Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Unrestrained Sex and the Celibate Witness
Young, Evangelical, and Catholic ^ | 8/14/2010 | Brantly Millegan

Posted on 08/14/2010 10:39:35 AM PDT by markomalley

"As women, we have the right to make decisions regarding our bodies. These include decisions regarding the ability to control if and when we have children, regardless of whether we want several children or no children at all. Birth control is fundamental to our ability to have autonomy in our lives, and it helps us to understand our bodies and to enjoy our sexuality safely with men.” – Our Bodies, Ourselves 2005


The above quote captures the sentiment of many pro-contraceptive women, as well as men, non-Christian and Christian.

The quote seems to make a good point. We do have the right to make decisions regarding our bodies. The problem is that its logic has one glaring problem. The author, as many who would agree with her often do, assumes that such control is gained through the use of birth control, presumably contraception.

Maybe I’m just stuck in Christendom as it existed from the first century until the mid-20th century, but I thought the way to avoid children was to not engage in the behavior that leads to children, or in other words, not have sex. For the above author, and many in our society today, such an option is no option at all. Sex is a given. Of course people will be having sex. For someone not to have sex is unhealthy, and worse, oppressive.

Sadly, evangelicals have walked like lemmings right along with the world, except for maintaining the caveat that sex is only for marriage. Many evangelicals consider sex for married people to be like food – it’s inappropriate, unhealthy, and even wrong to expect or encourage married couples to abstain from sex for any period of time.

And like lemmings, they have followed the world off a cliff.

Since when is sex something that we must have, especially married people? The world and our separated brethren think that birth control gives them control over their bodies, when all along what it really does is encourage them to have no control over their bodies. It’s all a big lie. What they call freedom is actually slavery. True control over one’s body is the ability to not have sex when one doesn’t want to have a baby.

In other words, the answer isn’t birth control, it’s self control. This is the true freedom.

But people in our society today have so little control that the option to abstain cannot even be considered. It’s not even entertained as a virtue to which we should aspire. In their minds the choice really is between all women being pregnant their entire reproductive lives, or the use of contraception, something that all Christians for millennia had deemed a grave perversion, until Protestants, even supposedly conservative evangelicals, decided to follow the world in the mid-20th century.

So it is now more than ever that our world needs the celibate witness. Celibate priests, monks, and nuns, even lay people who are living the single life – we need you to stand as witnesses to the world and to our separated brethren, and as a constant reminder to married couples within the Church, that we do not need sex, that sex does not lead to happiness. Unrestrained sex is not the answer. Lust will never be quenched. It is a black hole that leads only to hell, in this life and the next.

There is another way.

We do not need a pill that makes the woman’s body act as if it is diseased to be free. We do not need a piece of plastic to ‘protect’ the woman from the man’s seed. We need the grace of Jesus to help us all to have self-control over ourselves, especially the sacred gift of our sexuality. Our celibate brothers and sisters prove to us that sex isn't required for the happiest and most meaningful lives.

Some evangelicals have just recently started to reevaluate the Reformation’s almost total rejection of celibacy as an option. I encourage those that are feeling the call: look to the Church. It is a beacon. Although Protestants have lost their way, the Church has stood as the city on the hill. The Church has maintained the true teaching all these years. You do not need to reinvent a theology of celibacy. There is already a place, the only place where it can be truly lived, the only place where it has its full meaning, the Church, where you can join in and be, in an age of unrestrained sex, the celibate witness.


TOPICS: Catholic; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: autonomy; celibacy; celibatewitness; fornication; sexualimmorality
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last
While I think the author has good points regarding celibacy, I probably would not have been as "in your face" as he was about the subject (for example, "followed the world off a cliff" would not be my choice of wording...but, on the other hand, is he speaking from experience there??)

