Contraception, Corona, and Unimpeachable Dogma

The Hypothetical Case of Corona

Imagine that by some miracle, the prosecution managed to provide overwhelming evidence that could convict Corona. But for some reason, the senator-judges arrive at a surprising verdict: not guilty.

When Senator-Judge Enrile (still our hypothetical presiding officer) is asked about it, he explains that like the other Senators, he, too, was convinced that Corona should be convicted. However, Enrile explains, conviction was impossible.

Why? Because if Corona is guilty, it would mean that Ex-President Arroyo made a mistake in appointing him Chief Justice. And if Arroyo made a mistake, it means that presidents aren’t perfect. And if presidents aren’t perfect, then democracy is doomed. Therefore, Corona is not guilty.

Unless you are a Corona cultist, you’d think that such a verdict is insane. Corona himself would admit guilt instead of letting such a mockery of the legal system stand. (OK, maybe not.) In any case, you’ll surely admit that no one would find such insanity reasonable.

Yet many find insanity reasonable when done in the name of religion. This is what happened when Pope Paul VI confirmed that contraceptives were evil.

The Actual Case of Contraception

In the early 60s, many Catholics started suspecting the innocence of an old teaching: the evil of contraception. They expressed dissent so strongly that Pope John XXIII (and later Pope Paul VI) formed a commission to investigate the original teaching’s innocence, so to speak.

After 6 years on trial, the commission reached their verdict:

  • 9 of 12 bishops found the original teaching wrong
  • 15 of 19 theologians found the original teaching wrong
  • 30 of 35 lay members found the original teaching wrong

The commission had found evidence — from Scripture and Tradition to Science and Experience — to conclude that the original teaching on contraception was wrong; contraception was not always evil.

The commission submitted their official report, and Pope Paul VI agreed with it — contraceptives were not inherently evil. I emphasize “official report” because a small group of conservatives unofficially submitted what is now called (mistakenly) the minority report. Regardless of its official standing, the other report contained the argument that changed the Pope’s mind.

Infallible Defense

While the official report was comprehensive and complex — arguing from different perspectives, providing both traditional and modern evidence — the other report was simple and single-minded. It relied primarily on an old (yet relatively recent) Catholic teaching: that Popes can’t be wrong when it comes to faith and morals because Jesus magically protects them from the mere possibility.

All the rational and scientific arguments of the official report were trumped by the other one’s appeal to the miraculous. And the writers of the unofficial report were unashamed of resorting to this defense:

If we could bring forward arguments which are clear and cogent based on reason alone, it would not be necessary for our Commission to exist, nor would the present state of affairs exist in the Church… The Church could not have erred through so many centuries, even through one century, by imposing under serious obligation very grave burdens in the name of Jesus Christ, if Jesus Christ did not actually impose these burdens.

As one minority member put it, if the original teaching is wrong, what will happen to all those Catholic souls the Church previously sent to Hell ? To this a member of the majority had the perfect response: “Father Zalba, do you really believe that God has carried out all your orders?”

Pope John Paul II, then a Cardinal who was also part of the conservative minority, argued as follows:

If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself, then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on the side of the Protestant churches in 1930 (when the encyclical Casti Connubii was promulgated), in 1951 (Pius XII’s address to the midwives), and in 1958 (the address delivered before the Society of Hematologists in the year the pope died). It should likewise have to be admitted that for a half century the Spirit failed to protect Pius XI, Pius XII, and a large part of the Catholic hierarchy from a very serious error.

This would mean that the leaders of the Church, acting with extreme imprudence, had condemned thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding, under pain of eternal damnation, a practice which would now be sanctioned. The fact can neither be denied nor ignored that these same acts would now be declared licit on the grounds of principles cited by the Protestants, which popes and bishops have either condemned or at least not approved.

When he became pope, he explained why infallibility was crucial to Catholicism:

I am convinced that the doctrine of infallibility is in a certain sense the key to the certainty with which the faith is confessed and proclaimed, as well as to the life and conduct of the faithful. For once this essential foundation is shaken or destroyed, the most basic truths of our faith likewise begin to break down.

In short, the conservatives used logic similar to that of our hypothetical Corona case:

  1. If the original teaching on contraception is wrong, then 2 previous popes were wrong.
  2. If 2 previous popes were wrong, then there’s no such thing as infallibility.
  3. If there’s no such thing as infallibility, then the Catholic Church is doomed.
  4. Therefore, the original teaching is correct.

Of course, other arguments were used in the so-called minority report. But those were the same arguments that had already been refuted by the commission. In the end, infallibility was the only argument left unanswered.

Unimpeachable Dogma

To this day, the Catholic Church still stands by its anti-contraceptive stance, and on the doctrine of infallibility that defended it. If the same kind of insane defense were to clear Corona’s name, an EDSA III would not be unlikely. Although surveys show that many Filipinos have already lost interest, I’m sure such an attack on common sense would motivate even the most apathetic to action.

Regardless of how the actual impeachment trial turns out, Filipinos should already be thankful for one thing: our public officials — unlike Catholic doctrines — are impeachable.

335 comments

  1. the article makes some sense, but is not entirely fair. the late Pope John Paul II, on behalf of the Church, issued a belated apology on how it treated Galileo and reversed its decision on accusing him as a heretic. that took a lot of bravery and at least a sympathetic comment. but i guess freethinkers can err on occasion – after all, they’re human too.

    • //the late Pope John Paul II, on behalf of the Church, issued a belated apology on how it treated Galileo and reversed its decision on accusing him as a heretic. that took a lot of bravery and at least a sympathetic comment. but i guess freethinkers can err on occasion – after all, they're human too.//

      It also took the church THREE HUNDRED YEARS to apologize.

  2. //This is another example, who would bother to be so petty as to even look for these kinds of articles… so yes, pettiness also.//

    Says the man who cites the Family Research Council as a "credible" source.

    Sent from my Commodore 64

  3. //So your answer is NO thank you for submitting to that. If you label the FRC as anti homosexual then you are right but that's not what you said, you said HATE group. There is a difference. I asked you to show me a single legal complaint, decision or statement by the US Government that classifies the FRC as a hate group//

    If the organization in question has been caught on several occasions to be peddling blatantly false – if not grossly misinterpreted – data to bash the gay community, you don't need an official statement from a Gov't agency to realize they're a hate group. All you need is common sense.

    Oh, I forgot – you didn't get that when God was handing it around, did you? 😉

    //You could not. Your analogy is really so bad so what if they have ruws with the church, Amnesty International where Ron works was founded by Catholics and had ties with the church too, does that mean its a lackey if the church?//

    And did you know that the RCC has often derided AI for being contrary to its bronze-age teachings? http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2007-07-2

    It's pathetic that you'd even attempt to compare your pet fringe group to AI, Dickie. FRC has and will always be an advocate of bigotry.

  4. Regarding the issue of homosexuality:
    Homosexuality is here whether we Filipinos like it or not. It was here in the past and it will be here in the future, as well as in all over the world. Did you know that Filipinos were not called "Filipinos" in the recent past? Our ancestors were called "indios", half-humans, savages, by the Spaniards and by the Vatican. We were a dumb race which god neglected to grace with intellect. (A "Filipino" was originally a Spaniard who was born in the Islas Filipinas, much like a Creolle was a French person born outside France). This was how the Vatican looked at and treated our ancestors, much like the way they treat homosexuals today. Mentally ill or not, homosexuals in our country are Filipinos just like us. They have the same dreams and aspirations. They love their families just like we do ours (perhaps even more). They care about the future of our country just like we do. They are Filipinos and we should accept them as our own brothers and sisters.

    • “””Our ancestors were called “indios”, half-humans, savages, by the Spaniards and by the Vatican. We were a dumb race which god neglected to grace with intellect. (A “Filipino” was originally a Spaniard who was born in the Islas Filipinas, much like a Creolle was a French person born outside France). This was how the Vatican looked at and treated our ancestors, “””

      This all BULLSH!T stemming from your ignorance.

      It is indeed !d!otic to never know how to use GOOGLE at this modern age.

      TO ENLIGHTEN YOUR SAVAGE INDIO MIND, you read:

      Sublimus Dei published by the Pope in June 2, 1537.

  5. I believe that similar doctrines of infallibility were adopted by Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, the Emperor Hirohito, Mao Ze Dung, and others of the type.

  6. [At what point in my entire discussion with anyone in this site did I ever bring up religious reasons for saying that homosexuality is unnatural or disordered… ]

    And once again, we catch you lying through your teeth, you bastard.
    https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/12/09/to-the

    [I will end it on this note. You might be interested to see this link" http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02%5D

    Dickie, you cited the Family Research Council more than once to justify why homosexuality was in any way wrong – the FRC is a well-known anti-gay think tank with connections to the US Catholic Church. You don't get any more religiously motivated than when you decide to source them.

    • THIS IS THE VERY SAME TACTIC HE USED IN ONE OF HIS PREVIOUS COMMENTS, IN ANOTHER ARTICLE HERE IN FFT:

      //dboncan: Not once did I cite Catholic sources in my arguments……….//

      //freethinker: But a quick research indicated that you copy-pasted, almost word-for-word from the Humanae Vitae….//

      PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE…. YOU'RE FAST BECOMING THE GREATEST LAUGHINGSTOCK IN THIS WEBSITE. YOUR BULLSHIT CAN'T ESCAPE A FREETHINKING MIND. PLEASE…

    • "I often wonder how dissenters… okay okay I will say it, heretics, can invent such creative ways of justifying their opposition to the Church’s teaching on faith and morals…The next time you have notions that this or that theologian said this or that or Fr. so and so disagrees with the Pope, my answer is, SO WHAT, THAT IS THEIR OPINION, period!"

      -> When theologians and priests oppose the pope, it's called having an opinion, for everyone else, it's called heresy.

      "You see my dear heretics and dissenters, the protection to teach from error in matters of faith and morals was given to the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him and to them alone rests that gift, that’s called infallibility!"

      -> Wow, infallibility! I'm convinced!

      • //When theologians and priests oppose the pope, it's called having an opinion, for everyone else, it's called heresy. //

        And when priests and theologians oppose the pope and sacrifice their careers to come out regarding the RCC's sheltering of child rapist we call them heroes 😉

      • //You see my dear heretics and dissenters, the protection to teach from error in matters of faith and morals was given to the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him and to them alone rests that gift, that’s called infallibility!//

        And who gets to say the Pope and priests are infallible?

        The Vatican.

        Circular reasoning.

  7. 10. Fasten your seatbelts and strap on your helmet. Reason takes on a rollercoaster ride, twisted by a desperate apologist who manages to evade direct queries all the time.

    > You can never defeat what's fact. You cannot ignore substantial evidence since these data are being presented in a global scale.

  8. 9. No religion holds the monopoly on morality, so it's basically futile to argue with someone who throws (Catholic & Judeo-Christian) scripture or biblical passages at you, because only do you get vague explanations, you are also bombarded by highfalutin terms, none of which can offer a direct and concise solution to the problem.

    • Very true. That's why when I discuss an issue that involves morality (even religion itself) I make it mandatory not to quote the bible. Those who quote the bible try to project that they have the moral high ground and that they have the blessings from god in doing so.

  9. 8. Tell him to provide updated information such as links based on material evidence or collective global reports, and he will volley your request by saying: "there's a problem with counter-attacking a link with another link". This is exactly what losers are made of.

  10. .7. He gives out a litany of his philosophy, belief, claims of moral ascendancy or whatevah… But nobody seems to give a shit. Freethinkers and readers alike are concerned with what's practical and what's universally applicable.

  11. //Stop skirting the issue and man up to the discussion.//

    "Man up," says the bigot who:
    1. Claims that homosexuality is a mental disorder
    2. Thinks that posturing with threats of physical violence should be taken seriously.

    • Man Up was actually a fairly interesting series featuring 3 men who act like little boys.

      yup, man up doesn't only apply to effeminate men and of course, people who actually think of the consequence before doing any action, it also applies to little boys who need to grow up.

    • By the way, I can let ILLOGICAL slide. But the HYPOCRITE part is just shameful.

      Whenever you come here, you are already resolved on what you believe in. You have no intent of listening with an open mind. All you intend to do is incite hatred and promote negativity with your deplorable behavior and bad language. In my previous articles, I was successful in getting you to admit some of your logical errors and misconceptions. But instead of celebrating your newfound perspectives, your stubborn admissions were smack with arrogance. Seriously, is that what Jesus would do? Is this kind of attitude what you teach your children? It’s not very “christian” and that makes you a hypocrite. And with that attitude, I no longer expect to have a decent logical conversation with you (but your lord knows how I tried).

