was restoring our marriage to what it should be - but in addition, NFP opended the door for us to more fully take in and understand the church's teaching on other matters.

Today, as a committed and well-catechized Catholic, I understand the truth in the teaching about contraception.

In fact - use of contraception has degraded the attitude of men toward women, lowered our openness toward having children, lower communication and true sacrificial love in marriage, and in fact leads to abortion.

And, sadly, many types of contraception also causes abortions to our children, without our even knowing that.

Mr. Hannity - I understand that being a pit-bull on many issues makes for good ratings - but the treatment of Fr. Euntneuer was blatently hostile, confrontational, condescending and a terrible shame.

He is a good, honest man of the cloth, and he is right in his facts about contraception leading to abortion. We have seen that time and again - even with married couples seeking abortion when they could not understand how the wife could be pregnant (they were totally sure that contraception would have them avoid pregnancy).

I invite you to talk with me privately about my husband's and my change of heart toward the church's teaching on sexuality.

I invite you to read and study Theology of the Body and see Christopher West.

I'd be happy to talk with you about our experiences on the sidewalk with girls and women going in for their abortions. Their stories need to be told.

And while I understand that you are rightly upset about the priestly scandal - that issue has NOTHING to do with contraception at all, and you were wrong to bring that up under the situation.

But most of all - I invite you to pray - not as you will, but as God wills - that you may be open to the church's teaching on sexuality.

And since you are a Catholic in the public eye - please truly take the time to openly reflect on the teaching.

For me - If I had folowed the teaching and truly understood it, I would have avoided much great sin in my life. Thank goodness, I finally came to the truth and the heart of the matter: I did not want to know or understand the teaching because I thought I knew better. That's the sin of pride talking.

Thank goodness, Jesus knows it all, and he has entrusted His Church with the Holy Spirit to teach authoritatively on matters such as these (btw - as I am sure you ar