St. Paul had the following to say about the subject in his first letter to the Church in Corinth (chap 7):

25 Now, concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord: but I give counsel, as having obtained mercy of the Lord, to be faithful. 26 I think therefore that this is good for the present necessity: that it is good for a man so to be. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. 28 But if you take a wife, you have not sinned. And if a virgin marries, she has not sinned: nevertheless, such shall have tribulation of the flesh. But I spare you. 29 This therefore I say, brethren: The time is short. It remains, that they also who have wives be as if they had none: 30 And they that weep, as though they wept not: and they that rejoice, as if they rejoiced not: and they that buy as if they possessed not: 31 And they that use this world, as if they used it not. For the fashion of this world passes away. 32 But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord: how he may please God. 33 But he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world: how he may please his wife. And he is divided. 34 And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinks on the things of the Lord: that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinks on the things of the world: how she may please her husband. 35 And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment. 36 But if any man think that he seems dishonoured with regard to his virgin, for that she is above the age, and it must so be: let him do what he will. He sins not if she marry. 37 For he that has determined, being steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power of his own will: and has judged this in his heart, to keep his virgin, does well. 38 Therefore both he that gives his virgin in marriage does well: and he that gives her not does better. 39 A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband lives: but if her husband die, she is at liberty. Let her marry to whom she will: only in the Lord. 40 But more blessed shall she be, if she so remain, according to my counsel. And I think that I also have the spirit of God.

1 posted on 08/14/2010 10:39:37 AM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

“...In other words, the answer isn’t birth control, it’s self control. This is the true freedom...”

I’ve heard a Priest asked: Isn’t the celibacy, the self-denial, the life of poverty - isn’t it difficult?

The answer, which blew me away: No, its all for my own benefit, and in my own self-interest!


2 posted on 08/14/2010 10:49:32 AM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

This writer talks a good game about Protestants, Evangelicals, and Catholics and who has “lost their way”, but the reality of who believes what is in which agenda that they actually push by law and vote.

Catholics vote majority pro-abortion left, and Protestants always vote pro-life right. There seems to be a disconnect between Catholic theories and writings about themselves and Protestants, and reality.


3 posted on 08/14/2010 10:54:08 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

The author, a convert from Evangelical Protestantism, makes a claim that the virtues of a celibate life (not specifically about staying chaste before marriage, but living a life of celibacy) are not taught in Evangelical churches.

Is he accurate in what he says? (I don’t know, not being an evangelical)

If he’s wrong, say so.


4 posted on 08/14/2010 10:57:26 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

The priest was indeed, giving himself, wholly to God, in the Sacrament of Holy Orders. His answer doesn’t surprise me at all.


5 posted on 08/14/2010 10:59:17 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
**But people in our society today have so little control that the option to abstain cannot even be considered. It’s not even entertained as a virtue to which we should aspire.**

And an excellent way to practice that virtue of self-control is Natural Family Planning.

Divorce Rate Comparisons Between Couples Using NFP & Artificial Birth Control

'Amazing Grace for Those Who Suffer'
Natural and Unnatural (father of 5 shocks mother of 1)
NFP — It Ain’t Your Momma’s Rhythm
Responsible Parenthood in a Birth Control Culture, Part Two [Open]
Responsible Parenthood in a Birth Control Culture, Part One [Open]
Contraception v. Natural Family Planning — Part 5 of 6 [Open]
Journey to the Truth (Natural Family Planning) [Open]
Enslaving Women One Pill at a Time (Birth Control Pills and Natural Family Planning)
New Study Shows Natural Family Planning Technique More “Effective” Than Contraception
Fargo) Diocese set to require pre-marriage course in natural family planning

Making Babies: A Very Different Look at Natural Family Planning
Clerical Contraception (Important Read! By Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer)
(Fargo) Diocese set to require pre-marriage course in natural family planning
Natural Family Planning Awareness Week, July 25, 2004
IS NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING A 'HERESY'? (Trads, please take note)
Thanks Doc: More (and Younger) Doctors Support Natural Family Planning
Couple say Natural Family Planning strengthens marriage
Reflections: Natural family planning vs sexism
British Medical Journal: Natural Family Planning= Effective Birth Control Supported by Catholic Chrch
Natural Family Planning

6 posted on 08/14/2010 11:01:34 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

It is taught that there is a “gift” of celibacy. Not all have it. One can’t live a celibate life if not gifted this way. That is my understanding.