      Yeah, I’ve given up on you so I will no longer waste my time trying to explain things to you because you don’t want to understand nor have the capacity to understand. So excuse me while I take the high road and move on to more productive things where my actions do not promote negativity. Excuse me while I move on and spend my time on people who understand logic and are not hypocrites.

      Feel free to stay here and reply to my comment with more illogical blabbering. I will give you the last hypocritical laugh. Feel free to incite more hatred in the threads of other commenters. The more time you spend trolling here, the more time you take away from doing charity work, spreading the word of your god, being a role model to your children, living out the teachings of your priests, and the more proof that you are a huge, shameless, illogical hypocrite.

      May your god judge you accordingly.

      • Ron an old bigot would rather die as an old bigot, before they are willing to realize their backward and hateful beliefs.

        So the next best thing to do is show the world how much of clueless bigot he is. Might as well have fun with it.

        it is as they say; there is no cure for stupid.

  12. I just wanna say I love it when dboncan is around. Not only does he push up site traffic but he also pushes us to brush up on what we know. And of course, logical fallacies are always entertaining. Pass the popcorn!

    Oh dboncan, may your God bless you.

    Good night world!

    Love and peace,

    rondevera ^_^

  13. Tani seems to think that just because the commission's opinions were such, that the teaching is wrong… obviously Tani is ignorant about the way doctrine is studied and eventually taught. The teaching on contraception has been around since the early times of the church, almost 2000 years. Every protestant denomination until the 1930's taught that it as wrong but caved because some of their members insisted on it. The only one willing to call evil, evil is the Catholic Church, that is why she still stands after 2012 years.

    • Let's see what the bible says about contraception and abortions, hmm?

      Hosea 9:11-16
      "Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb."

      Hosea 13:16
      "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."

      • While you take those verses out of context, how do those verses argue against what I just said about Red Tani's lies? We were not even talking about abortion. Straw man argument again and again!

      • " We are serious about

        by dboncan (not verified) – 03/13/2012

        " We are serious about supporting the RH Bill because we know that regular contraception and post abortion contraception can reduce abortion by as much as 90%."

        and in the meantime, it has been shown that the institutionalization of contraception actually initially increases the abortion rate before making it plateau ,then after 25-30 years, as is the case of the U.S. it starts to decrease by about 1/3-1/2… yup that is after millions of babies killed. Yes you are right, contraception does decrease abortion after about several million abortions.

        Philippines

        FOR A FULL VIEW: http://www.likhaan.org/content/text-lies#comment-

    • //The only one willing to call evil, evil is the Catholic Church, that is why she still stands after 2012 years.//

      So explain why it's having so much trouble trying to punish child abusers if it's so willing to call evil, evil. And while you're at it, explain why the Church has yet to come up with a justifiable excuse for promoting discrimination against the gay community.

        • [How many cases are now in the criminal courts? How many dioceses have gone bankrupt… what planet are you living in? ]

          Which your church only started to do recently, decades after these sex abuse cases happened, and only because of public outrage. You don't get to brag about morality when the primary motivation for your church's actions is saving face, and not protecting its victims.

          • That the rapists of the Church have managed to evade the long arm of the law seems to be a badge of honor for some of these defenders of the faith.

          • looks like the game is who can have the highest number of sex abuse cases and how long can you go without getting caught.

            highest racked up by a single priest is 280 cases. his bishop must be really proud to able to allow that priest to get that score.

            alot of the sex offenders have died as "holy" men even before the public got a whiff of the abuse.

            I'll stick my neck out and say JPII can be implicated and he got off easy, now Ratzy is left to get the backlash.

          • "I'll stick my neck out" yeah you do that since you have a penchant for sticking your neck out for idiotic advocacies anyway.

          • like you stick your neck out defending a bogus doctrine, pedophiles and corrupt clerics, therefore proving yourself deluded fool every single time?

            Dick you make it so easy.

          • hahahaha!

            he's the only who seems to find comfort in historical lectures, none of which serve any purpose on a fruitful debate. his attitude and approach is so typical of what i see and hear of priests, who retract to their abyssmal dogma whenever they are confronted by horrendous facts, in which none of us in the modern world GIVE A SHIT, at all.

            poor dboncan.

          • //"I'll stick my neck out" yeah you do that since you have a penchant for sticking your neck out for idiotic advocacies anyway. //

            You mean like trying to bully skeptic's groups with lawsuits because they released a video showing the world how inanely stupid your cause is?

            Or how about claiming in all sincerity that there is a gay agenda to the APA's removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder back in 1973?

            Please go on Dickie – we're learning so much from your example about stupid advocacies 😉

          • The gay agenda is not the topic it is Res Tani's lies. Now I have not seen a single one of you so-called intelligent and tough talking FF's address it. As long as you keep changing the topic we will not progress.Sent from my iPhone

          • It is really sad that many priests have died free men with the help of the Roman Catholic Church, which supposedly fights evil. I guess hiding priests and evidence from the law isn't evil. Good thing there is justice in the afterlife. That is, unless they were able to have a secret confession with a priest before they died. Loophole!

          • and under the oath of the sacrament of confession they can never tell anyone about it, they are more than willing to take that secret to their graves.

            crimen solicitationis provided further loopholes.

          • Evaded Bercero… that is a rather stupid remark considering that there are court cases all over. I think your blinders are on!

          • and we pointed that is a mere fraction of the cases being covered and decades too late.

            did you not read that? of course not! your reading comprehension is pathetic.

          • Maybe you'll get your fix after this:Pedophilia (the sexual abuse of a prepubescent child) among priests is extremely rare, affecting only 0.3% of the entire population of clergy. This figure, cited in the book Pedophiles and Priests by non-Catholic scholar, Philip Jenkins, is from the most comprehensive study to date, which found that only one out of 2,252 priests considered over a thirty-year period was afflicted with pedophilia. In the recent Boston scandal, only four of the more than eighty priests labeled by the media as “pedophiles” are actually guilty of molesting young children.You were saying…?Sent from my iPhone

          • fix? please, pathetic apologetics is still that… pathetic

            let's see: you cut n paste from 10 Myths about Priestly Pedophilia i suppose, how original of you http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/f
            well there goes the credibility of that statement.

            however you still insist on skimming the issue, the anger of people is directed at the rampant and systematic cover up and protection of rapists orchestrated from the very top of the Vatican hierarchy,

            to the likes of you, the image of the church is more important than the rights or lives of its victims. nice of you to consistently make a conscious effort to ignore that fact. despite being repeated to you so many times.

            maybe you should post a study why they do that, instead.

            and to quote a wonderful song by tim minchin

            And the fact remains that if you protect a single kiddie fucker
            Then pope or prince or plumber you're a fucking motherfucker

            in other words: if protect pedos then you are just as bad as they are. got that pedo-lover?

            So you were saying?

          • EXTREMELY RARE????

            from whose point of view, the roman catholic church's?

            against all the updated links shoved down his throat, this son of a bitch won't stop at nothing to save the roman catholic church's ass, for if the Conspiracy of Silence was a drug, you'd be in rehab by now.

            1. http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabu
            2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10407559
            3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/priest-s
            4. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-priestscanda
            5. http://tor.id.au/

            as a freethinker, im starting to accept the fact that people like you can only be convinced if one of your children are butt-fucked by catholic priests, priests that you defend like a rabied dog.

          • Tsk Tsk Tsk what language and the nerve to call me an SOB. All that rage might give you a stroke.Hey complain to Philip Jenkins he did that study who by the way isn't even Catholic!. At least I am honest enough to post A STUDY, your “updated links” are news articles only… And we know how reliable the media is. LOL Who is being an ass now?Sent from my iPhone

          • and yet again ignores the fact that people are angry at the church hierarchy for protecting rapists rather than bring them to justice.

            //At least I am honest enough to post A STUDY, your "updated links" are news articles only… And we know how reliable the media is. LOL Who is being an ass now?//

            in defense to the lady. i noticed you cut n pasted from an article from http://www.catholiceducation.org and anything similar. and yet scorn her for posting actual news sources.

            since you believe that such sites are a legitimate source of information. pardon me while i rofl as my irony meter goes of the scale.

            //Hey complain to Philip Jenkins he did that study who by the way isn't even Catholic!. //
            Philip Jenkins is a Catholic-turned-Episcopalian

            and hello hello, he also says the bible is more violent than the qran. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor

            interesting, i need to read up on his books.

          • Excuse me but that thing I got from that website is excerpted from a book by Philip Jenkins which I have and have read… it does not change that fact that what I posted was a study rather than a news-bit…. so please if you're going to defend someone please make some sense!

          • you should take your own advice dick. which obviously you don't

            you still have not addressed why the church would protect: pedo, ephebos and rapists before protecting children.

            and besides that culture of raping has been around for centuries and the church has done a bang up job of concealing it. and a pathetic job of fixing it and people are angry at that little fact you constantly ignore.
            http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2006/07_

            "The institutional church has never responded, as an institution, in a pastoral manner to abuse victims. They've been defensive. They've been highly destructive to the people in the litigation process. The only reason the victims have gone to court is because the church system, the bishops and their staffs, were unwilling to respond in an effective way to men and women, young and old, whose lives have been devastated by clerical sexual abuse."

            "The bishops are well-organized. They have vast amounts of money to pay for advertising campaigns and expensive lawyers and lobbyists, which the victims do not have. And they're using it"

            and don't blame my secularism for that, nor the site's leanings. the book where they get the excerpts is written by 2 actual CATHOLIC priests and a mental health practitioner.

            want to make yourself look like a fool for the nth time dick?

          • Victims have been emotionally unable to disclose their abuse at the hands of clerics simply because of the church-instilled fear of divine retribution against them for saying anything negative about a priest.

            The reasons for bishops' and priests inaction may be that so many of them themselves are sexually active.

            Four times as many Catholic priests and religious are involved with women they are involved with children, and nearly three times as many are involved with adult men.

            Priests who abuse minors are part of a much larger group, an anonymous network of clergy who are aware of each other's sexual proclivities, behaviors, and activities and are capable of blackmailing each other.

            It is now an undisputed fact that sexual abuse by priests is neither simply a current aberration nor a passing phenomenon: It has deep systemic roots.

            all of these come from a CATHOLIC priest. reality bites doesnt it? now we wait for some inane apologetic excuse or a juvenile respone.

          • //Evaded Bercero… that is a rather stupid remark considering that there are court cases all over. //

            Most of these have been going on as far back as the 60s, and they're only getting attention now because your church was being threatened by the authorities to come clean.

            If your church was so righteous as you claim it to be, it wouldn't have taken the authorities of the US, Ireland, and a handful of other countries in Europe to convince it do get things done – it would have punished its priests out of its own accord.
            http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatYo

          • "How does this relate to red Tani'a este Tani's lies?"

            The sexist homophobe thinks effeminizing a name/person is funny/insulting. How amusing. o.0

          • Red is already fine with being ponified – he'd probably considered being called a woman an honor, since it'd make us a shoe-in for the women's month activities 😉

          • The vast majority of the clerical sex-abuse scandals now coming to light do not involve pedophilia. Rather, they involve ephebophilia — homosexual attraction to adolescent boys. While the total number of sexual abusers in the priesthood is much higher than those guilty of pedophilia, it still amounts to less than 2 percent — comparable to the rate among married men (Jenkins,Pedophiles and Priests).Sent from my iPhone

          • //The vast majority of the clerical sex-abuse scandals now coming to light do not involve pedophilia. Rather, they involve ephebophilia — homosexual attraction to adolescent boys. //

            Dickie, trying to say it's not pedophilia doesn't change the fact that it's rape.

            Besides, your shell game was already exposed last year – you're obviously citing the “The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010” report by the USCCB.

            The report's already been called out for its dodgy statistics and half-truths, one of which was intentionally classifying pedophilia as sexual abuse of victims that ten years old or younger at the time, despite the fact that the DSM sets the cutoff age at thirteen, just to say that its priests did not commit pedophilia.

            Miranda Hale has the complete takedown here: http://mirandaceleste.net/2011/05/24/a-worthless-

          • Nope that's from a book by Philip Jenkins and for the last time I will ask you to refer to me by my username. I wont ask you again Sent from my iPhone

          • //Nope that's from a book by Philip Jenkins and for the last time I will ask you to refer to me by my username. I wont ask you again //

            And once again, Dickie, claiming that it's not pedophilia doesn't get the church off the hook for protecting rapists.

            //I wont ask you again.//

            Is that a threat?

          • actually he already did threaten you.
            //You talk tough behind that anonymity, just say where and when buddy!//

            ahh violence, the last refuge of the incompetent.

