Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Anti-Catholic Lechery

cathmom5 said...
It just seems to me that the attempt to compare NFP--used with the correct intent--and contraception is just an excuse to justify the fact that they want to use contraceptions [sic]. Those "christians" who use contraception, I believe, know deep down they are morally wrong...Those "christians" must find a way to justify their disobedience of God's will by "taking down" the Church's moral stance--like the bully on the playground making himself feel better by making the others feel bad. Why else would this ignorant (in the dictionary sense!) argument keep coming up?
Well, if that’s what motivates Protestants, then by parity of logic, it just seems to me that the attempt by popes to defend “natural family planning” is just an excuse to justify the fact that they want to fornicate with nuns and hookers without wearing a condom or fathering a kid out of wedlock. Popes who defend “natural family planning,” I believe, know deep down they are morally wrong. Lascivious popes must find a loophole to excuse their lechery. Why else would they concoct so many ad hoc distinctions? 
Mr. Hays reaches a new low with me in this response.  His response to cathmom5 is nothing short of anti-Catholic BIGOTRY.   Have SOME popes been "bad popes" and sinned as Hays accuses?  Perhaps - but it is NOT the norm and neither is the rationale behind Natural Family Planning.  It appears to me that cathmom5 struck a nerve with Mr. Hays and he lashed out irrationally.  For example of this irrationality - Pope John Paul II was a public proponent of Natural Family Planning* - and I would challenge Mr. Hays to provide PROOF or at least some SOUND EVIDENCE of any such "lechery" - such as "fornicat(ing) with nuns and hookers" with Bl. Pope John Paul II.  Such debased language without some sort of support is irresponsible, invalid argumentation and even un-Christian.  

Now, perhaps Mr. Hays is objecting to cathmom5's use of "Christian" (in quotes) as if to imply those who practice Artificial Birth Control (ABC) are not even Christian.  As I explained to "BBB" (who was much more respectful in his approach) - from a Catholic perspective, those who would accept and even embrace such violence against the sanctity of the marriage act - and against innocent life, well - it IS hard to consider them to be "Christian" at all.  Perhaps Mr. Hays is ignorant of the fact that virtually ALL of Christendom opposed ABC methods prior to 1930 and it has been just since that time that non-Catholics began embracing this mortally sinful practice.  I reiterate, it is difficult to see those who are WILLFULLY engaging and embracing MORTAL SIN to be "Christian" at all.

Now to answer Mr. Hays disgraceful polemics - he DID ask a question which I will respond to:  "Why else would they concoct so many ad hoc distinctions?"  I would need Mr. Hays to clarify just who the "they" are who have participated in such "concoctions" and repeat my challenge for Mr. Hays to document those who have "concoct(ed) so many ad hoc distinctions" actually participating in "fornicating with nuns and hookers."  Further - please explain at least SOME of these unnamed "ad hoc distinctions."

Will Mr. Hays clarify his position(s) and present some VALID argumentation - or should we dismiss him as a bloviating anti-Catholic bigot?  Will he back down and even apologize (as a Christian should do) or will he entrench himself in his debased argumentation?  Or, will he just try to ignore this and hope it passes by unnoticed?  

I would also hope that other non-Catholics would join me in condemning Mr. Hays argumentation.   

I state, here and now, if Mr. Hays can VALIDLY support his argumentation - I will acknowledge that.  I do not believe it is possible for him to present valid argumentation to support what he's said - so what I would expect from an honest Christian debater is a retraction (or, again, VALID support).

Addendum: *I am working on another article on the Co-Mediatrix and inadvertently referred to that subject initially in this article, what I meant to say (corrected above in red) is that Bl. John Paul II publicly supported NFP and Mr. Hays needs to document JPII - or any other pope who promoted NFP - participating in the "lechery" he described.


  1. It IS encouraging to see that at least SOME non-Catholics ARE taking Mr. Hays' approach to task on his blog. Kudos to them.

    Hays also explains that "It's often useful to take a foolish position to its logical extreme." Perhaps Mr. Hays would consider first challenging cathmom5 to clarify her statements (as I believe I have, if I was not too bold in speaking for her) before calling them "foolish" and then lashing out as he did and CALLING it a "logical extreme."