7 posted on 08/14/2010 11:03:50 AM PDT by liege (As for me, I'll pay more for tomatoes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

This article is a real mixed bag. On the one hand, he makes some good points against the culture of the day, but he then turns around and lauds the Catholic church for the very things they have been wrong about for centuries.

For example, the author writes: “ Many evangelicals consider sex for married people to be like food – it’s inappropriate, unhealthy, and even wrong to expect or encourage married couples to abstain from sex for any period of time.”

His characterization of the evangelical position is wrong—quite wrong. Here is what the scriptures say:

“The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.” 1 Corinthians 7:4-7.

You will note that married celibacy is all but forbidden to the married. That it is only allowed for a limited time, “for prayer” (i.e. not for “family planning”).

Celibacy for the kingdom is encouraged, but only to those have it as a special gift of God. It is NOT a requirement to dedicate one’s life to the church:

“This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. Don’t we have the right to food and drink? Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?” 1 Corinthians 9:3-6.

Of note here is the fact that Paul had, not only permission, but a right to take a wife with him in his work—a direct contradiction of the Roman Catholic’s position regarding clerical celibacy, when the passage above is also taken into account.

Indeed, I find such authors has this to be troubling to the sensitive consciences in the church because of his error. From the article again:

“So it is now more than ever that our world needs the celibate witness. Celibate priests, monks, and nuns, even lay people who are living the single life – we need you to stand as witnesses to the world and to our separated brethren, and as a constant reminder to married couples within the Church, that we do not need sex, that sex does not lead to happiness.”

Of interest is that, here, celibacy is praised in and of itself, running down the value of sex. Biblical sex is not merely permitted, but beautiful and natural, ordained by God and as natural an aspect of the human condition (fallen or unfallen, in this case) as food.

“”For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.” Ephesians 5:31

As with food and the other pleasurable gifts of God, it has been warped and perverted by a warped and perverted world—it is this that we ought to stand tall and firm against (Ephesians 5:3-7), not sex itself. Celibacy is valued in scripture only to the extent that for the given individual it further advances the kingdom of Christ.

“I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.” 1 Corinthians 7:32-34.


8 posted on 08/14/2010 11:06:13 AM PDT by Señor Zorro ("The ability to speak does not make you intelligent"--Qui-Gon Jinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

He’s wrong.

I grew up in evangelical church circles, and abstinence was always faithfully preached for all unmarried people.

This article is the usual case of an over-excited recent Catholic convert. As is often the case, anyone who recently converts to something is a bit overexcitable about the perfect of his new path....


9 posted on 08/14/2010 11:08:27 AM PDT by newguy357
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Señor Zorro

Thanks for the thorough response. Is there any way I could ask you to go over and post them to the author’s blog?


10 posted on 08/14/2010 11:08:32 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: newguy357
I grew up in evangelical church circles, and abstinence was always faithfully preached for all unmarried people.

That wasn't what he said. In fact, he acknowledged your point: except for maintaining the caveat that sex is only for marriage.

11 posted on 08/14/2010 11:10:35 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Catholics are a liberal voting block and have been since they started showing up in America, the Protestant vote is almost a perfect record of supporting conservatism, yet article after article gives the impression that Catholics are conservative and are trying to stop Protestant liberalism, it is bizarre.

To a conservative it is a troubling to see someone move from our most conservative religious category to a liberal church and then start lecturing the conservative Christians.


12 posted on 08/14/2010 11:14:33 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: newguy357

The article has an arrogant put down tone to it.