          • //You talk tough behind that anonymity, just say where and when buddy//

            You know where my facebook profile is, Dickie – a man your age should be able to figure that out.

            And seriously, what's a 40 year old dentist like you doing acting like a drunk 15-year old homophobic jock?

          • once you mention my age/place of work and call me by nickname, then yes I do feel personally threatened. I have asked you many times in the past, as I have always practiced, to leave any personal references out, so yes if I am pushed, I push back!

          • //once you mention my age/place of work and call me by nickname, then yes I do feel personally threatened.//

            If you're so threatened, then why did you post your personal data here in the first place?
            https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/12/23/ten-co

            [Your a smart guy you can figure that out

            Ricardo Boncan
            Suite 119 MAB St. Luke Medical Center phone 632 7231071

            6065 Palma St. Makati City phone 632 8966914

            Sent from my iPod ]

          • If my PI got posted there it is still not a warrant for anyone to use it at their discretion, I have asked you many times to limit your responses to the topic as well as address me as my username. I asked Ron de Vera the same thing in the past and he complied readily. I accord you the same civility which i expect to be accorded as well. When someone continues to do so in spite of being asked not to, I interpret that as threatening. So now that we are clear on that please comply. That is my last word on this matter.Sent from my iPhone

          • //If my PI got posted there it is still not a warrant for anyone to use it at their discretion, I have asked you many times to limit your responses to the topic as well as address me as my username.//

            If you don't like people referring to you by your name, then don't post it online, doofus.

            You're 40+ Dickie. You're old enough to know how the net works – you even run a blog.

            //I asked Ron de Vera the same thing in the past and he complied readily.//

            Well I'm not Ron, and unlike him, I have a far lower tolerance for assholes.

            Deal with it.

            //When someone continues to do so in spite of being asked not to, I interpret that as threatening.//

            Thank you for pointing out that you're paranoid; we kinda knew that when you started blabbering, but at least you're aware of it.

            //I accord you the same civility which i expect to be accorded as well. //

            What makes you think I'm not according you the level of civility I think you deserve?

            You've ceaselessly defended the actions of a church that protects rapists, lied in our face about the investigations regarding this, and have publicly declared your disdain for the gay community, while hiding it under the guise of "Mental disorders."

            And when you are called out for being a bigot, what do we get? Statements like this:

            [You talk tough behind that anonymity, just say where and when buddy]

            Seriously? Your idea of an intelligent response is resorting to thinly threats of violence? You're not a man worth respecting in any way, Dickie.

            And even while you whine about being offended (do you think we give a fuck that you're offended?), you still think you can get away with statements like these:

            [How does this relate to red Tani'a este Tani's lies?]

            Like I said, if you're butthurt, cry me a river. That's not stopping me.

          • You're not worth my time anyway. I have no time for cowards who hide under the kirt of anonymity and hurl invectives while doing so. Say what you will when you have an exchange with me but you watch your step because the moment you threaten me or my family again, I will do something about it.

          • //Say what you will when you have an exchange with me but you watch your step because the moment you threaten me or my family again, I will do something about it. //

            Yeah, because as everybody knows, harsh language and ridicule are two of the most dangerous substances on earth.

            Dickie, get off the fucking high horse – the only one here who even thinks your family is being threatened is you, and you're using it as an excuse to pretend you have a right to threaten people with violence.

            Grow up.

          • as per ron de vera's claims:

            when dboncan is pushed into a corner, one of three things happens:

            1. He threatens to use physical violence (Check!)

            2. He manages to change the subject or accuses the other party of it (Check!)

            3. The thread comes to an abrupt stop (Check!)

          • maybe because he thinks that his real name and position and contact number and place of residence can scare the hell out of us. from what i see, this is just a display of arrogance.

          • Now show me your data which shows that Sweden has below than average child sex abuse rates than the rest of the world.Sent from my iPhone

          • [Now show me your data which shows that Sweden has below than average child sex abuse rates than the rest of the world.]

            First, show us proof that homosexuality has a direct, contributing link to sexual abuse in a country, since you were so keen to blame gayness on your church's child molestation.

          • Talo ka naman. You asked me about Sweden…and I showed you data that seual child abuse in Sweden is in fact higher than the rest of the world… what lower are you talking about? Did you even read the paper! here let me quote it to you again:These figures suggest that during the 1990s a child in Sweden, possibly the most secularised country in Europe, was between 10 and 30 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than an American Catholic was by his priest. Even making allowances for the considerable margin of error that must be built into these figures, it's clear that what went on in US Catholic churches was terrible but rather less terrible than what went on at the same time in many other places whereCatholicismwas not involved. If the US Catholic church is a hotbed of child rape, Sweden is an awful lot worse. (Just to be clear here, I think the idea that Sweden is a dangerous country for children is entirely absurd.)”and this is from a secular source <a href="http://!http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2011/may/21/child-abuse-catholicism-johnjayinstitute!http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2011/may/21/child-abuse-catholicism-johnjayinstitute<br />”First, show us proof that homosexuality has a direct, contributing link to sexual abuse in a country, since you were so keen to blame gayness on your church's child molestation.”This is your proof… an extensive study by Philip Jenkins ( a non-Catholic) in his docu-book:The vast majority of the clerical sex-abuse scandals now coming to light do not involve pedophilia. Rather, they involve ephebophilia — homosexual attraction to adolescent boys. While the total number of sexual abusers in the priesthood is much higher than those guilty of pedophilia, it still amounts to less than 2 percent — comparable to the rate among married men (Jenkins,Pedophiles and Priests).Do you understand this?

          • The fact is you guys don't want to admit the data on homosexuals in the priesthood being responsible or the majority of the abuse cases because it goes against you LGBT advocacy! But no matter how you look at the data it's what it is. The John Jay report says this:”The study listed the main characteristics of the sex abuse incidents reported. These included:– An overwhelming majority of the victims, 81 percent, were males. The most vulnerable were boys aged 11 to 14, representing more than 40 percent of the victims. This goes against the trend in the general U.S. society where the main problem is men abusing girls.”This means that the abuse is homosexual in nature!

          • Ah, there's the report I was referring to earlier 😉

            Thank you Dickie.

            Dear readers, a complete takedown of the John Jay Report Can be found here, at Miranda Hale's blog:
            http://mirandaceleste.net/2011/05/24/a-worthless-

            Some of her more salient points:

            //1. One of the most egregious aspects of this report is that the researchers arbitrarily redefine “pedophilia” as sexual abuse of victims that were ten years old or younger at the time, despite the fact that the DSM sets the cutoff age at thirteen. Defining it as “ten years old or younger” allows the researchers to make claims like:

            [ Less than 5 percent of the priests with allegations of abuse exhibited behavior consistent with a diagnosis of pedophilia (a psychiatric disorder that is characterized by recurrent fantasies, urges, and behaviors about prepubescent children). Thus, it is inaccurate to refer to abusers as “pedophile priests” (3).]

            and:

            [It is worth noting that while the media has consistently referred to priest-abusers as “pedophile priests,” pedophilia is defined as the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Yet, the data on priests show that 22 percent of victims were age ten and under, while the majority of victims were pubescent or postpubescent (10).]

            … whereas if they had stuck to the DSM‘s guidelines (age thirteen or younger), most of the priest-abusers could legitimately be called “pedophiles”, as ”[m]ost sexual abuse victims of priests (51 percent) were between the ages of eleven and fourteen, while 27 percent were fifteen to seventeen, 16 percent were eight to ten, and nearly 6 percent were under age seven” (10). In other words, if the researchers had used the DSM‘s guidelines, the percentage would jump from 22% to almost 73%.

            Arbitrarily changing the age from thirteen to ten was a very sleazy and duplicitous move, and, unfortunately, many media outlets will most likely report the “5%” and “22%” figures without explaining the study’s authors’ arbitrary redefinition of “pedophilia” (see this CNN story for an example). “Pedophilia” is a word that evokes strong feelings in many people, and, without this explanation, most media consumers will be left with the impression that the Church’s sex abuse crisis isn’t nearly as horrible or widespread as they had previously thought.

            Frustratingly, the researchers do not explain why they chose to redefine “pedophilia”, saying only that: “[f]or the purpose of this comparison, a pedophile is defined as a priest who had more than one victim, with all victims being age eleven or younger at the time of the offense” (34).//

            ___________________________

          • Even then, they found no relationship between homosexuality and child abuse, as some blinkered Catholic apologists might repeatedly desire to pull out from the study.

          • And the study does NOT tackle why church leaders chose to protect said pedos….sorry i mean rapists.

          • If you cherry-pick enough from the John Jay report, I'm sure you can find that it says that dinosaurs live among us dressed in pink tutus and stetsons.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/rns-exclusive
            http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?ent
            http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-
            http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/indhttp://ncronline.org/blogs/bulletins-human-side/p

            "In fact, the John Jay report notes, the incidence of sexual abuse began to decrease in the late 1970s, at a time when–according to the study–the number of homosexual priests was rising. Thus the report finds that an increasing acceptance of homosexual priests was associated with "a decreased incidence of abuse–not an increased incidence of abuse.""
            — CatholicCulture.org

            "the researchers found no statistical evidence that gay priests were more likely than straight priests to abuse minors — a finding that undermines a favorite talking point of many conservative Catholics. The disproportionate number of adolescent male victims was about opportunity, not preference or pathology, the report states."
            — David Gibson, cited by Fr. James Martin in America: The National Catholic Weekly

            There is no evidence that either celibacy or homosexuality is to blame for the Church's child rape problem.

            But, this is all to be distracted from the true crime of the Church, which is the systematic cover up of the rapes.

          • For women, seven countries reported prevelence rates above 20%: Australia (37.8%), Costa Rica (32.2%), Tanzania (31.0%), Israel (30.7%), Sweden (28.1%), the United States (25.3%) and Switzerland (24.2%).The generally much-lower rate for males may be partially inaccurate; under-reporting may be particularly prevalent because of the “possibility of greater shame and the fear that they will be labeled as homosexual (if the aggressor was another man) or weak (if the aggressor was a woman), which may combine with the fact that they are more often accused of having provoked the abuse.”Sent from my iPhone

          • obviously there was an intent of hiding it. how does the “sin” of some churchmen (2-5-3%) worldwide, discredit authentic Catholic teaching? You are arguing a strawman!

          • didnt we talk about this before? thick headed as usual.

            ok lets take it slow now who wanted to hide it?

            bishops, cardinals even reaching up to the pope. 5% bitch please thats the church leaders right there 🙂

            those are not just a few churchmen. dick.

            and judge them based on their teachings, not by their actions. seriously? you are as deluded as they get. if church leaders cannot follow their own doctrine then it is bullshit.

            again "do as i say, not as i do" is not a good excuse.

          • off topic… I was talking about Red Tani's BS article. He is such a coward hiding behind the skirt of his FFt website and posting lies and defamatory articles without addressing critiques.

          • //obviously there was an intent of hiding it. how does the "sin" of some churchmen (2-5-3%) worldwid//

            i was replying to that. the BS excuse it is just small number of the clergy who have "sinned" should not reflect on their teachings.

            I noticed "off topic" seems to be your best defense mechanism.

            got more BS apologetics you want to apply?

          • What can I do if you're off topic. As an apologist, I stick to the topic at hand… you want to argue something else, start thread or write an article that I can take apart otherwise take a number!

          • really? everyone here agrees it is on topic. and you know well what post i responded to. its kinda cute you keep trying to weasel out of it, in a futile attempt to save face.

            and as an apologist you suck. again avoid silly comments if you can't defend it,else we'll call you out on your idiocy. you should know this by now.

            you, yet again, failed to defend your church. as it stands it is proven your church is a corrupt, morally bankrupt institution. The going-ons in Europe and current events can attest to that.

          • //how does the "sin" of some churchmen (2-5-3%) worldwide, discredit authentic Catholic teaching? You are arguing a strawman! //

            You're the one arguing the strawman. The crux of the matter is that the Church conspired to hide its sex offenders through its own system of rules and legalese. For instance, the various priests who molested kids in Ireland and the United States wouldn't have gotten far had it not been for intervention from the Vatican itself – your church's very seat of power.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_crimes_and_the_Vhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-159

          • Since your so fixated in the abuse scandal I have only one thing to say and I gave said it before: the guilty priests should be punished and the seminaries purged of Homosexuals and psychologically disturbed individuals because it is a proven fact that most of the clergy sex offenders are homosexual priests who were wrongly admitted to the priesthood.Sent from my iPhone

          • //the guilty priests should be punished and the seminaries purged of Homosexuals and psychologically disturbed individuals because it is a proven fact that most of the clergy sex offenders are homosexual priests who were wrongly admitted to the priesthood.//

            The sad fact, Dickie, is that these gay priests you are so willing to throw under the bus are more man than you can ever hope to be.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mychal_Judge

            And if you're to pin these incidents on homosexuality, then explain why we're not seeing similar reports of sex-abuse in gay-tolerant societies, like Sweden?

