Take a cold shower
Next up we have an Archbishop in the Philippines saying why contraception is such a bad terrible wicked thing.
Archbishop Lagdameo argued the bill would not solve the problems of population growth but would only undermine the dignity of marriage and endanger women. He said that artificial contraceptives cause physical and psychological harm to women.
Whereas having children that they don’t want to have causes no physical and psychological harm to women at all, good heavens no. Women are invariably better off if they are forced to produce as many children as they can churn out, no matter how poor they are, no matter how much they might prefer to have one child or two children that they could hope to feed well and educate well rather than five or ten or fifteen that they couldn’t, no matter how desperately they want to do well by a small number of children rather than hopelessly badly by an unmanageable number – no no, that is all an illusion, god knows better and Archbishop Lagdameo knows better and the pope knows better; they all know that really – despite appearances – all those emaciated malaria-ridden illiterate children and their exhausted despairing frustrated parents with their demolished hopes are a far better outcome than a smaller number of healthier educated children. Of course. Because – um – god will provide. As we have seen. There are no starving malaria-ridden illiterate children really – god swoops in at the last minute and makes everything come out all right for them. Archbishop Lagdameo hands out popsicles and college scholarships and everyone has a good laugh and the dog has puppies and roll credits.
Archbishop of Manila Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales, addressing the crowd after the Mass, said couples should instead practice sexual self-control.
Why? Why, you miserable shits? Why, when there are ways to have and enjoy sex and prevent conception, should they spurn the harmless technology and practice sexual self-control instead? What is the point?
There is no point. It’s just control-freakery, it’s just pushing people around and making them be miserable for the sake of it. Either do without sex despite being married, or have four times as many children as you can care for properly, or burn in hell for eternity. Why? Because.
Why does this kind of thing get me so riled? Because it’s so hateful. It’s so careful not to be about what is actually good and beneficial for people, it is so careful not to take that into account, or to take it into account only to do the opposite. Because these god-huggers have power, believers listen to them, and the bastards use it to make people worse off. And they do it with a glow of self-righteousness, too. They should be squirming with shame.
Say amen, somebody.
I am so fed up with men (priests, bishops, cardinals, senators, TV celebrity money handlers) and some women (e.g. Phyllis Schlafly) who take their hatred of women and children and the human race, shove it into a toothpaste tube, and squeeze out strips of minty fresh and completely fake pious concern for physical and psychological harm to women.
Some of those guys are already squirming in shame, generated by their other sinful deeds. But how delicious to make others squirm with shame over being human beings behaving as human beings. That power is an aphrodisiac nectar.
Arzobispo Lagdameo is so going to be stunned to discover the fine reward waiting for him in heaven.
How remarkable that these publically celibut men want to make everyone else practice sexual abstinence, is there the faint wiff of jealousy. besides i thought it was common knowledge that the reason for being against contreceptives is to do with breading more little catholics.
It’s more than just control freakery, though it is no doubt that too. It’s a simple misunderstanding of sexuality, and it’s a misunderstanding that gets them into trouble because of the requirement of celibacy for clergy.
The Church thinks of sex in terms of sex acts, not in terms of relationship. Theologians don’t understand that sex is not only fun; it has relational implications. So they think that, if a man can have sex with a woman at any time without fear of conception, then there is no way to control the frequency of sex acts.
Men, according to the church (as well as Islam), are really uncontrollable when it comes to sex. So women have to impose control, and the only way they have of controlling it is by means of the threat of conception. Priests don’t really understand that sex is more than just a frenzied gope in the vestry. It can be tender, loving, and fruitful in other ways besides making babies. It’s a mad mad conception of sex and sexuality, and of course its dreamed up by men in dresses who are not permitted to marry.
“Archbishop of Manila Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales, addressing the crowd after the Mass, said couples should instead practice sexual self-control.”
I don’t get this criminalization of sex either, and sex inside marriage to boot. There’s a laundry list of prohibited sex acts in the bible but AFAIK marital sex is not among them. From a utilitarian viewpoint, no harm is done to anybody by married couples engaging in protected sex. If there is no ethical objection, biblical or secular, to sex inside marriage then where the hell did Catholics get the idea of banning contraception?
Having grown up in the Philippines, from my observation it seems that a lot of poor Catholic women (my mother included) think this prohibition of contraception is a lot of nonsense. Still, it’s maddening to see how much leeway the Catholic church is given in setting public policy to the extent of limiting access to contraception.
And all this empty talk of dignity is just a cover for how baseless the anti-contraceptive position is. As if there’s any dignity in a surplus of underfed and unattended kids, which needless to say, the Catholic church doesn’t deem worthy of concern. Would that they paid just as much attention to children as they do to sperm/egg cells and fetuses.
The Church thinks of sex in terms of sex acts, not in terms of relationship. Theologians don’t understand that sex is not only fun; it has relational implications.
EXACTLY. It’s a very warped attitude to the body and to physical intimacy and pleasure. It assumes that pleasure is something frivolous that people can and should do without.