13 posted on 08/14/2010 11:20:23 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Catholics are a liberal voting block and have been since they started showing up in America, the Protestant vote is almost a perfect record of supporting conservatism, yet article after article gives the impression that Catholics are conservative and are trying to stop Protestant liberalism, it is bizarre.

To a conservative it is a troubling to see someone move from our most conservative religious category to a liberal church and then start lecturing the conservative Christians.

And this has what to do with the article? This is on-topic how???

If you want to talk about all Catholics being liberals and starting a movement to have all Catholics kicked off of Free Republic unless they renounce Catholicism, then be my guest...on your own thread.

In the meantime, if you have an issue with something the author said, why don't you address the points in the article rather than engage in a non-sequitur attack on the author (and, for that matter, all Catholic FReepers)?

14 posted on 08/14/2010 11:21:56 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Some evangelicals have just recently started to reevaluate the Reformation’s almost total rejection of celibacy as an option. I encourage those that are feeling the call: look to the Church. It is a beacon. Although Protestants have lost their way, the Church has stood as the city on the hill. The Church has maintained the true teaching all these years

The writer wrote a snarky article about converting people to Catholicism, the Democrats already have enough Catholics and millions more are being imported from Mexico, what we need right now to bring morality back to America are more conservatives, not more liberals.

15 posted on 08/14/2010 11:42:14 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
the Protestant vote is almost a perfect record of supporting conservatism

On what planet???

Yeah, the voting record of conservative, pro-life, pro-family Protestants is conservative, pro-life, and pro-family. Duh. That's a self-selected group; of course they behave consistently with their self-selection.

Check out the voting record of Catholics who demonstrate in front of abortuaries, or attend the "Defending the Faith" conference in Steubenville, or are involved in Opus Dei, the Serra Club, or any of a number of other lay apostolates. Or visit any parish where the TLM is celebrated, and see if you can find an Obama voter. Good luck!

OTOH, ELCA Lutherans are still "Protestant" in any meaningful, historically accurate sense of the word. Think they vote conservative and pro-life? Don't bet on it.

The last four Democratic Presidents were all at least nominally Protestants. Want to tell us how "conservative" they were?

(And no, I'm not going to tell you Jack Kennedy was any better.)

Catholics voted for Protestant George Bush over faux-Catholic John F. Kerry 52 to 45 percent in 2004. Catholics who attend Mass weekly voted for the faux-Republican John McCain over the Muslo-Marxist usurper 50 to 49 percent. That's the definition of a swing vote, not a "liberal voting block".

I think a certain percentage of FR anti-Catholics are liberal as all heck, and are agents provocateurs, here to drive a wedge between Catholics and the conservative movement.

Are you one of them?

16 posted on 08/14/2010 11:48:51 AM PDT by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Campion
On what planet??? Yeah, the voting record of conservative, pro-life, pro-family Protestants is conservative, pro-life, and pro-family. Duh. That's a self-selected group;

No it isn't, the "Protestant" vote includes all Protestants, blacks, Hispanics and all of the none Catholic Christians no matter how left wing, yet the Protestant vote still ALWAYS goes majority conservative, if you leave out 1964 and 1932/1936, Roosevelt could not even win the Protestant vote in 1940 and 1944, nor Truman, or Kennedy, or Carter, or Clinton, (they all and more, of course won the Catholic vote) etc.

Catholics on the other hand have almost always voted left, there are some modern exceptions of course, you mentioned 2004 (but left out the 2000 Catholic Gore vote) when Catholics voted 52% Republican, Hispanic Protestants voted 56% Republican in that election though.

Hispanic Protestants are voting to the right of the Catholic vote, in 2008 for instance when Obama was winning 54% of Catholics, he was only winning 52% of Hispanic Protestants. We do not need more Catholic voters.