          • “Are more man than I would ever hope to be? ” who is the one acting like half a man?you are the one hiding behind your anonymity after all. You talk tough behind that anonymity, just say where and when buddy!Sent from my iPhone

          • //You talk tough behind that anonymity, just say where and when buddy!//

            You've got a family to worry about Dickie, so I'll decline. Maawa ka naman sa mga anak mo.

          • //Now your threatening my family? Say that to my face you coward//

            No, I am simply saying that accepting your immature challenge to a fistfight [You talk tough behind that anonymity, just say where and when buddy!] would be pointless.

            And if either of us ended up being injured in that act of stupidity, you stand to lose more, since you're a family breadwinner.

            I may be an asshole, Dickie, but I'm not a monster.

          • Your Joke About Swedenhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2011/may/21/child-abuse-catholicism-johnjayinstitute”So in 1992, when the worst was over, the rate was 15 incidents of reported abuse per 100,000 confirmations. By 2001 it had dropped to of 5 incidents of abuse per 100,000 confirmations in the Catholic Church. There was a similar drop in American society as a whole but less steep and from a consistently higher rate.<p style=”padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; “>For comparison,the Swedish figuresfor reported sex crimes against all children under 15 was 142/100,000 children in 1992, and 169/100,000 in 2001.<p style=”padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; “>These figures suggest that during the 1990s a child in Sweden, possibly the most secularised country in Europe, was between 10 and 30 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than an American Catholic was by his priest. Even making allowances for the considerable margin of error that must be built into these figures, it's clear that what went on in US Catholic churches was terrible but rather less terrible than what went on at the same time in many other places whereCatholicismwas not involved. If the US Catholic church is a hotbed of child rape, Sweden is an awful lot worse. (Just to be clear here, I think the idea that Sweden is a dangerous country for children is entirely absurd.)”<p style=”padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; “>What were you saying about Sweden again? LOL<p style=”padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; “>Sent from my iPhone

        • abuse has been happening for decades dicky. and how many clergy have escaped justice, or are given amnesty in the vatican?

          the punishment they are feeling right now, not the because the church wanted to make up for its sins, its because people finally got a clue what your church is like and cried for justice

          the RCC would have just continued their crimes against humanity if people did not call them out on it. and for someone really sorry about the crimes of clergy, Ratzy sure loves to give excuses and shift the blame to everyone else.

          • "Confronted with complaints that priests have molested children, some Catholic dioceses have responded by attempting to discredit those who made the allegations. Catholic officials and their attorneys have sought to seal court records, attacked newspapers and impugned the motives and even the sanity of those who have brought complaints against priests. Church officials say that dioceses and archdioceses in the United States are autonomous when it comes to dealing with priests who molest children and that in dioceses where mistakes were made, it wasn't because of a lack of sensitivity, but a lack of education on how to handle the issue." – bishopaccountability.org

            – THESE THINGS HIT CLOSE TO HOME. Have you ever wondered why the Philippines is a breeding ground for corruption? And then we boast of being the capital of Catholicism in Asia. Eeew!

            http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news/1987_12

          • Catholic Officials Strike Back at Charges of Child Abuse

            By Carl M. Cannon
            Mercury News Washington Bureau
            San Jose Mercury News
            December 31, 1987
            http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news/1987_12

            – I was more than a year old by the time of this publication, with the country barely coping with the aftermath of Marcos' tyranny. That's understandable; those in power were still trying to make a new Constitution. However, other countries such as the US are going in leaps and bounds trying to punish pedophile priests in their area; their laws have grown fangs and claws to protect the welfare of American children. But how does our own country fare in the Justice meter? ZERO. The reason?

            Filipinos are being kept fanatically ignorant of such cases. 491 years in the making.

      • "And while you're at it, explain why the Church has yet to come up with a justifiable excuse for promoting discrimination against the gay community."

        Because homosexual acts is a sin and that is not an excuse that is clearly stated in scripture! The Church would be inconsistent if she didn't say so.

        • //Because homosexual acts is a sin and that is not an excuse that is clearly stated in scripture! The Church would be inconsistent if she didn't say so. //

          So why don't I see you advocating their summary executions, or telling women to STFU in church (Timothy)? The church would be inconsistent if she didn't say so.

        • //Because homosexual acts is a sin and that is not an excuse that is clearly stated in scripture! //

          Dickie, God endorsed genocide, slavery, rape, and infanticide in the books of Numbers chapter 31. Saying that it's right because it's in the bible doesn't really cut it. Show us hard proof that being gay destroys civilizations.

          I'd suggest you start by asking the folks in San Francisco 😉

          • Homosexual acts are disordered we are not talking a out the old testament and I have no interest in talking about that, I am interested in how you FF's defend the lies your boss purveys. Stop skirting the issue and man up to the discussion.

          • //Homosexual acts are disordered we are not talking a out the old testament and I have no interest in talking about that, I am interested in how you FF's defend the lies your boss purveys.//

            Then show us where Jesus disses homosexuality.

        • This is also the very same scripture that served as the basis for the justification of holy wars such as the Crusades; soldiers since time immemorial are brainwashed by the promise of eternal life, to kill and plunder, in accordance to the will of the Church. The oppressive stance of the Catholic Church against women, has also stemmed from the pages of the Bible, in which Mary Magdalene was branded as a whore, and for women to be treated as commodities, sold slaves and raped and what have you. Moral contradictions abound, incest, the murder of innocent children, human sacrifice…. The list goes on.

          You see, using the scripture as a basis on how we live our earthly lives, can set us back to medieval times, and there's a reason why historians call it the DARK ages.

    • Just a superficial analysis of dboncan’s discourse tactics:

      I noticed that when dboncan is pushed into a corner, one of three things happens:

      1. He threatens to use physical violence

      2. He manages to change the subject or accuses the other party of it

      3. The thread comes to an abrupt stop

      He’s done other things on very rare occasions (like admit the mistake and apologize) but I consider these outlier events. I would quote specific examples (yeah, I document EVERYTHING, and you know it), but it’s just not worth my time.

      So, I guess from this point on, if any of the above happens to you, perhaps it’s because someone might be running out of valid arguments. Oh, and you can add to my list as you see fit!

      Wow Señor dboncan, you’ve made so much impact on my life I’ve managed to dissect your idiolect without noticing! Keep it up! And keep up our site traffic, too! Ü

      A pleasant evening to one and all!

      Love and peace,

      rondevera

      • And this proves only what…? that there are/were members of the clergy and yes, even popes who were sinners and bungling idiots… That in no way disproves that what the Carhokuc church teaches is wrong.Sent from my iPhone

        • Well for starters, this proves that the Church can't really be trusted because the members of the clergy and yes, even the pope, may be well…you know…sinners and bungling idiots.

        • It proves that the Catholic doctrine is fallible after all and that the church is ruled by men who make mistakes just like the rest of us, or that the only difference between us and these men of the cloth is actually just the cloth itself. They should adapt their teachings to make it acceptable to the modern mind and relevant to the modern world, specifically to the modern Philippines which had been struggling for the last 400 years to catch up with the rest of Asia despite the massive presence of god in our country.

          • And yet here She stands after 2000 years! Go figure huh. You can't imagine how many people, dynasties, governments have said that about the church and are now all 6feet under.Sent from my iPhone

          • Hi DBoncan. When you say "and yet she stands after 2000 years," is that meant to refute Okeechobeeman's statement about the Church's fallibility? Are you saying that longevity is tantamount to infallibility?

          • Yes it does in a sense because she was referring to impeccability and not infallibility. The only reason for the church's longevity is the gift of infallibility to her magisterium. I have shown in fact that despite the human failings of many who have ruled the church she has survived. I can't discount those saints who have lived and led heroic lives.Sent from my iPhone

          • //I can't discount those saints who have lived and led heroic lives.//

            Let us all remember Thomas More, who heroically burned several people at the stake.

          • [The only reason for the church’s longevity is the gift of infallibility to her magisterium.]

            Have you seriously considered, investigated, and conclusively ruled out human gullibility?

          • if he believes in following that logic then…

            Hinduism is credited to be the oldest surviving religion clocking 5,000 years old

            dick's argument is invalid. all hail krishna! 3,000 years jebus' senior!

            ooh don't forget one of the 10 ten worst britons in history is St. Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury for all the pointless political upheavals and subsequent deaths he has caused.

          • Infallibility and impeccability go hand in hand and both produce a false, oftentimes twisted, sense of perfection. Infallibility is something that is adopted and not given. Many regimes adopted the doctrine of infallibility a recent one
            being Kim Jong-Il of North Korea, which gave him a god-like status.
            Establishments that adopt this doctrine are inherently dictatorial

          • That's your perception and opinion which does not take into consideration the basis of this doctrine both from 2000 years of sacred tradition and scripture as in the case of the Catholic church. Your analogy is too simplistic as dictators do not claim infallibility by virtue of anything more than their rise to power which finds no continuity from dictator to dictator.Sent from my iPhone

          • The Vatican was a very powerful entity. Some kings were made only with its blessings. The fear of excommunication also ruled the minds of every Catholics. Fear was its greatest asset. We can see this in our own country right now.
            If your are defending your faith in Jesus Christ then I will defend it with you. But if your are defending your loyalty and devotion to a foreign entity, the Vatican and its arm the Roman Catholic Church, then you are on your own because this is indefensible and unforgiveable. It is an affront to our ancestors who sacrificed greatly to rid our country of foreign control. It is an insult to our people who had been treated like lost children by these foreigners for 400 years or so.

          • I don't know where you get your info but in all my years as a Catholic, never once has any fear of punishment ever driven me to support the Church. If any i is the love for Christ and his mandate to proclaim all truth to the ends of the earth! Your understanding of what it means to be excommunicated is a bit distorted. You make it seem that the Catholic Church is a power to contend with… heck she does not even have any temporal powers! Nope no coercion here.

          • But they do have plenty of power. In the old days kings would bow down to the Pope and beg for papal blessings and support. Today in the Phil alone the Vatican has great influence on governmental policies not just spiritually but financially as well. Every Filipino president MUST be a catholic or the people will not vote for him or her. Estrada, Arroyo, Marcos, etc, these brave symbols of Filipino morality had to have the backing of the church. Historians suspect that the Catholic church was behind the execution of Dr. Jose Rizal because they found that Dr. Rizal was too smart and too brave to be an indio and too daring to accuse the church of imperfection. The catholic church is very powerful in the Phil and this is undisputable.

          • Like what government spiritual and financial policies for example are under the direct influence of the Vatican? Please elaborate.

          • First it is important to know what type of organization the Roman Catholic Church is:
            1. It employs a lot of people worlwide (priests, bishops, etc). The number of bishops alone is about 3,000. These people do not absolve sins and save souls for free. They have everyday needs just like we less perfect people do. They are paid for their services. They also have health insurance coverage and pensions when they retire. Alas they too get sick and get old. The Vatican needs billions of dollars to pay for all of these. The coins you put in the basket at Sunday mass or the rosaries you buy cannot pay for these.

            (On a side note, I suspect that the reason for the celibacy requirement is to keep the expenses low. 10,000 priests who get married all of a sudden and have kids will surely triple, quaruple, googuple, the RCC expenses.)

            In the Phil, and other countries, the RCC acts like a corporation with non-profit religious status, thus tax-exempt. The RCC needs revenue just like any other business to stay afloat.

            2. The Vatican controls a big chunk of the Philippine economy…

          • We must put an end to Filipino submissiveness to these foreigners and it is the duty of every Filipino to accomplish this for the sake of the future of our country. Your faith in Jesus can never be attacked by anyone (a smart atheist respects other people's beliefs while a dumb atheist engages in religious arguments knowing full well that he can never win). I'm not your enemy, dboncan, and I am impressed by your fighting spirit. We need Filipinos like you on our side, your people's side, to elevate us, promote a pure Filipino identity that we can be proud of, and to gain self-respect
            as well as respect from our Asian brothers and sisters. We need to rid our country and rid our lives of anymore foreign control and there is a very peaceful, respectable way to do this that will also prove to be financially beneficial to our country.

          • invalid argument.

            besides how many revisions and schisms did it go through. for such an infallible church why the need to change so much?

            and despite all the schisms, wars and heresy; what's bringing it down is the sex abuse scandals. really look at the west and why they call it a cult nowadays.

            in media we call that a "capone"

          • That's because you are confused as to what infallibility means and erroneously attribute it to impeccability.Sent from my iPhone

          • So Ron you have finally given up reason and decency and decided to be petty… As I thought deep down its all pretension!Sent from my iPhone

          • I will never give up on reason and decency. But I have given up on you.