  2. Thank you, Scott, I appreciate your clarification of my comments on Triablog. It was not my intent to insult anyone personally, but several times when I've made comments on an issue, I have been personally attacked. I don't believe anything I said was foolish or I wouldn't have said them. I am sorry if my style or passion made anyone feel insulted.

    Just to say one thing--I don't think what I said, in any way, would lead to Hays' so-called logical extreme. To me that argument about a pope using NFP as an excuse to do what he please isn't even on the same planet as what I said. What I believe I said is that ABC and NFP (practiced as intended) are not the same, and those who try to claim they are, are looking for justification for what, I believe, they know deep down is morally wrong.

  3. Steve Hays has a history of making foul, degenerate, filthy statements on sexuality. Remember what he said about masturbation being good practise for marriage? His latest remarks merely shows his continuing slide into inanity and perversity.

  4. I've been reading his posts for a few hours.

    Putting aside the matter of birth control - I just want to apologize on behalf of all people who call themselves Reformed. The way he treats others is very poor and not befitting of Christian charity.

    I can only assume some kind of underlying issue is involved like a mental condition or maybe Steve is just very young.

  5. As with Warren, you are either too dishonest or stupid to deal with the issue directly, and instead evade it. Far easier to cast aspersions on other peoples' characters!

    From here:

    If a Catholic indulges in a blanket, prejudicial smear of Protestants by impugning the motives of all Protestants who support “artificial” birth control, even though said Catholic is in no position to know their motives, that’s not anti-Protestant bigotry–but if a Protestant responds with a reductio ad absurdum, that’s “anti-Catholic BIGOTRAY”!

    Windsor betrays the insular mindset of the team player. The team player automatically cheers his own team and automatically jeers the other team. The team player keeps a tally of every real or imagined foul by the other team while turning a blind eye to every foul by his own team.

    It’s the Mafia mentality. One standard of la familia, another standard for outsiders.

  6. Eduardo, thank you for your apology on behalf of all people who call themselves reformed.
    As for what's wrong with Hays, it's not becase he's young. He's a very immature 50 year old man, who's never been married, yet he presumes he can give advice to prepare people for marriage. Your guess about some kind of mental problem being the real issue is probably correct. Lets hope he gets some help some day before he messes up bigtime.

  7. Oh my goodness. I tried my best. I am convinced that nothing could sway opinions over there. You get accosted, accused of being unintelligent, comments get deleted and you get accused of bad motives and bad behavior when its Steve who all along is trying to drag the discussion into the depths of absurdity.

    I don't know what their goal is over there but it certainly is not to engage anybody who does not agree with them.

  8. C. Andiron - Are you Steve Hays? Neither cathmom5 nor I have cast aspersions on other people's characters - yet Hays has (or you have, if you are Hays).

    Both cathmom5 and I have explained the Catholic viewpoint of "Christians" who participate in ABC methods. It is quite difficult to refer to those who use ABC methods as Christians - and I'd say the same thing of "Catholics" who support ABC.

    The REAL POINT here is NOT who is a "blunderbuss" or a "sociopath" (namecalling which neither cathmom5 nor I participated in). No, the REAL POINT of this debate would be to debate whether or not ABC is immoral - OR - challenge the morality of NFP. Once one crosses the line and accuses popes of "lechery" and then resorts to rationalization and reducing their argumentation to the absurd - well, such argumentation is invalid in THIS debate. Hays wishes to say it is "reductio ad absurdum" - but it is really nothing more than a red herring fallacy which he joins with a measure of the ad hominem fallacy.

    I would be more than willing to engage Mr. Hays in a VALID and CIVIL debate - if he is capable of such. Let's see if more name-calling (ad hominem) continues, or if he's interested in conducting himself in Christian charity.


Keep in mind while posting:
1) Please respond ON TOPIC to the article at hand.
2) Posts more than 4 weeks old are set to automatically save new comments for moderation - so your comment may not show up immediately if you're responding to an older post.
3) The "Spam Filter" is on - and randomly messages get caught in that filter. I have no control over which messages get caught in the spam filter and those that do must wait for me to mark them as "not spam." A message caught by the spam filter may show up for a moment, making you think it posted, and then disappear. Do not assume I have deleted your comment, it's probably just the spam filter and it will show up.