See:

Pope Leo XII, Arcanum divinae sapientiae (1880)

and

Pope Pius Xi, Casti connubii (1930).

Notice how jerk off liberal lefties are always telling others what to do?

Here, I’ll try it: “Hey editors, drop dead. Mind your own damn business. It’s the 21st century for goodness sakes, haven’t you seen enough evidence that busy body little pukes like you make the world unbearable and cause more problems?

So, Just get over it and pay more attention to your daughter’s birth control and leave ours alone you self-centered, egotistical little punks.”

And these left wing idiots really can’t understand why we have the 2nd amendment?

30 years ago no insurance companies paid for contraceptives.

You paid for it out of your pocket if you wanted it.

This EXCELLENT essay didn’t get near the amount of attention it deserved.

PING!

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

Mr. Obama? The Church Will Bury You

Posted on February 9, 2012 by Frank Weathers

So says a couple of secular journalists in the Business Insider article with the greatest title ever. Time to Admit it: The Church Has Always Been Right On Birth Control. Here’s a taste,

Painting the Catholic Church as “out of touch” is like shooting fish in a barrel, what with the funny hats and gilded churches. And nothing makes it easier than the Church’s stance against contraception.
Many people, (including our editor) are wondering why the Catholic Church doesn’t just ditch this requirement. They note that most Catholics ignore it, and that most everyone else finds it divisive, or “out-dated.”
C’mon! It’s the 21st century, they say! Don’t they SEE that it’s STUPID, they scream.
Here’s the thing, though: the Catholic Church is the world’s biggest and oldest organization. It has buried all of the greatest empires known to man, from the Romans to the Soviets. It has establishments literally all over the world, touching every area of human endeavor. It’s given us some of the world’s greatest thinkers, from Saint Augustine on down to René Girard. When it does things, it usually has a good reason. Everyone has a right to disagree, but it’s not that they’re a bunch of crazy old white dudes who are stuck in the Middle Ages.

Get it folks? Go read the whole thing.

And when the rest of the large portion of the populace realizes what the real issue is all about, freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution, the burial of this administration will be by avalanche.

Give ‘em a taste of that now. And remember, do it with love, as required in a corporal work of mercy such as this.

*Image credit: Sergio Dionisio/Getty

well, no, the opposition to birth control was linked to the idea of the OT that to spill one's seed is wrong, and that life is life, starts at conception.

The numbers increasing was not a factor in the early years as this was an underground movement. Birth control only really became a factor in the 1900s.

thanks for the ping. this is a good article

Thanks for the links!

Their Holiness’ are not as foolish as some may think.

Birth control was a big deal in Ancient Rome—they went through a big population crash. It has re-emerged in a big way only lately, but it has been a concern in the past.

Pius X came up with an even more chilling prediction when divorce was gaining sympathy:

Is this found in "Casti Conubii" (sp?), or another publication?

From the reign of Augustus Caesar onward, the Romans were trying to increase their citizen population. They had penalties for failing to marry, rewards for producing children, public celebrations of fertility, punishments for homosexuality and abortion ...

However, the experience of thousands of years strongly indicates that people generally make the sacrifices necessary to bring up children in significant numbers out of either religious conviction or economic necessity.

I’m not sure that the lesson is that people are generally willing to make this sacrifice or that when the group of people unwilling to make this sacrifice reaches a critical mass, the society rapidly disappears.

St. Stephen of Hungary had a problem in this area, which he dealt with by implementing a tax on all unmarried laymen over a certain age. Frankly, this seems fair enough—some men contribute to society through raising children, those who don’t want to contribute in this way contribute in another way.

Castii Conubii was Pius XI.

when the group of people unwilling to make this sacrifice reaches a critical mass, the society rapidly disappears.

Good point.

I hesitate to use the word "sacrifice" in the context of having a family, because a sacrifice implies giving up something of great value, and I don't believe that I've done that.

Every choice you make in life involves the non-choice of all the alternatives available at the time. Being an accountant (for example) was not the "sacrifice" of being a nurse ... just a preference of one over the other. Being a wife and mother was not the "sacrifice" of being IRS Commissioner with an apartment in the Watergate and several catz - it's simply another path in life. (And I have catz now, as well as reptiles.)

Well that is definitely not why the Catholic church holds those positions, those are just an added bonus to the real reasons that life begins at conception and sex should be saved for marriage.

Hi, I was intrigued by your post in the thread from a day or two ago about the FReeper whose son is was choosing a dual major in Engineering / Classics at Harvard, Hopkins, or Yale.

So I looked up your "about" page and then your posting history, and arrived here.

Your comment

St. Stephen of Hungary had a problem in this area, which he dealt with by implementing a tax on all unmarried laymen over a certain age. Frankly, this seems fair enough—some men contribute to society through raising children, those who don’t want to contribute in this way contribute in another way.

has some striking resemblances to the logic behind, and supposed rationale for, Obamacare.

It might be interesting to write an essay suggesting that St. Stephen's proposal be put into effect in Europe, Japan, and Russia, and a modified version -- taxing men who produce children out of wedlock at a far higher rate than married men children (like the lowered married rate vs. the single rate, but accelerated), for example -- for the United States.(*)

It would be a literary combination of Swift's Modest Proposal and the famous New Yorker Obama "revolutionary fist-bump" cover: like the first, it would be satire, but like the second, it would convey important truths about the left while portraying itself as satirizing the right.

Thanks for writing this, I'll have to look out for your posts more often. :-)

(*) The two drawbacks I can see from this is that it would GREATLY increase the use of contraception and incidence of abortions; and the logistics of carrying out the second, would invariably involve loss of privacy and then (by disparate impact) cries of "RAAAAACISM"...

Cheers!

It was.