17 posted on 08/14/2010 12:07:54 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Señor Zorro

Thank you for “rightly dividing the Word of Truth” on this subject. If people would spend more time reading God’s word in it’s completeness, rather than taking a verse here and there to support a view, or worse, simply letting someone else tell them what it says, we would have far less societal problems.


18 posted on 08/14/2010 12:32:52 PM PDT by daisy mae for the usa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Please not the NFP post. What next Theology of the Body? No thanks. Part of being Catholic is being “open to life” “being generous” and “trusting God”. NFP is the exact opposite- taking control from God because we don’t trust Him, the Master of our lives to bless us with a baby, or we are too lazy and selfish to want to have a baby.


19 posted on 08/14/2010 1:17:36 PM PDT by msamizdat (The only justice is vigilante justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Please not the NFP post. What next Theology of the Body? No thanks. Part of being Catholic is being “open to life” “being generous” and “trusting God”. NFP is the exact opposite- taking control from God because we don’t trust Him, the Master of our lives to bless us with a baby, or we are too lazy and selfish to want to have a baby.


20 posted on 08/14/2010 1:19:10 PM PDT by msamizdat (The only justice is vigilante justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: msamizdat

So are you saying that contraception is better than Natural Family Planning?

BTW, I have five children and 10 grandchildren


21 posted on 08/14/2010 1:28:05 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Protestants put Obama in office. Millions more Protestants voted for Obama than Catholics.


22 posted on 08/14/2010 1:42:11 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Sure gross numbers will have that effect and while I haven’t run the 2008 numbers I imagine that gross population numbers meant that Protestants may have outnumbered the Catholics voting for Obama and surely have in other elections, but it ignores what makes a group favor an ideology and it is something of a childish denial, especially for conservative activists like ourselves that are interested in making American voters more conservative.

Some Catholics and homosexuals vote Republican and some Protestants vote Democrat.

What is it though that turns the majority of Christians of Catholicism into liberals and what makes the majority of Protestant Christians conservative?

What happens to a Hispanic that makes him conservative when he leaves the Catholic community and becomes a Protestant?


23 posted on 08/14/2010 1:58:39 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

You wrote:

“What is it though that turns the majority of Christians of Catholicism into liberals and what makes the majority of Protestant Christians conservative?”

I don’t think that is the case. All Protestants by definition are religiously liberal. Some Catholics are politically liberal, but not all Catholic Democrats are. They might be liberal on some issues, but not others. I think you should worry about your own house since your people put Obama in the White House. Obama is a Protestant too don’t forget.

“What happens to a Hispanic that makes him conservative when he leaves the Catholic community and becomes a Protestant?”

Again, I don’t think that is the case. I know plenty of conservative Hispanic Catholics.


24 posted on 08/14/2010 3:38:22 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

There sure aren’t very many Hispanic Catholics that are conservative, because the great majority of them vote for the pro-abortion left.

Something makes the majority of Catholics pro abortion liberals and something makes the majority of Protestants pro-life conservatives. This has serious ramifications as we keep importing more Catholic voters for the Democrat party.

The refusal to even acknowledge such a simple thing as their role in the vote, might account for how Catholics can often write and speak like conservatives yet in the privacy of the voting booth vote for the liberal agenda and do so generation, after generation, after generation.

Protestants by definition practically, are what we call conservatives in America. The majority of the Catholics would be identified as liberal.


25 posted on 08/14/2010 4:24:46 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
The author is scripturally ignorant and pridefully trying to force his own standards to everyone.

1 Cor 7:9 "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." Clearly Paul was endorsing marriage for the purpose of sexual gratification.

Mat 19:10-11 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. Jesus himself declared that not everyone is enabled to be a enuich. By extension, people have differing sexual needs.

Rom 14:4-6 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. This ignorant author is doing exactly what the scriptures say not to do in that he is applying his own standards to everyone.