            You still don't get it and I don't think you ever will.

            …terminal case.

          • Meanwhile, just a few posts up:
            //Someone here needs attention! Hellooo anyone??//
            //Isa pang KSP… Kawawa!//
            //Humihirit ka pa eh nakatago naman ang buntot mo sa ilalim ng iyong puet?//
            //KSP kawawa naman talaga… ok here it is, okay ka na?//

            So where's your reason and decency? Well, aren't you the darnadest hypocrite.

          • The hypocrite is the one who starts it and blames it on the one who sees it to it's conclusion. Next time you want to be treated decently treat people thesame.Sent from my iPhone

          • "The hypocrite is the one who starts it and blames it on the one who sees it to it's conclusion" – LOL, is this how the dboncan dictionary defines hypocrisy?

            "Next time you want to be treated decently treat people the same." – said the person who also said the following:

            "Someone here needs attention! Hellooo anyone??"
            "Isa pang KSP… Kawawa!"
            "Humihirit ka pa eh nakatago naman ang buntot mo sa ilalim ng iyong puet?"
            "KSP kawawa naman talaga… ok here it is, okay ka na?"

            Like I said…

            illogical…

            hypocrite…

            …terminal case.

          • Ron, Ron, Ron… when you can't show evidence of your allegation that I use religious arguments, you now play the ad hominem game… changing the issue once again. Typical flip flopping!

          • ROTFL Wow! Amazingly clueless. Whatever you say, dude.

            Lemme see, I'll just cut and paste this:

            "All that blabbering doesn't change the fact that you are an illogical hypocrite"

          • same-same: Ron, Ron, Ron… when you can't show evidence of your allegation that I use religious arguments, you now play the ad hominem game… changing the issue once again. Typical flip flopping!

          • Why are you still replying? Are you trolling or what? Any more that you say won't change what people on this thread think about you:

            An illogical, hypocritical drone of the Catholic Church.

            So anyways, do not make this thread any longer. You can't seem to understand our arguments and we think you are a hopeless bigot. That's established. Just quit it. If you reply to this giving a litany of hoo-haas, then you're just making yourself a bigger sore loser than you already are.

          • I predict any of the following:

            1. He will question the validity of your source or throw in his own biased source
            2. He will come up with a long-winded litany that has no direct relation whatsoever to your argument
            3. He will throw in a red herring
            4. He will throw in ad hominems
            5. He will ignore this thread

            Like I said, illogical hypocrite.

            Ugh, this is getting too repetitive, I'm starting to annoy myself ^_^

          • 6. He seems to be trigger-happy flaunting his iPhone, like the rest of us are drooling over it.

          • //The hypocrite is the one who starts it and blames it on the one who sees it to it's conclusion. //

            The hypocrite is the one who thinks that because people are calling him out for his tripe, he gets a free pass at being a douchebag.

          • Yes she stands after 2000 years the reason being she owns so much land that people rely on. In the Phil alone the Vatican at one time was the largest land owner. I think the biggest reason that the RCC still stands for so long is because the faithful could not tell the difference between faith in Jesus Christ and membership to the RCC anymore. Filipinos have a lot of faith in Jesus Christ that they are actually the ones who bring Jesus into the Roman Catholic Church. We Filipinos SHOULD KNOW THE DIFFERENCE between Faith in Jesus and being a subject of the Vatican.

          • And yet it never made the Philippines a better place even after 400 years or so. Our main source of "moral values" never made our country the most morally upright people in Asia. Instead it made Filipinos the most loyal subjects of the Vatican, a foreign entity. You are a great example, dboncan. You are very loyal to the RCC, to the Vatican. But is it your faith in Jesus that you are defending, or is it your membership to the RCC? The two are really very different concepts.

  14. The Roman Catholic Church had dominated Filipino lives for the last 400 years or so and not once did it produce a government that can be trusted. What kind of morality had this Church promoting in the Filipino society? 400 years of immersion in holy catholism should have produced a society that is morally straight and a government that is enviable in it's moral values, it's truthfulness, it's honesty, it's unselfishness. Instead, the Roman Catholic Church had produced a miserably corrupt government and a society that is seemingly hopeless. I say the Roman Catholic Church is a miserable failure in the Philippines, as it is in Haiti, in Mexico, and all the other 99% of Catholic countries in the world. The big question is: What are Filipinos going to do about it? What are the young free-thinking Filipinos going to do to help the Philippines emerge from this 400-year choke hold by the Roman Catholic Church?

    • I will tell you what the Freethinkers will do, they will lie to their teeth and distort and defame just like this article. I call this moral whimpery!

        • I will definitely take that as a compliment, thank you. At least I know on which moral ground I stand on.Sent from my iPhone

          • I admire your conviction. We need people like you to take charge of the future of our people. Unfortunately you are on the other side. You are the kind of dedicated people who give the Roman Catholic Church a moral footing. This is because the Roman Catholic Church was never built on a moral foundation. It hijacked the ministry of Jesus Christ and turned it into an empire. It’s time for us Filipinos to dedicate our lives for the future of our people and to stop relying on the Roman Catholic Church, on foreign entities like the so-called Holy See, to think for us

          • I am Catholic first… as far a I am concerned, being Catholic is universal not foreign. I think your mixed up.

          • Have you ever identified yourself as a Christian first? Catholics will always say "I'm a Catholic". I have never heard them say "I'm a Christian." The Catholic Church is a foreign denomination of Christianity. It is run and led by foreigners, mostly Italians. The pope is a German. Jesus Christ is a universal entity. If you want to call yourself "universal", you call yourself "Christian." It is very clear. No mix up.

          • My friend until Martin Luther started the protestant revolt, the Christian church had always been the CAtholic Church. The word Catholic was first used by Ignatius of Antioch in 108AD as he was being led to Rome to be martyred. The Church then started in the middle east and spread through out the world therefor it' universality… there is no such thing as it being a foreign church. The term Christian as a title for Catholics was never questioned until fundamentalist protestants started hurling anti-Catholic tirades. It would be an advantage on your part to know church history before drawing conclusions.

          • //The Church then started in the middle east and spread through out the world therefor it' universality… there is no such thing as it being a foreign church.//

            We call that the crusades Dickie, and while you may celebrate it, people tend to despise that time period for the wanton slaughter of innocent civilians on both sides, all committed in God's name.

          • //The term Christian as a title for Catholics was never questioned until fundamentalist protestants started hurling anti-Catholic tirades.//

            You mean until people realized that their brand of crazy wasn't the sort of crazy the Catholic Church wanted for its cabal.

          • //My friend until Martin Luther started the protestant revolt, the Christian church had always been the CAtholic Church. //

            And let us all remember that Luther's original reason for leaving the church was because of the blatant corruption that had worked its way into the RCC's system, which included paying for indulgences to have one's sins forgiven.

          • what ever happened to the dboncan i know and love? At least before you were giving arguments for the people here to scrutinize, no matter how stupid and senseless it may be. Now you're just being petty

          • //At least before you were giving arguments for the people here to scrutinize, no matter how stupid and senseless it may be. //

            That was before we pointed out that the sources he copy-pasta'd from, like the Family Research Council, had a track for lying.

          • Yup so what's your question? I made my point regarding Red Tani's article and the fabrications therein which NO ONE bothered to address and instead chose to talk about the same old debunked staple of clergy abuse etc…

          • You people are smart and willing to achieve your goals in this discussion. But are you proud enough Filipinos and do you appreciate our ancestors and our founding fathers? The issue here is the persistent influencing of these foreign-run churches to dominate our everyday lives. For one thing, it's time for us Filipinos to accept that Jesus and the Virgin Mary never looked like what we see in the pictures. It's time we realize that we Filipinos are very capable of running our own lives as Filipinos and do not need directions from these foreign churches. If we accomplish this we will gain dignity and respect from our Asian neighbors. This could also be the birth of a national identity that we can be proud of. Who knows, it might even lead to our prosperity. We need intelligent Filipinos like you to start this movement.

          • Foreign-run churches?… LOL last time I checked, Archbishop Tagle is a Filipino. I am a proud Filipino but God's servant first!

          • You are very smart, dboncan. Use that intelligence and energy to elevate your people. Let us gain dignity for ourselves and the future of our country. These archbishops are paid products of these foreign churches.

          • I see so church-stooge first, filipino second got it.

            Why not be like religious Ireland and vatican-host Italy? their country and people first, sucking up to the vatican is dead last.

          • and yet here you are. coming back with flawed arguments just to be made fun of.

            and still trying to get our attention, with whiny juvenile and downright bully tactics. and you complain when we don't take you seriously.

          • Seriously, dboncan, why do you come here with that attitude? What is your mission?

            Obviously, you have no intention of winning us over nor of listening to our reasoning with an open mind. You don't have anything positive and productive in mind whenever you come here. I attempted to win you over with my article using logic but nothing good came out of that because you didn't have an open mind and were so arrogant to even refuse to learn basic LGBT terminology. Yes, I said arrogant.

            All you do is contradict us and challenge us to a debate with no intent of resolution. Why?

            If you want to contradict us for the sake of contradicting us, at least improve your grasp of logic and logical debate because you always end up embarrassing your self when you resort to such language and threats of violence. I mean, "Isa pang KSP… Kawawa!", or "just say where and when buddy!" Seriously????? Seriously???

            And if contradicting us is your only mission, then you are a shame to your shepherd because he asked you to help us rejoin your flock, not to exchange insults with us and threaten us with violence.

            So you see, if you use violence, if you don't use logic, if you act contrary to what you preach, then this makes you a violent illogical hypocrite.

            Is that how you want us to perceive you? Oh, please prove me wrong.

            In the meantime, big thanks for bringing in site traffic.

            An afternoon full of love and peace!

            rondevera

          • He still will not acknowledge that his assertion that homosexuality was the cause of the Church rapes has been debunked even by Catholics themselves who, unlike some, have maintained a spirit of charity, in its original sense. Accusing someone of dishonesty while being abjectly intellectually dishonest and unreasonable, that is his essence as a commenter.

          • ARROGANT

            He takes pride in displaying his vast knowledge of Catholic literature, history and dogma, and thinks that we get intimidated by it. Nice try. But why don't you go out in the streets of your city and see if any of those are applicable to modern life.

          • Ron is your goal in life site traffic?… big deal it just reinforces the point that many of you here are KSP. I started by criticizing the article above these comments regarding the lies in Red Tani's article on contraception and without refuting me, everyone starts injecting idiotic, off topic issues like clergy abuse, LGBT and for heaven's sake an atrocious take on Martin Luther. Really??? That's what this FFt society is all about? No wonder!… to top it, all the acerbic language and seeming threats which I actually face head on, only for you to make it an LGBT issue. There must be something amiss with you people… so you're happy for the site traffic… well woop di doo!

          • Ron, let me make this clear, when someone I have asked in the past persists on touting me by making hints that he knows where I work, what my age is and claims to know that I have a family, I consider that a threat. Now I do not take threats to my person and my family sitting down. Men, yes, Real Men and even women do not take threats sitting down. I wanted to take his threat to it's conclusion and find out how far he was willing to take this. I have been very impersonal with my dealings with everyone here and you know that. The decorum I have maintained up until this idiot overstepped his line, has been very civil. Ron de Vera, you have had a discussion with me and you know that.I criticized the article of Tani above hoping that someone knowledgable would be able to discuss with me my critique of that work… apparently, for this group, this is too much to ask for. What in my critique of Tani's article was illogical.., Ron de Vera please point it out?

          • ILLOGICAL: "Ron is your goal in life site traffic?" – no valid logical basis.

            ILLOGICAL: "all the acerbic language and seeming threats which I actually face head on, only for you to make it an LGBT issue" – I used my LGBT article as an example when I said I tried logical reasoning with you, I didn't actually turn this discussion into an LGBT issue.

            ILLOGICAL: "What in my critique of Tani's article was illogical" – asking me to prove something I did not claim. It's not your critique that's illogical. It's you, in general.

            HYPOCRITE: "Men, yes, Real Men and even women do not take threats sitting down" – According to which doctrine? Men and women are supposed to turn the other cheek.

            HYPOCRITE: "Humihirit ka pa eh nakatago naman ang buntot mo sa ilalim ng iyong puet?" – using crass and provocative language instead of preaching and helping others understand the word of their god.

            Ugh, this is getting boring. *yawn*

            If I stop responding, I don't mean any disrespect. It just means I've declared this a terminal case and I've completely lost interest.