26 posted on 08/14/2010 5:00:37 PM PDT by The Truth Will Make You Free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

You wrote:

“There sure aren’t very many Hispanic Catholics that are conservative, because the great majority of them vote for the pro-abortion left.”

and yet they are dwarfed to the power of ten by the number of Protestants who vote pro-abort and do so with the INTENT of supporting abortion. Obama is a Protestant - much like you.

“Something makes the majority of Catholics pro abortion liberals and something makes the majority of Protestants pro-life conservatives.”

Protestants put Obama in the White House. Obama is a Protestant - much like you.

“This has serious ramifications as we keep importing more Catholic voters for the Democrat party.”

And yet Protestants put Obama in the White House. And Obama is a Protestant.

“The refusal to even acknowledge such a simple thing as their role in the vote, might account for how Catholics can often write and speak like conservatives yet in the privacy of the voting booth vote for the liberal agenda and do so generation, after generation, after generation.”

And what proof do you have that that ever happens? What is more likely is that those who speak, write and act like conservatives are conservative. Protestants, however, are liberals and they put Obama in the White House. Like they put Clinton in the White House. And Jimmy Carter in the White House. All three of those liberal presidents are Protestants.

“Protestants by definition practically, are what we call conservatives in America.”

They put Obama in the White House and he shares their sectarian faith.

“The majority of the Catholics would be identified as liberal.”

And yet Protestants put Obama, Clinton and Carter in the White House. You are apparently doing nothing to stop liberalism from running rampant in Protestantism.

Every liberal ever elected to the presidency was put there by people who are Protestants like you. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.


27 posted on 08/14/2010 5:21:56 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: The Truth Will Make You Free

You wrote:

“Clearly Paul was endorsing marriage for the purpose of sexual gratification.”

No, he did not. He said, “it is better”. In other words, it would be better for a man to marry and find gratification in that sexual union - a union blessed by God - then to BURN IN HELL FOR COMMITTING SEXUAL SINS OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE. St. Paul would never recommend marriage SOLELY for sexual gratification.


28 posted on 08/14/2010 5:25:01 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

This game you play is childish and it sure does not help America in any way.

Trying to pretend that a category of people that are consistently THE anti-liberal, conservative voting block is liberal because their majority voter numbers do not equal 100% and pretending that a consistently anti-conservative, liberal voting block is not liberal, is a form of mental gymnastics, evasiveness, and intellectual dishonesty that does not belong on a conservative web site, and it is being done by a Catholic on the religion threads no less.


29 posted on 08/14/2010 5:50:01 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: The Truth Will Make You Free; vladimir998
1 Cor 7:9 "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." Clearly Paul was endorsing marriage for the purpose of sexual gratification.

I am not certain how you can read that from the verse you cited. In the verse you cite, St Paul was clearly advocating marriage for those who can't control their sexual impulses. Clearly, St Paul was endorsing marriage as a chaste alternative to masturbation or fornication.

In the same passage, did not St. Paul write, 29 This therefore I say, brethren: The time is short. It remains, that they also who have wives be as if they had none?

If he was advocating marriage for the purpose of achieving sexual gratification, why in the world would he suggest in the same passage for married men to act as if they had none?

Perhaps the scriptural ignorance does not lie with the author of this piece...

In the second passage you cited, you did not cite it in context. The full context is talking about divorce.

7 They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" 8 He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who married a divorced woman, commits adultery."

10 The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry." 11 But he said to them, "Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." (Matthew (RSV) 19)

Jesus is talking about a gift that not all men can receive. You tell me: is he talking about men who are celibate or is he talking about men who take a knife to themselves? Does your church pass out knives?

This ignorant author is doing exactly what the scriptures say not to do in that he is applying his own standards to everyone.

Maybe you should follow your advice and read the whole scripture rather than out-of-context verses.

30 posted on 08/14/2010 7:43:18 PM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

You wrote:

“This game you play is childish and it sure does not help America in any way.”