            A happy day to everyone! 🙂

            rondevera

          • //Isa pang KSP… Kawawa!//

            This from the 40-year old man who brags that each message is sent from his iPhone.

            We get it Dickie – you're too fucking stupid to use a Galaxy. You have my sympathies.

          • //LOL last time I checked, Archbishop Tagle is a Filipino.//

            Who takes his orders from the Vatican, which is recognized as an independent state in Europe.

          • //. I am a proud Filipino but God's servant first! //

            So you admit that in times of war, you'd serve the Vatican first over our own nation.

            Don't we have laws for treason? XD

          • How do you serve god, dboncan? God is the creator of all things, big and small. How do you serve someone who is that powerful? Do you cook him breakfast? Do you wash his feet? Do you clean his bedroom? Who is this god that you serve? Could it be the Roman Catholic Church? Is the RCC god now? We are not your enemies, dboncan. We are all Filipinos and we should work together to elevate our people and gain respect from the rest of the world. Think about it.

          • Respect can only come via a proper reasoned discussion of issues and not by personal attacks or acerbic language. I have always tried to maintain a certain amount of civility in my discussions trying all the time to stay within the topic at hand. It is this lack of respect and lack of decency in language that makes civil discourse like these counter-productive. Before you presume to know how I live my faith and what the Church teaches, I suggest you study it first. It appears to me that you have a tremendous amount of misconceptions about it.

          • You are absoulutely right, dboncan. We will never achieve anything by slamming each other. Those of you who were involved in this comment stream please refrain from personal attacks. We should treat each other respectfully so that we can gain respect from each other and achieve something. I'm not your enemy, dboncan, and not an enemy of anyone here. My intention will be very clear and it is not personal. I was baptized as a Catholic when I was a few days old, never had a chance to make a choice about it. I was expected to serve god and live the rest of my life as a good catholic, a good servant of god. But I came to thinking who is this god that I was to serve? The answer became very clear to me—the "god" I was to dedicate my life to was the establishment, the Roman Catholic Church, the Vatican, the Holy See, a foreign entity. I realized that "serving god" was synonymous with "serving church." But this issue is not about me. It is about the purpose of the Vatican in our country. What is it? What are they hoping to accomplish? To save Filipino souls? Can anyone tell me?

          • on the top of my head the salvation of souls is secondary to 1) money and 2) political clout

            1) if they don't care about money why are they horrified at the idea of being taxed? or that they have billions in investments that they guard so enviously.

            2) if they claim they respect the laws, why do they bend the rules, protect rapists and get offended if the laws are made for the benefit of everyone, including the people they hate (LGBTs)?

            and why are they unhappy that countries like ireland closed their vatican embassy. given the fact the vatican offers no economic trade, defense treaties or political exchange.

          • ANOTHER THING.

            Why do they openly threaten our president with excommunication? Such display of egotism is synonymous with spiritual terrorism, which acts to instill fear and blind obedience amongst the Filipino people. The CBCP is shameless.

          • The way I see it, the RCC in the Philippines has two faces. One is a religious face and the other a business face. The religious face is what we see all around us but the business face is veiled and not too many Filipinos can see it nor willing to look at it. The Vatican has been in the Phil for well over 400 years now and throughout these centuries it amassed a staggering wealth– a "gold mine" which they themselves never expected in the start. This "gold mine" consists of agricultural lands, entire municipalities, rental properties usually around churches, and schools—lots of catholic schools. Some of you probably even attended those catholic schools.

          • actually the most staggering is their billions in investments in PHILEX despite their anti-mining stance.

            for a non-profit org they sure have alot of private businesses – tax free

          • Basti,

            I'm reading a very scandalous website right now, which details the sex abuse cases in the united states during the 1970's, and there was one line there that made me lose sleep:

            "Beyond the criminal indictment, the Lafayette Diocese and a number of insurance companies have, in out-of-court settlements, already agreed to payments of at least $4.2 million to families of nine of Gauthe’s victims in Vermilion Parish. Plaintiffs attorneys Raul Bencomo and Paul Hebert refuse to confirm or deny the amounts or terms of the individual settlements. Eleven additional suits have been filed by other victims for claims of approximately $114 million. But these claims represent only a minority of victims. "

            I wonder where our offerings and donations go…………

          • The Vatican owns so much land (someone estimated at more than 50%) in the Phil that they practically owned half the country. They of course invest again for more hefty returns. And they don't pay taxes! This is where the religious face comes in. The RCC needs to keep on saving souls and absolving sins in order to keep the classification as a non-profit, thus exempt from taxes. Donations that you put in the basket at Sunday mass is only for you to feel good. Confessions, communions, baptisms, eucharist—it's all a ruse. This is not only happening in our country but even in Italy. The Italian govermnment is now taxing the Vatican on its businesses (Google "Italy Ends Vatican Tax Exemptions").

          • //If you're really interested and sincere about you're questions, go to my blog site and lets talk http://astrugglingdad.wordpress.com/ //

            Dickie, you'll always be a sanctimonious bigot – changing the venue won't make you any less vile.

            //As it stands this isn't the place where a respectful exchange can be had. Thanks//

            Says the man who resorts to misogynistic jabs and homophobic remarks.,

          • "Are you a homosexual? Just asking."

            What is your point in asking him this question? Just asking.

          • Curious, because from my experience, many homosexuals I encounter in arguments become very personal and very wordy. In fact many times they don't practice any restraint in their words. That a good enough explanation for you?

          • //because from my experience, many homosexuals I encounter in arguments become very personal and very wordy.//

            Interesting. I guess basing from your experience…you are a homosexual? Just asking.

          • ooohhh…trying to save face huh? not gonna work. And oh, from my experience, when bigoted people lose an argument, they tend to give lousy talking points…what you're doing is a good example

          • [Curious, because from my experience, many homosexuals I encounter in arguments become very personal and very wordy.]

            Most people tend to become flustered when you're trying to justify that something is wrong with them just because your religion says so.

          • At what point in my entire discussion with anyone in this site did I ever bring up religious reasons for saying that homosexuality is unnatural or disordered… please show me when I brought up a religious argument.

          • "please show me when I brought up a religious argument."

            Right here:

            Twin_Skies: And while you're at it, explain why the Church has yet to come up with a justifiable excuse for promoting discrimination against the gay community.

            dboncan: Because homosexual acts is a sin and that is not an excuse that is clearly stated in scripture! The Church would be inconsistent if she didn't say so.

          • So we've already got 'illogical' and 'hypocrite' covered. Now which one should I add, 'liar' or 'inconsistent'?

          • I said in my arguments against homosexuality. What you cited was an answer to a query about what the church teaches so obviously I would answer it that way since it pertained to why the church views it as a sin.Try again!Sent from my iPhone

          • Wow. You are amazing. Clap clap clap!

            If the Church views it as sin and you say that you are "God's servant first!" , doesn't it follow that whatever arguments you bring forth are aligned with what your church says and do not contradict your church's teachings?

            How can you say that "a person's totality is what a person is… i.e. his nature as a human being" and "I am…God's servant first!" yet detach yourself from the teachings of your faith at your convenience?

            I don't understand how you can say your arguments are not based on your religion when you made the following claims in one breath: "Well i was arguing that it is not another sexual variant. But homosexuality is an orientation even the Catholic Church recognizes that. She also recognizes it as a disordered orientation."

            I document everything, dboncan. There's more where that came from. Meanwhile, you are just reinforcing my belief that you are an illogical hypocrite:

            ILLOGICAL; You follow a set of rules given to you by someone you've never met. You follow it based on faith, not empirical evidence. That is illogical. We've all been illogical at one point or another. Don't act like it's such a bad thing.

            And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” John 20: 28-29

            HYPOCRITE; You act contrary to the teachings of your faith. With the way you've been behaving and the language you've been using…

            "Humihirit ka pa eh nakatago naman ang buntot mo sa ilalim ng iyong puet?"
            "Say that to my face you coward"
            "they will lie to their teeth and distort and defame just like this article. I call this moral whimpery!"

            …you have not been living out two of your seven virtues, patience and kindness.

            Christians should honor the purpose of speech by using our mouths to praise God and leading others to obey the Lord through faith in Jesus Christ. Every word we speak should be “gracious” and “seasoned with salt” (Col. 4:6)

            Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. (Eph. 5:4)

            Shame on you.

          • The problem with you Ron is that your so bigoted against Catholics that whenever you encounter one who can argue frombiology, natural law, philosophy, ethics and even quoting the UN's declaration which you admitted did not support your position, it throws you off. I never argued with you in terms of it bring a sin or it's scriptural implications. You're the one trying to shoehorn your own assessment of me to it.. So which means after all your ranting below, you can't. Dont change the subject re the threat. I was not the one who made it personal. I was putting him in his place. The problem with you people is that you think you can make it personal and hide behind anonymity thinking that people who feel threatened will take it sitting down. Well buddy Christianity also says that I can fight back righteously if it is to defend myself so don't pretend to quote scripture to me falsely when you know very well that your comrades started it. It's what we call LYING! A simple question should have had a simple reply unlike your short dissertation below which by the way makes utter nonsense.Sent from my iPhone

          • Not the discussion per se, but you've attempted it in prior exchanges:
            https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/12/09/to-the….

            [I will end it on this note. You might be interested to see this link" http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02%5D

            Dickie, you cited the Family Research Council more than once to justify why homosexuality was in any way wrong – the FRC is a well-known anti-gay think tank with connections to the US Catholic Church. You don't get any more religiously motivated than when you decide to source them.

          • So your answer is NO thank you for submitting to that. If you label the FRC as anti homosexual then you are right but that's not what you said, you said HATE group. There is a difference. I asked you to show me a single legal complaint, decision or statement by the US Government that classifies the FRC as a hate group…. You could not. Your analogy is really so bad so what if they have ruws with the church, Amnesty International where Ron works was founded by Catholics and had ties with the church too, does that mean its a lackey if the church? What kind of arguments are these.!?Sent from my iPhone

          • 🙂 Aw, come on. Just because I don't like it, it doesn't mean someone has to have a problem.

            Let go of the negativity!

            Cheers! 🙂

            Oh by the way, there are threads here waiting for your response. Maybe we should focus on those instead of blowing up this new thread. Just a thought. 🙂

          • This is another example, who would bother to be so petty as to even look for these kinds of articles… so yes, pettiness also.

          • dboncan: The venue doesn't matter. A respectful exchange can be had anywhere so long as both parties are capable of it.

          • //Humihirit ka pa eh nakatago naman ang buntot mo sa ilalim ng iyong puet?//

            – Where's civility in this remark you made just a day ago?

          • Which is exactly why this country needs another Luther to save us from religious mysticism, idolatry, blind obedience, spiritual terrorism and moral corruption. All our Asian neighbors are well on their way towards the 21st century and here we are, worshipping saints and debating wether condoms are right or wrong. This website has a lot of debunking to do, turning over false beliefs and superstition for the improvement of the lives of millions of Filipino readers. Count me in. <3

          • it is true the most advanced asian nations are downright non-religious: S. Korea, Japan, China, Singapore.

            yet the poorest nations are the ones fanatically devout.

          • What troubles me is the pervading CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE and CULTURE OF INDIFFERENCE that lingers in the Philippines. Why do I say so? I've been reading an american website that's sure to give dboncan a heart attack. it gave detailed accounts of the sex abuse amongst catholic priests in the 1970's, and the acts were horrifying! silence and indifference in the hierarchy feels just like home.

            bishops, nuns, altar boys, seminarians (in the US) and the rest of those in the order kept their lips sealed, and conveniently ignored the fact that their brothers were raping boys as young as 10 or 12. what broke the hearts of the parents was that, they couldn't understand why the church did not turn those rapists into the hands of the law, and opted to RE-ASSIGN those pedophiles instead to another diocese. THE CHURCH WAS MORE CONCERNED TO SAVE THEIR ASS THAN PROTECTING THE WELFARE/SAFETY OF CHILDREN IN THE LAND. thus, the trail of broken boys and shattered lives continued. but some parents decided to fight, caring less if they bring down the roman catholic establishment so long as they get justice.

          • i guess the very reason why dboncan is getting bloody with his arguments and rabidly defends the roman catholic faith, is becoz HE CAN'T STAND OUR GUTS. we speak out. we challenge dogma. we question. we doubt. we fight.

          • There was actually a certain Filipino priest who tried to establish an independent church in the Phil modeled after the Anglican Church. I think his name was Father Aglipay. He tried to do this after the revolution thinking that he would be successful now that the Spaniards were gone but he was wrong. The Vatican was very powerful in the Phil even then and this priest did not succeed–mostly because his fellow Filipinos did not support him.