What a perfect description - of your incessant posting of the same message. I will continue to post as you post. I see no reason to do otherwise. Obama is a Protestant - much like you. Protestants put Obama in the White House, and Clinton and Carter.

“Trying to pretend that a category of people that are consistently THE anti-liberal, conservative voting block is liberal because their majority voter numbers do not equal 100% and pretending that a consistently anti-conservative, liberal voting block is not liberal, is a form of mental gymnastics, evasiveness, and intellectual dishonesty that does not belong on a conservative web site, and it is being done by a Catholic on the religion threads no less.”

The vast majority of people who voted for Obama were Protestants. Obama is a Protestant. Protestants put Clinton and Carter in office too.


31 posted on 08/15/2010 4:29:46 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I went ahead and copied them over.


32 posted on 08/15/2010 6:41:25 AM PDT by Señor Zorro ("The ability to speak does not make you intelligent"--Qui-Gon Jinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

The difference between our postings are that I am posting actual political information important to conservative activists. You also totally ignore the effect that the Catholic vote has had on the Congress and local elections for 170 years, in New York for example.

You bring no information to this political web site or this discussion, only a mantra in an attempt to stop conservative political discussion

It is pretty silly to be trying to talk to a black bigot that claims to be a conservative, about swaying the black vote to conservatives, and instead of him joining in the discussion, he gets racial and starts childishly defending his racial identity by pointing out that blacks always need a portion of the white vote because whites are so numerous, even though the left has not won the white vote since 1964.

Of course in a nation created by Protestants, and majority Protestant, there will always be a portion that will vote liberal but they are a Protestant minority, what keeps liberal Protestants a minority of their voting block, what makes liberal Catholics the majority of their voting block?

The question in politics is less, how do you win 100% of a voting block, and more, how do you win a majority of a voting block.

What can we do to lead a majority of Catholics to start voting as pro-life, conservatives? Do you even care? What can make you start examining that conservative voting strategy and assisting it rather than trying to stop discussion of it?

The purpose of tracking voting is to gather useful information, conservatives need to unravel what is in Catholicism to make them liberals and what is in Protestantism to make them conservative.

The majority of Protestants voted against Obama and the Clintons, and Carter, yet they won the majority of the Catholic vote, just as Al Gore did in 2000, luckily it was not enough to overcome Protestant conservatism in 2000, how do conservatives use this information to help us to win every time in every election?.

Do conservative politics matter to you at all, does winning elections with pro-life candidates matter to you at all?


33 posted on 08/15/2010 9:32:53 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

You wrote:

“The difference between our postings are that I am posting actual political information important to conservative activists. You also totally ignore the effect that the Catholic vote has had on the Congress and local elections for 170 years, in New York for example.”

I ignore nothing. Protestants put their fellow Protestant, Obama, in the White house. How is that not “actual political information important to conservative activists”?

“You bring no information to this political web site or this discussion, only a mantra in an attempt to stop conservative political discussion”

Again, Protestants put their fellow Protestant, Obama, in the White house. How is that not “actual political information important to conservative activists”?

“It is pretty silly to be trying to talk to a black bigot that claims to be a conservative, about swaying the black vote to conservatives, and instead of him joining in the discussion, he gets racial and starts childishly defending his racial identity by pointing out that blacks always need a portion of the white vote because whites are so numerous, even though the left has not won the white vote since 1964.”

Clearly the left won enough of the Protestant vote in 2008 to put their Protestan buddy Obama in the White House. Why aren’t you posting about that since you and Obama are both Protestants?

I think you need to be honest and admit that your fellow Protestants put Obama in the WH. You need to work on that.


34 posted on 08/15/2010 10:39:59 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

I asked you straight up and you have made it clear, conservative, pro-life politics do not interest you.


35 posted on 08/15/2010 11:33:21 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

You wrote:

“I asked you straight up and you have made it clear, conservative, pro-life politics do not interest you.”