          • Martin Luther, on a trip to the Vatican, saw that the palatial structures of the Holy See were a contradiction to the miserable lives of the majority of the faithful. The cult of the Indulgences, which promised eternal salvation in exchange for monetary donations, made Luther puke.

            Up until now, I am waiting for the Roman Catholic Church or anyone here who KNOWS CHURCH HISTORY, to kindly present an updated and reliable source of the Church's explanation (apology) for such an atrocious time in their history.

          • Except that Luther was never in Rome nor the Vatican nor was there any account of him puking. His rebellion was against the abuse of indulgences which was “sold” by some idiotic Dominican priest who thought he was doing the Church a favor. Besides in 1521, the year Luther rebelled, the “palatial” structure which you said Luther saw, called St. Peter's, was under construction and was barely started in 1546. You don't need a new “apology” for this “atrocious time” in history or why this happened, we Catholics ourselves find it atrocious and own up to it… all you have to do is look at the Catholic Encyclopedia to know that nothing is being covered up. But this only shows that in the history of the Church, there are normal idiotic people who existed, as now. In a sense, this proves the doctrine of “original sin” which states that we are Princes' behaving like monkeys.Next time though it would be nice to get your facts straight regarding Luther. For your own guidance:One method employed to finance the building of St. Peter's Basilica was the granting of indulgences in return for contributions. A major promoter of this method of fund-raising was Albrecht, Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, who had to clear debts owed to the Roman Curia by contributing to the rebuilding program. To facilitate this, he appointed the German Dominican preacher Johann Tetzel, whose salesmanship provoked a scandal.[22]A German Augustinian priest, Martin Luther, wrote to Archbishop Albrecht arguing against this “selling of indulgences”. He also included his “Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences”, which came to be known as The 95 Theses.[23] This became a factor in starting the Reformation, the birth of Protestantism.

          • Elaborate lecture, short in substance.

            Time and time again, your plethora of "facts" stop at lip service. No one's interested in it. Spare us the history lesson and give us a link that offers RCC's defense regarding its atrocious era of indulgences.

          • "Except that Luther was never in Rome nor the Vatican nor was there any account of him puking." – HYPOCRITE

            You got the nerve to invert metaphor to what's literal, but in the sense of on-point debate, you have no face.

          • //Except that Luther was never in Rome nor the Vatican nor was there any account of him puking.//

            And I don't distinctly remember Jesus ever endorsing discrimination against gays.

          • Jesus Christ is a "universal" entity because he is the object of all Christian denominations. The Roman Catholic Church, despite the use of the word "catholic', is just another denomination. Allah and Muhammad are "universal" entities because they are the objects of all Muslim denominations. As it turned out, Twin_Skies, the earth is actually not flat and ships were able to sail across the oceans and not fall off into the abyss.

          • just for the sake of clarification

            //Allah and Muhammad are "universal" entities because they are the objects of all Muslim denominations//

            uhh no, Allah is just another possible name for Yahweh or Jehova. along with Christianity and Judaism, it is one of three denominations of Abrahimic religions. and all three have divided into more denominations over that past millenia. – and every single one will claim they are the one-true-religion.

            and all three originated somewhere in the vicinity of jerusalem/mid-east, therefore all three religions are a foreign concept.

            each of them settled in their respective seats of power. Judaism in Jerusalem, Islam in Mecca and Catholicism in Rome then Vatican.

            feel free to look it up, its an interesting read.

            of course all three will deny that and all three, at one point in time, would have killed anyone for mentioning that.

            and off-topic, i really do find it funny all three denominations and their denominations will kill and hate each other for worshiping the same higher being differently

            // It is run and led by foreigners, mostly Italians. The pope is a German. //

            oh-so-agree, and don't forget, forced onto our ancestors by Spain, who ironically does not suck up to the vatican anymore.

            it gives colonial mentality a very definite meaning.
            ironic that the relidiots claim secularists are following colonial mentality since the vatican has no more power in Europe, at nakikigaya lang raw tayo.

          • You are absolutely right. It's really funny and very stupid that religions produce people who will hurt other people in the name of the same god.

          • ^ yep

            or that each of them says they are the religion of love and peace, and are prolife. silly dogma just gives loopholes.

          • //Even funnier when that god supposedly promotes peace, forgiving, and non-violence. //

            He/She/It doesn't 🙁
            http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/num/31.html

            [31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
            31:2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.
            31:3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.
            31:4 Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.
            31:5 So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.
            31:6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.
            31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males]

          • I think the Catholic Church was established sometime during the 4th Century. There were Christians way before that and these were the true followers of Jesus Christ. They were persecuted by the Roman authorities because they were not conforming to the established way of thinking–early free-thinkers. The first split of the Catholic Church happened when the Eastern Orthodox Church was established and claimed that it was the true Church. Martin Luther came into the picture sometime in the 15th century I believe. But this is not the issue here.

    • The issue is that we Filipinos are a gullible people. We were dominated by foreigners, mostly caucasians, in much of our written history. The Spanish ruled our lives for more than 300 years. The Americans for about 50 years. The white Vatican for over 400 years now. We learned to equate a white caucasian face with authority and divinity. We Filipinos find it hard to worship god unless he is a white man with long , flowing beard. Jesus has to have long hair and has to look like a 60's hippie from Southern California. The virgin Mary must have white porcelein skin and long eyelashes. If you do not believe me just look at their pictures that are hanging on your walls.

      • //Jesus has to have long hair and has to look like a 60's hippie from Southern California. The virgin Mary must have white porcelein skin and long eyelashes.//

        Which are factually incorrect – both Jesus and Mary would have been middle eastern in appearance.

  15. //I am convinced that the doctrine of infallibility is in a certain sense the key to the certainty with which the faith is confessed and proclaimed, as well as to the life and conduct of the faithful. For once this essential foundation is shaken or destroyed, the most basic truths of our faith likewise begin to break down.//

    Layman's terms: Lie to save my own ass.

    Fucking cowards.

    • it's all about the moral cowardice of people and the lack of their self restraint in their over-sexed lives that dictate why they canot accept the Church's teaching on contraception! Stop the other BS explanations!

      • and yet your beloved priest have mistresses and rape children and their hierarchy make a conscious effort to hide it , your point it moot 😉

        we should direct the term cowardice to your unerring, infallible clergy right? the moment a sex abuse scandal comes around the first instinct is to run and hide, and pretend it never happened.

        so "do as we say not as we do" right?

        stop the BS apologetics!

          • Well, yes – people tend to get very upset when priests start shoving their cocks into things that are considered in inappropriate. Like children's mouths and butt-holes.

            And besides, you haven't really proved that your church is worth respecting – you've done a fine job showing us why it's deserving of nothing but contempt.

          • well you're still ranting about sex? not getting any i suppose.

            people hate the church not without good reason. and priest raping kids is a very good reason.

      • //it's all about the moral cowardice of people and the lack of their self restraint in their over-sexed lives that dictate why they canot accept the Church's teaching on contraception!//

        And yet ironically Dickie, the statistics indicate that the people who are properly educated on their sexual behaviors (read: Sex education), and know about proper contraceptive use are the ones who are more likely to be responsible and careful in their sexual behavior.

        Do you want to know who's over-sexed, and lacking in restraint?

        Priests who fuck kids.

        • Your ignorance is showing. Why is it that after 40years of contraceptives and sex-ed, the number of unintended pregnancies in the US has not significantly decreased? In fact the latest data shows that there are more single parents than ever before, not because of divorce but because of unintended pregnancies. Pitiful argument and once again resorting to the old abuse crap.

          • //Your ignorance is showing. Why is it that after 40years of contraceptives and sex-ed, the number of unintended pregnancies in the US has not significantly decreased?//

            Actually, it has.

            As per the Guttmacher's reports, the prevalent spread of contraceptive use and sex education has been a factor in decreasing the incidences of unwanted pregnancies among teens in the Unites States:
            http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/or_teen_preg_declihttp://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2012/02/08/indhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/08/us-teen

            What is interesting is that while unwanted pregnancies are on a steady decline, they're reportedly increasing among the poor, due to recent cutbacks by the federal government
            on state reproductive health programs, and their pushing for abstinence-only education.
            http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/us/27teen.html?…

            Dickie, you have it the other way around – it's quite obvious that you are the ignorant one.

          • Your ignorance is really showing <a href="http://:http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3809006.pdf:http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3809006.pdf<br />RESULTS: In 2001, 49% of pregnancies in the United States were unintended. The unintended pregnancy rate was 51per 1,000 women aged 15–44, meaning that 5% of this group had an unintended pregnancy. This level was unchanged from 1994. The rate of unintended pregnancy in 2001 was substantially above average among women aged18–24, unmarried (particularly cohabiting) women, low-income women, women who had not completed high schooland minority women. Between 1994 and 2001, the rate of unintended pregnancy declined among adolescents, college graduates and the wealthiest women, but increased among poor and less educated women. The abortion rateand the proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion among all women declined, while the unintendedbirth rate increased. Forty-eight percent of unintended conceptions in 2001 occurred during a month when contraceptives were used, compared with 51% in 1994.Is that a decrease??? 3% for over 40 years of contraception? If you factor in other variables like abstinence and delay in sexual activity, 3% is nothing!

          • the US has the bible belt to thank for the increase in unwanted pregnancies. you know, the states where people like you live? 🙂 conservative, bible-humping, contraceptive-hating, backward thinking, abstinence-pushing homophobes… you know; people like you.

            silly dicky. its proven religious nutjobs tend to have unwanted pregnancies more. as stated: there is a direct corelation between teen pregnancies and religiosity.
            http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/relhttp://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/10/27/the-bi

            referencing: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db46_tabl

            they also have the highest levels of divorce, STD, death penalties and obesity. lol

            fun ironic facts huh.

            as Einstein said: Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. classic example.

          • oh definitely on topic. you are talking about unintended pregnancies in the US, of which the highest concentration is in the bible belt.

            even if it is not, it is worth pointing out.

          • //off topic again… //

            …because the data destroys your assertion. In fact, you yourself claimed that there are more single parents than ever, and all Basti here has cited is that most of these incidences are happening among the US' bible belt areas, specifically where abstinence-only education is enforced by the state.

            Dickie, you're a 40+ year old dentist who practices in St Luke's. Kindly stop acting like a man-child.

          • I don't know what your fixation is with my personal info or my place of work and I may be Catholic But do not take kindly to people who bring it up in these fora especially since it has nothing to do with the discussion. If you want to make this personal then stop hiding behind the anonymous username so we can do this face to face like real men.

          • //If you want to make this personal then stop hiding behind the anonymous username so we can do this face to face like real men.//

            – This is highly reflective of the adage "TALO ANG PIKON…"

            – Why resort to physical means, when a little online research can help? Here's the thing: provide ample research that can provide a counter-attack to all the data they have given, and SAVE YOURSELF. You're a sitting duck against the weight of all the relevant data the freethinkers have thrown at your face.

          • dick you are quite the misogynist man-child.

            dont feel bad a mere girl destroyed your already pitiful self-esteem by pointing out your oh-so-obvious flaws

            do yourself a favor and grow up. and maybe go back to school for some reading comprehension skills.

          • the last i checked, this website is open to all comments. i happen to have a brain and a pair of hands, so i type and make sure my observations hit the target. if you cant stand it, it's not my business.

          • What an idiotic statement when in the first place, I was the one who posted data and the refutation worked against him. I think before you open your mouth you should read the history of the posts. You come off like an ignoramus lecturing me about being personal when it's this fellow who started becoming personal to begin with. My tolerance for bad behavior only goes so far.

          • //Wow tough guy huh?//

            your point dick? pathetic as always 😉 like his church, you're as intimidating as a wet napkin.

          • My point is you talk that way, seemingly tough, because you hide behind anonymity. You say all sorts of vulgarities and even provoke by being personal, that to me is a sign of cowardice! I do not hide behind that because I am willing to face things like a man, are you?Sent from my iPhone

          • anonymity or not your threats are empty and pathetic. and besides who cares? you either debate or you don't.

            if you can't handle free speech, why are you still here? masochist is the proper definition.

            oh and lashing out on a girl for pointing out your flaws. like a man my ass. even more pathetic you delude your self to be a one. a real man can handle criticism. sorry no man-points for you dicky.

            you might be reading too much http://artofmanliness.com/

            enjoy your stay! 😉

          • I stand on what I said… tough guys huh? What you are dishing out is not criticism, it's vulgarity. Where did you study? Why can't you make the distinction between criticism and vulgarity? Between criticism and ad hominems?

          • vulgarity? please your profile pic shows you are a middle age man, but your posts are juvenile.

            hardly ad hominem, if its clear you insist on acting like a child, a misogynist and a homophobe.

            you are free to do so as you it is your right. however, we are free to point it out to you and everyone else.

          • Yes ad hominems and straw man arguments. I was talking about the lies in Tani's article and you keep on ranting about clergy abuse, how is that relevant.?Sent from my iPhone

          • because whatever morality you try to push is bullshit if theyre written and enforced by an immoral and corrupt organization.

            its like asking advice for sexual morality from a rapists, oh wait! It is exactly that! silly me.

            also tani's article is spot-on, history has proven, the Church hates being wrong. it destroys their image of infallibility. this dates back to galileo, evolution, vaccines and the printing press. because if proven wrong, then all your moral authority is nullified.

            Cardinal Leo Joseph Suenens even called Pope Paul out and they didnt need another Galileo Affair.

            all it takes is for your church to make one silly proclamation to make another schismatc , atheist or secularist.

            get my drift? havent we pointed that out time and again.

          • EXACTLY….

            And this is why the Roman Catholic church resorts to threats of excommunication to anyone who dissents their dogma. They loathe it when their authority is being questioned, let alone being challenged, which is why this debate has been a mere reflection of what the BATTLE OF SECULARISM V.S. DOGMA is all about. Religious fanatics mirror all that's left of the decaying morality their church possesses.

          • //! I do not hide behind that because I am willing to face things like a man, are you?

            Sent from my iPhone //

            You call yourself a man, and yet you carry a wimpy iPhone. What gives?

          • Your measure of manliness is what phone a person carries? Babaw mo talaga and you're a member of this group… ? sheeesh!

          • //Your measure of manliness is what phone a person carries? Babaw mo talaga and you're a member of this group… ? //

            Babaw is the man who includes "Sent from my iPhone" with his every inane rant.

          • //Okay then, show me your Galaxy then, so I can verify if a real man owns it. //

            Dickie, what would it be worth to you? No phone or any amount of posturing will make you any less despicable.

          • I have an android phone AND an android tablet. *GASP* the gay man is more man than dboncan! LOL

            sent from my Sony Ericsson Experia Arc but composed using my Samsung Galaxy Tab P1000

          • while on the topic of phone OS and sexuality. and yes, more fun at dick's expense.

            They actually have a study for this…

            "Moreover, new research from Nielsen finds that women show a greater preference for the iPhone while men show a stronger interest in Motorola’s Droid. "
            http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2010/12

            being a GSM geek and an android user, my girlfriend being an IOS girl. this is interesting.

          • or so i have noticed……

            THE FREETHINKERS ARE COOL, CALM, AND COLLECTED. Very elegant debaters, and allow nothing to get to their nerves at a personal level.

          • "like real men" ??? So you attribute cowardice or anything inferior to your preferred methodology to women and "fake" men?

            Ladies and gentlemen, a prime example of sexism and bigotry.

            Congratulations dboncan! You've outdone yourself once again.

          • Oh, you were actually very clear. You clearly think women are inferior therefore things must be done "like real men."

            But again, that's a sexist opinion that you are entitled to have. ^_^

            A pleasant evening to you! Ü

          • Ron don't be stupid twin skies was getting personal I wanted to ask him if he was willing to take it to the next level as men… I assumed he was a man, how is that making women inferior?Sent from my iPhone

          • If twin skies were a woman, would you still say "so we can do this face to face like real men"? or would you say "so we can do this face to face like real WOMEN"?

            No, because only real men are brave. Real men don't hide, real men are strong etc etc, and women don't have to live up to the expectations of being "a real man." That is how the expression makes women inferior, because the reality is women can be just as strong and brave as any "real man" on the street even without your sexist expectations.

            There is no escaping this, dboncan. The expression is sexist. And again, you are entitled to it.

            Love and peace,

            rondevera

          • Ahh so now whenever we talk we have to write he/she… he /she.What an insane way of applying inclusive language! Do you mean to say that when I am talking to a man I am supposed to say “like real men/women?” Are you serious Ron… LOL

          • //Ahh so now whenever we talk we have to write he/she… he /she.What an insane way of applying inclusive language! //

            In your case Dickie, I'd be more than happy to play it say, and refer to you as "it"

          • ron,

            if i existed during my grandma's time, or worse, during the middle ages, i would've been burned at the stake for having a sharp tongue, for having the balls to voice out my opinion, and for simply just being a woman. but that's okay. i'd rather die fighting for something, rather than to live a life dictated by dogma.

            oh boy, am i so glad that Reason and Science are flushing the shit called the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

          • //I assumed he was a man, how is that making women inferior?//

            "Real men," or should I say mature people, don't huff and puff, and resort to baseless sabre-rattling and posturing, as you are doing now. Dickie.

          • //Ron don't be stupid twin skies was getting personal I wanted to ask him if he was willing to take it to the next level as men.//

            Getting personal my hairy ass. You were called out for displaying a false sense of machismo:

            "You talk tough behind that anonymity, just say where and when buddy!"

            And then you proceeded to pretend that we made threats against your family just so you could huff and puff some more.

          • Dear dboncan,

            A good evening to you! I think I'll take a different direction today.

            Time moves forward into a progressive future, not backwards into the medieval dark ages, so I know that the RH Bill will become law. It is inevitable, just like divorce and same-sex marriage as evidenced in other countries. You can say "I won't hold my breath" and I will let you say it because that is your opinion.

            But on the day these bills become law, your comments will be nothing but a memory of the past.

            Until then, I will only spend my time and energy on people who actually matter, who can actually help turn the bills into law instead of wasting my time on your sexist, bigoted, remarks, and that is my opinion.

            A blessed evening to you and everyone! ^_^

            Love and peace,

            rondevera

          • “But on the day these bills become law, your comments will be nothing but a memory of the past.”Wouldn't you wish. Not while the Church is here. Not while we are here!Sent from my iPhone

          • //Wouldn't you wish. Not while the Church is here. Not while we are here!//

            That's what the Klan said about desegregation 😉

          • Dickie, your lack of reading comprehension never fails to surprise me 😉

            Here's the relevant section of the report you ignored, which is pretty surprising since it was right in the first paragraph:

            […by Kathryn Kost and Stanley Henshaw of the Guttmacher Institute. In 2008, the teen pregnancy rate was 67.8 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15–19, which means that about 7% of U.S. teens became pregnant that year. This rate represents a 42% decline from the peak in 1990 (116.9 per 1,000). Similarly, the birthrate declined 35% between 1991 and 2008, from 61.8 to 40.2 births per 1,000 teens; the abortion rate declined 59% from its 1988 peak of 43.5 abortions per 1,000 teens to its 2008 level of 17.8 per 1,000.]

          • so now you narrow it down to the 15-19 year olds? the figure I gave you is an overall 15-44. teen pregnancy declined not because of contraception only but also because of the awareness of the dangers of STD. Stop skirting the issue… overall it is only a 3% decline… that is what is important because after all the majority of contraceptive users are not the 15-19 age range!

          • Let's look at a more updated study on the same matter, dickie: Here's one that covers the same time period of the article you posted, except with additional information and insight:
            http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/08/24/ind

            [Analyzing U.S. government data from the National Survey of Family Growth and other sources, Finer and Zolna found that of the 6.7 million pregnancies in 2006, nearly half (49%) were unintended. Although some unintended pregnancies are accepted or even welcomed, more than four in ten (43%) end in abortion. Unintended pregnancy rates are elevated not only among poor and low-income women, but also among women aged 18–24, cohabiting women and minority women. It is important to note, however, that poor women have high unintended pregnancy rates nearly across the board, regardless of their education, race and ethnicity, marital status or age.

            In contrast to the high rates among certain groups, some women in the United States are having considerable success timing and spacing their pregnancies. Higher-income women, white women, college graduates and married women have relatively low unintended pregnancy rates (as low as 17 per 1,000 among higher-income white women—one-third the national rate of 52 per 1,000), suggesting that women who have better access to reproductive health services, have achieved their educational goals or are in relationships that support a desired pregnancy are more likely than other women to achieve planned pregnancies and avoid those they do not want.

            “These data suggest that women who lead stable lives—women who are older, more affluent and better-educated—tend to have better reproductive health outcomes, while women whose lives are less stable, such as younger, poorer or less educated women, have higher rates of unplanned pregnancies, unwanted births and abortions,” said Finer. “They also show that marriage is not, in and of itself, a solution to the problems women have in controlling their fertility: In fact, poor women who are married have unintended pregnancy rates more than twice as high as those of higher-income women who are unmarried or cohabiting]

            In short, it's often the poor who are more likely to experience unwanted pregnancies, because of their lack of access to proper reproductive health medicines, facilities or education.

            The same RH services you're denying our women.

            Once again, you've been caught making a pitiful attempt to cherry-pick you own sources, Dickie. Or should I call you Szell?

          • And yet this is what this study says… if contraception was effective you would see an across the board decrease which proves my point! The rise in the lower income groupIn 1994, the unintended pregnancy rate among women with incomes below the federal poverty line was 88 per 1,000 women aged 15–44; it increased to 120 in 2001 and 132 in 2006—a 50% rise over the period. At the same time, the rate among higher-income women (those with incomes at or above 200% of the poverty line) fell from 34 in 1994 to 28 in 2001 and 24 in 2006—a 29% decrease. Poor women’s high rate of unintended pregnancy results in their also having high—and increasing—rates of both abortions (52 per 1,000) and unplanned births (66 per 1,000). In 2006, poor women had an unintended pregnancy rate five times that of higher-income women, and an unintended birth rate six times as high…It is important to note, however, that poor women have high unintended pregnancy rates nearly across the board, regardless of their education, race and ethnicity, marital status or age.Even the fall among the WASP's is only 29%! That says a lot considering that contraceptives have been around for 50 years in the U.S…. this is a prolific and dismal failure!

          • [.. if contraception was effective you would see an across the board decrease which proves my point! The rise in the lower income group]

            The same income group you love parading around is experiencing higher than average unwanted pregnancies exactly because of lack of access to the same reproductive health options as more well-off women.

            But while these options should have been made available to them through government health care programs, people like you have been moving to cut off support for these programs because you think it makes Baby Jesus upset.

            Anybody with a decent net connection can access any news source in the US (Except for Faux News, of course) and figure it out for themselves.

            So tell us Dickie – how do you manage to read everything you type with your head so far up your ass?

          • //That says a lot considering that contraceptives have been around for 50 years in the U.S…. this is a prolific and dismal failure! //

            The funny thing you failed to mention is that the incidences of abortions, unwanted pregnancies, and STD spread rose at the same time that Dubya tried to push for abstinence-only programs across the states.
            http://nsrc.sfsu.edu/article/abstinence_only_fail

          • //Why is it that after 40years of contraceptives and sex-ed, the number of unintended pregnancies in the US has not significantly decreased?//

            Why is is that after 16 years of abstinence-only education from the Church, the number of maternal deaths in the Philippines has not significantly decreased?

          • That was not what we were talking about, I was addressing Tani's BS about the commission. Don't change the subject.

          • The commission is not the driving force behind CBCP its the teaching against contraception that had been held by the church since her early years! Paul VI took the initiative not to change what has always been taught, as what our Bishops are doing regardless of whatever stupidity some of the clergy do. The commission is only made up of 15 Bishops, the rest of what Tani's distorted article says, are members, had nothing to do with the voting. They were there on an advisory capacity. lets get that straight! So yes part of the reason why we dont want the RHBIll is because we do not believe that contraception should be institutionalized. I will not be forced to pay for someones's lack of self-control or sexual appetites. If you want to have sex without consequences, then you pay for it!

          • //So yes part of the reason why we dont want the RHBIll is because we do not believe that contraception should be institutionalized. I will not be forced to pay for someones's lack of self-control or sexual appetites.//

            I find you funny Dickie. You're against paying extra money in your taxes and yet here you are, going against the RH Bill. What do you think is costlier?

            The Government providing child care services for children that our women cannot afford to clothe or feed, or the collective measures that guarantee that less of these pregnancies happen in the first place?

            //. If you want to have sex without consequences, then you pay for it! //

            And once again, you're contradicting yourself. If our women had access to better education, I doubt they'd be so inclined to think that every act of sex they have goes on without consequences.

          • But but I am using contraception for the very fact that I want to have sex without consequences! I also pay for it (contraception), too. dboncan acts like sex without consequences is such a bad thing. Tsk tsk. xD

  16. Maybe that's why the RCC is so hot in this country, members of both groups find it hard to admit they're wrong.

    Or maybe the church is the reason the common Juan finds it so hard to admit his faults.

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here