Your Protestant buddies saddled us with Obama. Handle your own sects. You can do exactly nothing to change anything among any group of Catholics. Since you’re a Protestant, like Obama, like the Protestants who put him in the White House, maybe you should concern yourself with why tens of millions of Protestants put him in the White House.


36 posted on 08/15/2010 12:50:27 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
You can do exactly nothing to change anything among any group of Catholics.

For the sake of America, you better hope that we can change the Catholic vote.

37 posted on 08/15/2010 1:44:14 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: newguy357

Well, pound sand also.


39 posted on 08/15/2010 3:05:50 PM PDT by newguy357
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
"Protestants always vote pro-life right."

Protestants like George Tiller?

40 posted on 08/15/2010 3:10:25 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

When talking about how the majority of a category of tens of millions vote, do you really think that naming individuals in meaningful?

Why not name Obama, or Bill Clinton, or Al Gore, or Jimmy Carter, they were Protestants and probably voted Democrat, the thing is that the majority of Protestants voted against those men, while the majority of Catholics voted for those men, why is that?


41 posted on 08/15/2010 3:24:22 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
You're the one who made an absolute, unqualified statement...to wit:

"Catholics vote majority pro-abortion left, and Protestants always vote pro-life right."

You're the one who built a strawman that can be dismantled with the citation of a singular exception...don't be upset when somebody does it. You could have just as easily said, "...many Catholics...most protestants..." and had a better argument, but I suspect that stating those qualifications and recognizing the exceptions would not have served your purposes as well.

42 posted on 08/15/2010 3:34:55 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

“Catholics vote majority pro-abortion left, and Protestants always vote pro-life right.”

That is a fact, the majority of the Catholic vote has almost always been liberal, they have only voted Republican fives times and a disputed, possible 6th time in 1956. Obama, Al Gore, Bill Clinton twice, Jimmy Carter in 1976, all carried the Catholic vote.

The Protestants have only voted majority Democrat in 1932, 1936, and 1964.


43 posted on 08/15/2010 3:43:54 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

You wrote:

“For the sake of America, you better hope that we can change the Catholic vote.”

There’s no “we” about it. You can’t even be able to change how Protestants vote - and they’re YOUR people!


44 posted on 08/15/2010 5:31:48 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

You wrote:

“For the sake of America, you better hope that we can change the Catholic vote.”

There’s no “we” about it. You can’t even change how Protestants vote - and they’re YOUR people!


45 posted on 08/15/2010 5:32:02 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: newguy357

You wrote:

“Dumbass: read this, if you know how:”

I think the moderators frown on that sort of language.

“Catholics voted 54% for the big O and protestants 45%. Go pound stand, troll.”

Listen, I realize you probably struggle with these basic language concepts, but here we go again: 300 million Americans; 60 million Catholics. Thus, Protestants put Obama in the White House. Only one in 6 Americans could be a Catholic. Most of the rest are Protestants. They elected Obama. The percentages are meaningless because about 200,000,000 (or even more) people in this country are Protestants. They elected Obama.


46 posted on 08/15/2010 5:39:22 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Why are the majority of Catholics pro-abortion Obama voters?


47 posted on 08/15/2010 5:57:48 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

You wrote:

“Why are the majority of Catholics pro-abortion Obama voters?”

Why did Protestants put Obama in the White House?


48 posted on 08/15/2010 6:18:12 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

I am asking a serious question, what is it that Catholics are learning from the Roman Catholic church that leads the majority of them to be pro-abortion, liberal Democratic voters?


49 posted on 08/15/2010 6:31:44 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

You wrote:

“I am asking a serious question, what is it that Catholics are learning from the Roman Catholic church that leads the majority of them to be pro-abortion, liberal Democratic voters?”

I am asking a serious question, what is it that Protestants are learning from their sects that leads them to produce a man like Obama and to put him in the White House.


50 posted on 08/15/2010 6:45:14 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson