Comments for: Saturday/Sunday, Feb. 18-19, 2012: Propane facility, USPS problems and Catholic beliefs

Posted Feb. 17, 2012, at 4:31 p.m.

Supporting propane facility I live on a fixed income in Searsport, just like a lot of people in town. I am supporting the Searsport propane facility for two reasons. We need the tax base and we need jobs. We can’t live on tourism — as anyone knows who lives in …

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    WILLIAM,
     The postal service is a dinosaur. Please let it fade into the sunset with dignity, or lets make some much needed cuts to include the union, buildings, days of service, benefits, and salaries and then we can try and make a go of it.

    • Anonymous

      This is the typical Republican job plan for fixing the economy. Lets put more people on un-employment and this is going to make the economy better. This has a lot more to with killing union jobs and hurting Obama’s chances of getting re-elected than it does fixing the economy and I predict that the only thing in danger of becoming a dinosaur is the present form of the Republican party.

    • Anonymous

      Are you planning to amend the Constitution then?  Cf.  Article I, Section 8, Claus 7.  I thought you conservatives believe that the Constitution and the framers’ intents are sacred?

      • Anonymous

        Only the ones they agree with.  (rolls eyes)

  • Anonymous

    Ms. Menkin, there is one belief of the Bishops that you can perhaps explain to me.  Why are they more concerned about an insurer providing contraceptive coverage to employees of their hospitals and universities than they are about the epidemic of child sexual abuse among their clergy?

    • Anonymous

      I can answer your question. THERE IS NO EPIDEMIC OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE AMONG THEIR CLERGY. You’re talking about cumulative events that ended more than two decades ago! How did the discussion concerning the Church’s rule against contraceptives get to this point? 

      • Anonymous

        I agree that “epidemic” is the wrong word.  And I agree that we should not have gotten off the subject of contraceptives.
        Of course, the abuse of children has been horrific.  We should not paint all priests with the same brush, however; the vast majority of priests were not involved.  The scandal was increased by the tendency of (all male, all unmarried, mostly clueless) bishops and archbishops and cardinals and popes to underestimate the problem, and to cover up the problem to protect the Church (rather than the children); and to simply transfer the priests to another parish where they could do the same thing. 
        It seems as though the Church hierarchy is finally starting to get the message.
        That said, I wish we could have stayed on the topic of the letter, contraceptives and the Church.  I’m sorry we’ve gotten off on this tangent.  It’s not where I would have gone.  I think the reason some people went there is that this issue points to the lack of moral authority of the bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and pope.  Many people don’t find the Catholic Church hierarchy to have any moral relevance.

        • Anonymous

          Well said, Penzance!!!!!

        • Anonymous

          I’m glad you’re relenting. The problem was not always handled properly in the past. But understand, this problem was not unique to the church. It was pervasive in other institutions as well. And mind you, it was not always done to protect protect the image of the Church. There were many other concerns as well. I lived through the period of the 50’s and 60’s. The mindset then was that what happened at the neighbor’s was none of anybody’s business. Of course, we all know that was wrong. I was physically abused by 2 bullies when I attended high school to the point where my life was in serious jeopardy. School officials just looked the other way. They wrongly assumed intervention was useless. Today we are just beginning to address the problem of bullying.

          • Anonymous

            I’m not relenting.  This has always been my position.  I can’t vouch for others on this page, but I have asked them to tone it down.
            I agree with you that this problem is not unique to the church, nor is it unique to Catholics.  It has happened in many religious denominations, and in secular institutions. 
            I don’t like the Catholic-bashing on this page (but I also don’t appreciate Heistheone’s “The Catholic Church is the only True Church and anything we make up is what Jesus said” either).

        • luvGSD

           Well, yeah!  It’s just as absurd as if Robert Nutting were lecturing us on the evils of welfare fraud.

      • Anonymous

        There was an epidemic of child sexual abuse.  Why do keep denying it. 

        • Anonymous

          I am not denying the past. I am just trying to tell you what the current situation is.

          • Anonymous

            Yeah, but you seem to be saying that everything is ok now that we’ve gotten safely past that little bit of a bump. Neither you or your Church appear to feel any remorse or shame about the  thousands and thousands and thousands  of children world wide that were violated, lost their innocence, their trust and their faith who will never get past this little blip of a church “mistake”.  Their lives are in a shambles and the Church rolls merrily along, doing God’s business of denying contraceptives to women where ever they can.

  • Anonymous

    Sarah Menkin, yes, thank you for the clarification on the position of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and for your thoughtful letter. 
    You speak of Catholic “beliefs.”  Yet the actions of Catholics often differ from the teachings of the Church — American Catholic women are actually more likely than other American women to use artificial birth control.  According to studies cited by Catholics for Choice, 98% of American Catholic women who are sexually active have used birth control methods that are banned by the bishops.  The debate among Catholics is over, but the bishops haven’t gotten the message.

    • Anonymous

      The bishops believe in burqas.

      • Anonymous

        They also believe women who don’t wear burqas should without exception be burned at the stake! Oh yes, I forgot, they’re all pedophiles, and believe no one but themselves are entitled to have sex. What else can we invent about them?

    • Anonymous

      It’s not that the bishops haven’t gotten the message.  It’s just that the contracepting Catholics haven’t gotten the message.  It’s the job of the bishops to uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church as they have been passed down through the ages.  Catholics ignore those teachings at their own peril.  We’re all going to have to face Jesus Christ when we die, and give an accounting for how we lived our lives.

      As an aside, the 98% figure is from a Guttmacher poll.  Guttmacher Institute is an arm of Planned Parenthood.  The poll-takers admitted that 11% of the Catholic women they interviewed used no birth control, while 2% were using natural family planning.  So that leaves 87% of Catholic women contracepting, not 98%.

      The poll also admitted that 2/3 of the women interviewed did not attend church.  Since church attendance is a requirement for a faithful Catholic, then most of the women interviewed were not practicing Catholics.  So it looks more like that 60% of church-going Catholic women are using contraceptives.  Still not very good, since the percentage should be zero, but a much more realistic number than the 98% figure always being thrown around.

      • Anonymous

        You write, ” We’re all going to have to face Jesus Christ when we die, and give an accounting for how we lived our lives.”  Just what did Jesus have to say about artificial contraception?

        • Anonymous

          Jesus obviously taught that contraception was evil, because that’s what his apostles taught, and the apostles learned what they knew from Jesus himself.  Every Christian church taught that contraception was a serious sin until 1930.  That year, at the Lambeth conference, the Anglican Church declared that contraception was acceptable.  Every major Christian denomination then followed suit.  Now, only the Catholic Church and a few small splinter Protestant churches hold to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles in regard to contraception.

          • Anonymous

            You write, “Jesus obviously taught that contraception was evil, because that’s what his apostles taught…”  Then why didn’t any of them say anything about it in the Bible?
            You write, “Every Christian church taught that contraception was a serious sin until 1930.”  Until around 1930 there really wasn’t much that was available and effective for birth control — so it wasn’t an issue.  Most Protestant and Jewish groups didn’t have any position on contraception until they began supporting it around 1930. 
            The Roman Catholic Church is the only major faith institution in the United States that forbids the use of contraceptives, and most Catholic women show by their actions that they disagree with the unmarried men who form the hierarchy and control doctrine.
            You claim that “only the Catholic Church and a few small splinter Protestant churches hod to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles,” yet Jesus and the apostles said nothing that I am aware of about contraception — and my biblical knowledge is pretty darn good. You make an unsubstantiated claim.

          • Anonymous

            You are mistaking the Bible for a catechism.  The Bible was assembled by Catholic bishops in the early 5th century, to be used as an inspiration and a help on the way to salvation.  The public ministry of Jesus lasted 3 years, yet just a few of his words are contained in the Bible.  In many Biblical passages, it says that Jesus taught large crowds and gave commandments to his disciples, but it doesn’t say what he said.

            Led by Martin Luther 1500 years after Christ, Protestants have hijacked the Bible from the Catholic Church, and they try to pass it off as a catechism, which it is not.   Even the Bible, in 2 Thessalonians, tells us to adhere to the traditions which we have learned by both written and oral instruction. 

            The apostles were preachers, teaching the first Christians what Jesus had taught them, including the evils of contraception.  They had only the Old Testament for scriptures to work with.  The Church was without a Bible for its first 400 years.  The teachings of Christ were passed down by word of mouth and in writing from generation to generation.  If you want to know all that Christ wants us to know about salvation, then read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  It has many Biblical references to go along with the teachings that came from written and oral instructions by the apostles.

          • Anonymous

            So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that since we don’t know everything Jesus ever said, and don’t know what he might have said or thought about contraception, the Roman Catholic Church can just make it up and claim it is the opinion of Jesus.  That’s a very convenient doctrine. 
            I don’t have to take Martin Luther’s word for anything.  I can read the Bible (yes, in translation, and realizing that no one has the originals anyway). 
            You are correct that the Church (many churches — early Christianity was diverse, not monolithic) had no Bible as we know it for the first 400 years or so after the birth of Jesus.
            The Chatechism of the Roman Catholic Church is the modern-day opinion of those who won control of Christianity during the time that began with Emperor Constantine I, and leading up to Emperor Theodosius I.  Theodosius outlawed every religious opinion that he disagreed with, thus bringing the Roman Catholic Church into being at the end of the fourth century.  It (the Roman Catholic Church) is not the church of the apostles.  Far from it. It is merely the group that won the support of the emperor, and with it came control of the Christian message.

          • Anonymous

            That explanation is the only way Protestants think they can get out of acknowledging the truth of the Catholic Church.  Many holes in the argument, including the glaring issue of Jesus’ statement that the gates of hell will never prevail against his church.  That means that the church he founded before he died has to still exist today, without a break in doctrine or continuity.  The Catholic Church is the only church which can trace its existence to its founding upon Peter the Rock.  All other Christian religions are Johnny come latelys, all founded by mere men or women, rather than the Man-God Jesus Christ.

          • Anonymous

            Good grief, no point in arguing whether the moon is made of green or blue cheese! Really, do we really care whose version of crazy is right?!?

          • Anonymous

            You write, “The Catholic Church is the only church which can trace its existence to its founding upon Peter the Rock. ” Actually, this claim is also made by the Syrian Orthodox Church, and they have better facts on their side than the Roman Catholic Church has.   There is no evidence, either biblical or historical, that Peter the Apostle ever went to Rome.  Yes, there is a legend to that effect promulgated by the Catholic Church itself for its own benefit, but no actual evidence at all.
            But we know for a fact that both Peter and Paul (according to the Bible) went to Antioch.  So the Patriarch of Antioch has a better claim than does the Bishop of Rome. 
            The Patriarch of Jerusalem also has a better claim than the Bishop of Rome, for we know Peter was in Jerusalem. 
            The Bishop of Rome is a Johnny come lately compared to the Patriarchs of Jerusalem and Antioch. 
            True Christians, however, are those who are disciples — followers — of Jesus, not those who worship the Catholic Church.
            The Roman Church is simply the group of Christians — one group among many Christian groups — that won the backing of the Roman Emperor, and thus could ban, persecute, and suppress all other competition. The Apostles themselves, including Peter, probably founded the Christians known in ancient times as the Ebionites, but that group did not win the Emperor’s support, and so did not get to control the Empire. That prize went to the proto-Catholics, who, until then, were just one group among many.

          • Anonymous

            Hesi, take my word for it the Catholic Church was not what Christ had in mind. 

          • Anonymous

            Luther didn’t hijack the Bible.  He translated into German vernacular which pissed off the Church because they’d been telling people they were the only ones that could read and interpret the bible.  Oh, yeah.  They didn’t like Luther publishing all the Church’s sins on the cathedral door much either.  The Church had it coming though.  They’d been selling indulgences, indulging in inquisitions, demanding bribes, living in sin, amassing wealth, building palaces, starting wars, taking from the poor, and definitely living in un-Christ like ways. Oh, yeah they richly deserved Protestantism. LOL

          • Anonymous

            There was corruption in the Catholic Church during the time of Luther, just as there often is in any institution populated by humans.  Luther was not a reformer, however.  He just went out and started his own religion.  Of course, he couldn’t have done it without the help of kings and counts who supported him, because they wanted to use his teaching as an excuse to gain more power and confiscate (read: steal) Catholic property.

            As far as Luther translating the Bible into the vernacular, that is a joke.  It was a very poorly done scholarly work.  On top of that, there were already in existence 7 other Bible versions which had already been translated into German, with the approval of the Catholic Church.  That doesn’t even consider the Church-approved Bibles in other European languages as well.

            So Luther did hijack the Bible.  He took the Holy Book of the Catholic Church, and he built his own invention of a religion around his own erroneous translation of it.  He began the absolute farce of 40,000 Protestant religions, all claiming to be the true religion of Christ, which all use the Bible as their “supreme authority.”  A catechism the Bible is not.

            Since the Catholic Church was founded by the authority of Christ, and the Catholic Church gave us the Bible in the first place, it remains the only true and rightful interpreter of its contents.  It is laughable to say that truth can be interpreted in more ways than one.

          • Anonymous

            When Christ returns, he’s going to take one look at the Catholic Church and do one of two things:  die laughing or throw the money changers back out of the temple again.  

            The Catholic Church is great and powerful, has created incredible works of art and music and architecture.  However, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t what Christ had in mind when he said to Peter “upon this rock I build my church”

          • Anonymous

             Actually, Luther’s translation of the Bible into German continues to be regarded as one of the finest translations, and it has set the standard for German ever since.  It is even more highly regarded than the English translation known as the King James Version.
            Yes, princes and kings benefited from the confiscation of Catholic properties, just as the Catholic princes (bishops, archbishops, cardinals and popes were all princes and monarchs) had benefited by confiscating everyone else’s land.  It was the rich robbing the rich.
            During the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, both the Catholics and Protestants committed atrocities.  My favorite story is of Michael Servetus, an anti-trinitarian Spaniard who was condemned to death by the Catholics, but escaped, only to be burned at the stake by Protestants  in 1553.
            Luther was indeed a reformer, but he was far from perfect.  He married a former nun — an important reform in itself.  He preached in German, so that he could be understood — another important reform.  Of course, he was also a terrible anti-Semite, and he called on the princes and kings to suppress the peasants’ revolt, so he was no better and no worse than the Catholic hierarchy in this regard.  
            I’m a Christian, by the way, and am not the same as the anti-Catholic atheists who are also writing on these pages.  I’m not a particular fan of Luther — I prefer the Catholic scholar Erasmus of Rotterdam during that era.  But your version of Luther is laced with anti-Protestant prejudice.

          • Anonymous

            Penzance:  I’m not anti-Catholic.  I’m anti stupidity, anti-bigotry, anti-pedophilia and  anti any organization that tries to make reproductive decisions for women.  Unfortunately, several churches seem to fall into one or more of those categories right now.  Just because you are an atheist doesn’t mean you are against organized religion.  

          • Anonymous

             Thank you.

          • Anonymous

            From around 1200 CE to Luther’s time, any possession of a bible not authorized by the Catholic church was punishable by death. Any writing on religion not authorized by the church was also punishable by death. At least into the 1600s several religious scholars who translated the bible into native languages were hunted down and imprisoned. The policy of the Catholic church was that only those trusted by the church should be allowed to teach theology because someone might question the church practices, such as selling indulgences. They feared that people who could read the bible without “guidance” from the church hierarchy might get ideas which would not support church policies.
            In regard to the “Catholic” bible, there is a group of Orthodox Jewish scholars in Israel who have spent 40 years tracing the changes in the bible. They anticipate it may take another 200 years to come to a conclusion. Hopefully the development of computers will speed that up, but that is a recent statement from them.

          • Anonymous

            “Luther was not a reformer, however.  He just went out and started his own religion.”  OMGLOL.  Hesi, that is the definition of a reformer.  

            Oh, BTW  those of us who stayed awake in history class call Luther starting his “own” religion the Reformation.    That word would be based on the word “reform”    LOL

        • Anonymous

          I think Jesus would probably say, “What does Scripture say in the first chapter of Genesis? ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it’ ”  Until the beginning of the twentieth century, all Christian denominations considered contraception a sin.

          • Anonymous

            No, until around 1930, most Protestants had no doctrine on contraception.  Then they started coming out in favor of it.
            “Be fruitful,” sure, but that says nothing about HOW fruitful. We can still limit the sizes of our families so that we don’t all fall into poverty like the folks in third world countries the Catholic Church is keeping poor by telling them they aren’t allowed to stop having babies — I know that sounds a bit harsh, but it’s true. I’ve just come back from the Philippines, a country that is 80% Catholic, where women marry young, stay pregnant all their lives, remain in poverty, remain uneducated, and die young. If we want to alleviate poverty, women should become educated and use birth control. Education and contraception are the best anti-poverty programs.

      • Anonymous

        “We’re all going to have to face Jesus Christ when we die, and give an accounting for how we lived our lives.”

        Speak for yourself!

        • Anonymous

          hophead2 did indeed speak for self. Reread the comment!  God’s word applies to everyone, as hophead2 seems to realize.

          • Anonymous

            No it doesn’t.  . Your god’s word only applies to you.  There are plenty of other gods.  Don’t be sophomoric. 

          • Anonymous

            Hopheads, like I do, believes Jesus Christ’s words apply to everyone. He was not condemning you. He was just stating what he believes. But that said, do you really believe that the God of Christianity is not the only true God?

          • Anonymous

            Yes.  I’ve see too many really good people that believe in lots of other gods.  You flatter yourself that your god is the only god. 

          • Anonymous

            No, it’s not flatter. It’s the truth. That much I am certain of. If you persist in your unbelief then God can have no part in you. He tells us in Scripture he or she who submits to Him by doing His will loves Him, and He WILL MAKE HIMSELF KNOWN to him or her. That’s the truth. You won’t know it until He reveals Himself to you.

          • Anonymous

            Whawell, I’ve told you before I’m an atheist. 

          • Anonymous

            You might as well be speaking Catonese as far as I’m concerned. All this religio-speak makes little sense to this atheist. I find it all interesting, though, from a sociology perspective. 

          • Anonymous

            I think you misunderstood. To me Jesus was a wise dude who lived 2000 years ago and said a bunch of nice things about how we should treat each other. All the divinity mumbo-jumbo? Crazy talk, as far as I’m concerned.

      • Anonymous

        Actually, the poll was conducted among women who claim to be Catholic. It was not taken only among those who attend church. So the cited percentage is rather meaningless. Also, I wonder how the question was phrased. “Have you ever used contraceptives?” or “Do you use contraceptives regularly?”

        • Anonymous

          Yet the Roman Catholic Church counts everyone who was baptized Catholic to be Catholic. According to the Church the women are Catholic whether they attend or not.
          And, as reported, the number cited is Catholic women who have used contraceptives at one time or another. No one ever said they use contraceptives all the time. The conclusion of the data was that 98% of Catholic women (using the Church’s criteria of who is Catholic) have used a birth control method disapproved of by the Roman Catholic Church.

      • Anonymous

        The Guttmacher Institute has been an independent organization since around 1977. I do agree the 98% figure is not accurate at all, and 60% is.

      • Anonymous

        Don’t people believe that they have to face God at death and give an accounting for how they lived their lives?

    • Anonymous

      Bear in mind, the organization called “Catholics for Free Choice” is not Catholic. It was founded by three women in 1973, one of whom had herself defiantly crowned “pope” on the steps of St. Patricks Cathedral in NYC. It is currently headed by Frances Kissling who operated an abortion clinic and is the founder of National Abortion Federation. This organization is an anti-Catholic entity that despises the Church. That study by the small organization consisting of not much more than a handful of people is likely unscientific and misleading, if not bogus. It’s amazing how these stats came up just as Kathleen Sibelius informed religious organizations of the Obamacare mandate requiring them to insure their employees with contraceptive coverage.

      The debate over the general ban of contraceptive ended long ago in the Church. The Church has not and will likely not change its stand against the use of contraceptives. It’s proscription against contraceptives in an internal matter. That said, the Obamacare mandate concerning universal insurance coverage of contraceptives, abortion inducing contraceptives, and sterilization is not the main issue right now that concerns most religious organizations, including Jews and Muslims. It’s about an abridgement of the 1st Amendment Right to Religious conscience that has no precedence in law.

      • Anonymous

        Nah, no matter what shape of pretzel  the Church  turns itself into trying to make this a freedom of religion issue its not going to fly (flying pretzels????? sorry about that metaphor).  President Obama says the Church doesn’t have to fund the contraceptive part of the insurance. That finishes the objection.  Further objection simply indicates a power play.  Keep in mind this is the same institution that has been trying for the last 40 years to force the sexual tenets of its religion into US law.  

        The Catholic Church is a great and powerful and magnificent institution.  If it wants to remain relevant and I hope it does it has to decide that their flock is part of the 21st century not the 15th. It just can’t go on fighting sillier and sillier power battles and screeching Freedom of Religion.  It makes them look irrelevant …………. and silly.

        • Anonymous

          I’m sure by now you have read the First Amendment. Nowhere does it limit religious exercise to the confines of a church building or church worship. If Obama’s mandate ends up on the laps the the Supreme Court Justices, it’s likely to fail. There is absolutely no precedence by any Administration for an attack against the exercise of religion by anyone individual, church, or church organization except when it comes to the protection of human life itself as in the case of life-saving blood transfusions and limited objections to military conscription. Contraception is not intended to save a life.

          Religious freedom is a very important aspect to its exercise. Why, even in China, the Church insists on being able to exercise this freedom without state restrictions. This is not about political power per se, but about individuals being able to worship and exercise their consciences freely as they see fit, as, for example, Martin Luther King Jr. did in his civil rights movement. Incidentally, this is not just about the Catholic Church. The guarantee of religious freedom concerns every faith organization and every individual person for reason of conscience.

          Mere screeching? I doubt it. Virtually every major religious denomination, including Jews and Muslims, consider Obama’s mandate a threat to their 1th Amendment Right. I think Obama made a serious political mistake here.

          • Anonymous

            No, they don’t.  They don’t have to fund contraceptives.  There is no mandate. 

          • Anonymous

            Under Obama’s mandate all religious institutions, except for the churches themselves, are required to carry insurance coverage for contraceptives, abortion inducing drugs, and sterilization. There is not even an exemption for individuals themselves who do not want to be implicit in this coverage for religious reasons. Check your sources again. What you’ll find is that the Administration made a “compromise’ where these institutions no longer directly are required to provide for those services.

          • Anonymous

            Community based organizations like soup kitchens, hospitals, day care centers family counseling, drug rehab centers, centers of the elderly, nursing homes are not religious institutions whether owned by a church or not.  They serve the general public, they hire the general public, they perform non religious services for the public and they accept public funding.  They are for all intents and purposes public institutions and they should provide full health coverage to women.  Every one of them provides full coverage for ED medications.  

            And, if you own a for profit business like a paper mill you provide complete insurance to all your workers.  You don’t get to deny women full insurance just because you are a Catholic.  Nor do you get to sell condoms but refuse to sell women contraceptives and emergency contraceptives in a store that serves the public because you have moral objections.  The moral objections law is an abomination against women. I’m hoping someone takes it to court soon.

            If you want to control women, join the Amish and cut your self off from the rest of the world. If you want to live in this world and this century quit trying to control women and sex.   Sheesh, what is it with you old men that you’re so interested in women’s reproductive decisions.

          • Anonymous

            whawell, you and I disagree here. 
            Yes, the churches do not have to carry any insurance coverage that violates their religious doctrines.  Hospitals — which have employees of many faiths, and which serve the public regardless of their faith or no faith — will not have to directly cover contraception, but insurance companies will do this.
            The Catholic Health Association, which represents health facilities employing 750,000 people, applauded the decision.  A Fox News poll conducted last week before Obama’s Friday announcement
            found that 61 percent of voters believe employer health plans should be
            required to cover birth control for women, while 34 percent disagreed.
            Among women, two thirds approved of the requirement.
            Newsweek called this “an utterly sensible compromise, which exempts both churches and other religious institutions that cater to the general public from directly covering or paying for birth control, shifting the coverage requirement to insurance companies. So Catholic organizations will be able to stay out of the contraception question entirely, while contraception for all women will be kept free of charge. Instead of being lose-lose for the president, it became win-win.”
            U.S. Catholic bishops continue to disapprove.
            Contraception, of course, reduces the incidence of abortion (so I find the Roman Catholic hierarchy’s position on contraception to be counterproductive).

          • Anonymous

            Great comment penzance!!!

          • Anonymous

            Catholics for Choice and Concerned Clergy for Choice (Jews, Muslims, and Christians) have endorsed Obama’s policy.

          • Anonymous

            Guess who testified in Washington, D.C.? Here’s a reference for you below. None of those entities you listed attended.  Incidentally, “Catholics for Choice” is a very-well  funded small abortion lobby group. Although it adopted a deceptive name, it does not claim to be a religious organization or even to be a part of one.

            http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2012/02/opposition-from-many-denominations-academicians-at-congressional-hearing-on-obama-mandate/

          • Anonymous

            The title of the Congressional hearing and the list of witnesses indicates the panel had already made up their collective mind that it is a religious issue. Issa’s statement that it was about religious rights, not birth control, shouts out the fact that they were not going to listen to anyone who disagreed. They refused a witness, a woman, offered by the ranking democrat. Where are the women to testify about birth control? Where are the members of the two groups I mentioned? Why were they not invited to testify? What about a representative of the Catholic Health Association or Catholic Charities, which actually run those organizations? None of them were invited to testify. Was the panel made up of all men?

          • Anonymous

            No he didn’t.  He played it just right.  

      • Anonymous

         Catholics For Choice is indeed Catholic.  All its members are Catholic.  They just disagree with the out-of-touch position of those in the hierarchy (otherwise known as “elitists”) who think they have authority over others.

        • Anonymous

          No, Catholics for Choice is no more Catholic than Planned Parenthood. And not all its members are Catholic. Incidentally, do you know how big the membership is? This organization is basically a small pro-abortion group that decided to use the misnomer, “Catholics for Choice”, (formerly known as “Catholics for Free Choice”) to give the impression it consists of a large dissenting group of concerned Catholics. Nothing could be further from the truth. Regrettable too many people like yourself have been lead to believe otherwise. The group’s tactics of appearing to be very large and well-represented Catholic constituency appears to have enjoyed a lot of success.

          • Anonymous

             You and I will disagree on this, respectfully I believe.

  • Anonymous

    What earthly difference does consistency to doctrine make when your priests are raping little kids and your bishops are spending millions to cover it up.

    • Anonymous

      Every sperm is sacred, but every child is not. 

      • luvGSD

         Sperm is reviled by the Catholic Church and most religions, hence the sanctity of virgins. 

      • Anonymous

        A sperm is never a child under any circumstances. It is no more sacred than most body cells. Just so you know, every human being – including aborting women – is sacred and continues to be so from the time of conception. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to clarify a common misunderstanding about the value of every human being including you.

        • Anonymous

          The reference is to a song in Monty Python And The Meaning of Life.  You should rent the movie. 
            I do not understand the Church’s position on birth control, which prevents the union of sperm and ova, and its silence on the thousands of fertilized eggs which are discarded by in vitro fertilization clinics every year because the couple has successfully conceived.  If life begins at the union of sperm and egg and is as worthy of protection as the life of a newborn, then what the clinics do is murder.
            However, we as a society have never agreed that human life begins at conception or at implantation on the uterine wall.
            The opposition to birth control and silence at the destruction of fertilized eggs suggests that the unspoken agenda of the Bishops is to discourage sex for any purpose other than procreation.  Destroying the eggs at the clinic is okay, because the “parents” have been trying to have children and have finally succeeded.  Stopping a sperm from its journey is not okay, because it frees women from the specter of an unwanted pregnancy. 
            An opposition to birth control is as backward thinking as a belief in burqas.

    • Anonymous

      msally, your comment is off topic.  Can we tone down our rhetoric, please?

      • luvGSD

        It is not off topic.  The Catholic Bishops are shining the light on themselves and all most of us see is this glaring pedophilia cover-up that has been going on forever.  Something about glass houses, I think. It’s as if Catholics believe that God and Jesus approve of priests raping children, and that pedophile priests are somehow on higher moral ground than your everyday, run-of-the-mill pedophiles.

        • Anonymous

          Many gay bishops were were trying to cover up the actions of gay priests.  Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out.  Gay men have infiltrated the Catholic Church for many years, trying to be “change agents” of sexual morality.  They can bang their heads against the wall forever; their “change” isn’t gonna happen.  Unfortunately, they have left many victims in their wake, and they have badly tarnished the image of the Catholic Church in the eyes of outsiders.  There are many good priests and bishops out there, by far in the majority, but you never hear about them.  They don’t get the good credit they deserve.

          • Anonymous

            They were not gay.  They were pedophiles.  They violated children.  That’s what pedophiles do, they use children for sexual gratification. Gays don’t do that.  No way can you make this the fault of homosexuals. It’s the fault of pedophile priests and the coward bishops that covered it up. 

          • Anonymous

            You’re not a Catholic.  I am one.  I have seen gay priests infiltrate the church for years, and try to either change its ways or bring it down.  It’s no secret in the Catholic Church, although it seems to be a secret to you.  75% of all supposed pedophile priests engaged in sex with adolescent boys.  That is not pedophilia.  That is homosexual sex.  You can argue it all you want, but you won’t change the minds of Catholics who know the truth.

          • Anonymous

            When you sexually abuse children, that is pedophilia.  Pedophilia is wrong — a sin — whether it is same-sex or opposite-sex.  I know of no evidence that suggests that it is better for a child to be sexually abused by the opposite sex than by the same sex.  Both are equally wrong.   Both are crimes under our laws, and for good reason.   The crimes committed by priests against children are not about their sexual orientation, but are about the sexual abuse of children.
            That said, I regret that we got off onto this tangent.  I thought we should have stuck to the subject of the letter, which was about the issue of contraception. 

          • Anonymous

            You might want to read the John Jay Report to help you clarify exactly what was going on in your church.  I assure it was not homosexuality.  Of the reported abuses studied in the US 3,718 involved girls.  60% of the abuses involved children male and female  under 13 years old.  This is pedophilia according to The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

            The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States, commonly known as the John Jay Report, is a 2004 report by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States.

          • Guest

            Abuse has little to do with sexual preferences; to suggest otherwise is an injustice to the thousands of girls and women abused by heterosexual males on an hourly basis. The cultural pathology of inherent male dominance leads some men to believe they have a right to control those perceived to be weaker than them. You can thank the Bible for helping to keep the gender power structure in place.

          • Anonymous

            You need to redefine your definitions. If an adult targets young boys or girls for sex, they in fact are pedophiles. Some of them may prefer boys some of them may prefer girls. Make no mistake in the fact that they target the most vulnerable, children. That makes them ‘Pedophiles’. There is no lesser degree of pedophelia if a male adult targets little girls. He is a pedophile. There is no higher degree of pedophelia if a male adult little boys. He is a pedophile.

            In this thread we seem to be focusing on priests. Please don’t make the mistake of giving absolute trust to friends, relatives, teachers, scout leaders, baby sitters, choir directors, police, etc. These are just some of the catagories that pedophiles situate themselves in. For the sole pupose of gaining parents trust. To get the parents to allow them access to their children. Parents should never allow their guard to go down when it regards their children. The damage that one of these pedophiles can do to the pshyche of a child is sometimes irreperable.

          •  So? They’re homosexual pedophiles.

            Pedophiles have preferences, and typically engage in sexual acts with adults that reflect their “other” preferences. This is backed up by statistical studies which conclude that while not all homosexuals are pedophiles, more than half of pedophiles are also gay.

          • Anonymous

             Actually the vast majority of pedophiles — about 90% — are heterosexual.

          • Anonymous

            If a person uses a child for sexual gratification they are a pedophile.  It doesn’t make any difference if they are straight, gay, bisexual, hermaphrodite, transsexual, working class, professional, poor, rich smart, stupid pretty, handsome, ugly a priest or a pope.:  it’s still pedophilia and it’s against all civil and moral laws.  

          • Anonymous

            msally, you keep jogging my memory.  I have a friend, God bless him, who is bedridden.  Before he became disabled, he was in a seminary in New Hampshire, studying to become a priest.  The main recruiter priest was well-known to by gay, having had sex with some seminarians and priests in the compound.  He was even occasionally called to Rome, to “service” the founder of the religious order, who was well known within the order to be gay.  Later, the recruiter priest was caught in a sex sting in Florida, by a police detective posing online as a 14-year-old boy.  Again, I would like to know your take on this one.

          • Anonymous

            OK, so you’ve come up with two gay priests, but, you still have 5000 pedophile priests according to the John Jay Report

          • Anonymous

            5000 gay pedophiles

          • Anonymous

            That’s baloney.  You’re trying to pass the buck — “it wasn’t the Church’s fault, it was the fault of gays.”  That misses the point.  Sure some priests are gay, and some are straight.  The point of priestly celibacy is — well, it is celibacy!  It shouldn’t matter whether a priest is gay or straight if the priest is celibate.  But 1) if the priest breaks his vow of celibacy, whether gay or straight, he has broken his vow, period.  It is a broken vow whether it was straight sex or gay sex.  And then, 2) if he molests children, he has molested children, whether he molested girls or boys. 
            I know of no evidence that says it is better to be molested by a person of the opposite sex than to be molested by a person of the same sex.  Both are sins, both are wrong, both are illegal, and for good reason.  Pedophiles are pedophiles. 
            I wish we had stuck to the issue of contraception — the subject of the letter.  But I didn’t raise this issue.  You want to blame the failures of the Roman Church on gays — passing the buck.  The bishops and archbishops covered up the problem and transferred the priests so they could abuse more children somewhere else.  The hierarchy hid the problem from the press and the parents and the parishioners in order to “protect the Church” rather than protect the children.  That’s what the scandal was about.  You want to blame it on gay priests, as if they weren’t priests.  But whether straight or gay, the priest represents the Church, as does the bishop, the archbishop, the cardinal and the pope.  They all failed miserably.
            That said, most priests — whether gay or straight — weren’t involved in this mess.  Most were doing a good job.  We shouldn’t blame all priests for what a few did.  The issue now is, “Do the bishops and archbishops — who allowed more children to be abused so that the Church could be protected (while the children were not protected) — have any moral authority?”

          • Anonymous

            Good to see you still have the blinders on sally.

          • Anonymous

            Another thing, msally.  A few years ago, a friend of mine told me that the priest at his parish had been accused of sexual abuse of a minor boy.  Upon further investigation, it was discovered that the priest was also the webmaster of a gay pornographic website.  What is your explanation for that?

          • Anonymous

            One gay priest.  Five thousand Pedophiles. And that’s according to the John Jay Report commissioned by the Catholic Bishops. 

          • Anonymous

            And most of the pedophiles were gay.   Same sex sex is gay, age does not matter.  You can have gay sex with an adult, or gay sex with a child.  Gay sex seems to be fine with many people, until gays masquerading as Catholic priests get involved in it. Then of course, no one blames the gays. It’s the Church as a whole which is at fault.

      • Anonymous

        OK, toning it down, but I didn’t think it was off topic.

        • Anonymous

          Thanks.

    • Guest

      Just like the teacher unions

      • luvGSD

         Thank you for sharing.

      • Anonymous

        Yep only difference is the women folk get to join in the pedophilia and its the state sponsored unions  that goes out of its way to protect the scum that pray on our children.

        • Anonymous

          You are equating unionized teachers with pedophiles.   Really?   How far do you think that would go if you took it to court? Crawl back to your hole under a damp rock and leave comments to people with an IQ above that of a slug.

    • luvGSD

      I heartily agree.  The Catholic Bishops can lay claim to no moral authority whatsoever. We can only guess at how long this cover-up has been going on, for decades at the very least, perhaps even for centuries. Does anyone remember when Sinead O’Connor was vilified for tearing up the photo of the Pope on SNL in 1992? As far as I’m concerned, if the Catholic Church doesn’t want “the state” to step in and arrest these rapist priests, then they had better shut up about ACA, contraception, and everything else, and get back to church where they belong. If not, we can only surmise that they are against contraception so they can have more children to rape.

      • Anonymous

        The overwhelming majority of priests and bishops, including the pope, are upstanding individuals dedicated to helping mankind, yet you insist they are corrupt with no corroborating evidence. They have a calling and a duty to speak out on moral issues, especially those affecting our culture. For sure that duty includes the use of its resources to preserve our 1st Amendment Right to freedom of conscience now being attack by the Obama Administration. Incidentally, Catholic leaders are where they belong, in the world trying to prevent souls from being lost. Our Constitution protects everyone’s freedom, even those you obviously disagree with.

        Concerning you last statement, refer to Genesis, chapter 1, verse 28 that reads, “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.” The interpretation of this teaching as a proscription against contraception is not new. It has been proclaimed by the Church since its inception over 2000 years ago and by all Christian denominations up until the beginning of the 20th century. Your comment is not only false but is a blatantly outrageous attempt to demonize Catholics. Get use to it, Catholics plan to be in the public square for a long time joined with all people of good will.

        • Anonymous

          “They have a calling and a duty to speak out on moral issues, especially those affecting our culture.”
          And they didn’t.  They simply moved priest around hoping nobody would notice that their child had been violated.  

          “trying to prevent souls from being lost. ”
           Too bad they didn’t try to prevent children’s innocence from being lost.  They would look more relevant today.  

          I would like to see the Church be a power for good in the world.  They can’t do that by violating children, declaring birth control is a sin and relegating women to the position of incubators.  This is an especially stupid battle to fight in sophisticated industrialized countries where women hold positions of power and in  countries where women are powerless and children die from the results of overpopulation. 

          • Anonymous

            Again, Sally, you are stuck in the pass. The Church is indeed a power for good, though you may not always agree with what that “good” is. To me “good” is the truth. Protecting children from the moment of conception is one such truth. Helping the poor regardless of who they are is the truth. Coming to the assistance of women and children is the truth. Proclaiming that the most revered person next to God is a woman is the truth. Preaching the Good News of eternal salvation accessible to each and every person, in no matter what situation the person believes himself or herself to be, is the truth. God is much closer to us than we think. He is closer to us than we are to ourselves. Accessibility to him is not the problem. Rather it is our own stubbornness and pride that keeps us away! “Oh God, help my unbelief. Help me in spite of myself to know and understand your utmost love and concern for me.” That’s my daily prayer!

          • Anonymous

            Go for it!

          • Anonymous

            Very well said and I’m not even catholic.

          • Anonymous

             Children don’t die from over population. Children die from lack of nutrition and healthcare.

          • Anonymous

            What I said was “die from the results of overpopulation”.   Malnutrition is one of the results of overpopulation.  

      • Anonymous

        msallyjones,  you need to get off your high horse! Allegations of sexual abuse concern
        events going  back decades, not recent ones. Please tell me what
        “millions” are being spent to cover abuse. Please be specific. I’ll tell
        you one thing: The Church has instituted various programs to clean up
        its act, and they’re working besides. Most institutions, both public and
        private, have barely made any steps toward that end.

      • Anonymous

         Could we cool the rhetoric please?

        • luvGSD

          Thank you for asking. My answer is no, and please don’t ask me again.

          • Anonymous

             I will keep asking that we be civil to one another.  I often agree with your points, but I believe that childish rudeness does not advance your argument.

          • luvGSD

             Thank you for sharing.  Please don’t ask me to tone down my rhetoric unless you ask all others to do the same.

          • Anonymous

            I do. It has to start with each one of us, and we can’t wait for “the other guy.” We ARE the other guy.

          • luvGSD

             No you don’t.  I see that you are only asking those who are against the church.

    • MaineHiker

       And why do so many bishops go postal when talking about Harry Potter? Sounds like common gang turf war to me.

      • Anonymous

        Bishops go postal? Come on, you know better than that. Why are you trying to start a war when there are so many other issues relevant to our times?

        • Anonymous

          The Catholic Church and their doings are relevant. 

          • Anonymous

            If the Church was breaking the law I would agree with you. 

          • Anonymous

            ??????

          • Anonymous

            Personally, I believe the church got a free pass from law enforcement. If you have a predatory pedophile priest that is caught and then protected by a bishop or cardinal. They both should be charged by the police one for the act and one as aiding and abetting in the commision of a crime.
            The problem being that prosecutors didn’t want to tangle with the church in court.

    • Anonymous

      You need to get off your high horse! Allegations of sexual abuse concern events going  back decades, not recent ones. Please tell me what “millions” are being spent to cover abuse. Please be specific. I’ll tell you one thing: The Church has instituted various programs to clean up its act, and they’re working besides. Most institutions, both public and private, have barely made any steps toward that end.

      • Anonymous

        So, you’re saying it was OK because it happened several decades ago.  LOL

        • Anonymous

          Don’t put words in my mouth, Sally. You damn well know what I’m talking about. Why the mistreatment?

          • Anonymous

            “Allegation (allegations my foot, heck, even your Church call them what they were, abuse. ) of sexual abuse concer events  going back decades, no recent ones.” So, what are you trying to say?

            And you don’t realize how much money the ‘Church has paid out in sexual suits brought against it?????????  It almost bankrupted the Boston diocese.

          • Anonymous

            What I am saying is that you are constant trying to dredge up the past. Sexual abuse in the church is a rare occurrence today. Most of the allegations going on today concern abuse that allegedly occurred more than two decades ago! If you are so concerned about sexual abuse, focus on other institutions that have hardly implemented measures to prevent it instead of singling out the church. 

          • Anonymous

            Quit using the words allegations and allegedly.   The Catholic Church got sued, dragged into court and and the court awarded million and million to people the court determined to have been sexually assaulted by priests. And the abuse was massive, world wide. There is no frickin’ “alleged’ . It happened.

            And the reason other institutions haven’t implemented measures in the wake of the Catholic Churches abuse is because (1)  They haven’t indulged themselves and (2) They already had policies and processes in place.  The Church is playing catch up. Bully for the Church

          • Anonymous

            You know, Sally, I’m starting to lose respect for you. All this time I thought you had more class than you are now demonstrating. I don’t know why, but you seem to be drifting further and further away from the truth. At this point I don’t see much sense in trying to reason with you any longer. I hope the reason why you are being cynical is that you’re just having a bad day or going through a difficult period in your life. If that the case, I wish you well soon.

          • Anonymous

            Your respect was pretty thin to begin with. .  I’m having a bad day because people are trying to pretend that the Church, which by the way I’d like to respect, hasn’t been involved in a world wide scandal, hasn’t been grossly inadequate in its response and believes that we should all just forgive and forget and get on with the business of acting morally righteous in preventing full healthcare coverage to all women.  Don’t preach saving souls until your Church has saved its soul.

          • Anonymous

            It’s taken you this long to figure sally out ?

    • Well there’s a first for everything, including me clicking the “like” button to one of your posts, but credit is due.

      I’d just like to add, that the RCC has been corrupt for a very long time now, since Constantine’s takeover. Especially the part about the removal of the 2nd commandment of God to not worship idols (like those of Mary and saints) from the catholic version of the bible. They’ve gone far from the path led by the examples and words of Jesus the Messiah.

      • Anonymous

        Thanks, and a “like” back atcha.

  • Anonymous

    Mr. Ashey, have you heard from the town officials, like the tax assessor, what tax relief we might expect from the propane facility?  Can you provide evidence of similar development resulting in tax relief in Searsport?  in other places?

    At a recent selectboard meeting in Searsport, a selectman informed the public that DCP, when pressed to answer the question about jobs, conceded that they can not promise to hire local people.

    From everything that I have read and heard about DCP’s big tank, and from everything that hasn’t been said ( see paragraph #1 above), I remain unconvinced that this development would result in a net gain for Searsport. 

    • Anonymous

      I can’t see the job market getting any worse if the propane company came in. Drove thru Searsport on the way to the Mill and saw the welcome to Searsport sign on the campground property and it said something like “Welcome to Searsport where our Maritime Heritage Charts our Future.” I see it kind of ironic that they are chasing our a marine terminal. Searsport is hurting everything is already for sale, even the realtors place is for sale. At least DCP is trying make something of the place. While everyone according the the papers wants only tourism.  Give the company a chance. If they mess up, kick them out.

      • Anonymous

        Here is a link to a website promoting our town:

        http://www.searsportme.net/home.php

        Written by the town manager, it praises the shops, B &B’s, museum, the beautiful undeveloped Sears Island, and the campground, and encourages tourists to visit our 8 miles of peaceful mid-coast scenery.

        I do like your idea of kicking them out if they mess up.  Maybe you can recommend someone to us who can remove the tank for us after they’re gone.  I’d also be interested in learning how we might go about kicking them out, since up until now no one in the town has given us a say in whether they come here in the first place.

        • Guest

           Apparently you don’t know the difference between a town line and a property line. The “welcome to Searsport” sign is two miles INSIDE the Searsport town line, and IS on the lawn of the campground. Please get your facts straight before you post more lies. 

          • Anonymous

            You’re right, thanks, noticed that yesterday myself. 
            Lie removed.

      • Anonymous

        In New Mexico, DCP made a terrible mess for years, being the major cause of air pollution. The Attorney general’s office worked for years to kick them out. The 60 million dollar settlement included fines and what they were supposed to fix on their facility……….so far….nada. 
        As for homes and properties for sale in Searsport, apparently you don’t travel out of Maine, for sale signs are everywhere in every community. 
        Mack Point has been host to  varied commodities that need shipping. Oil/gas only since the fifties, propane is a dead end. Searsporters deserve better than an air polluting time bomb.

  • Anonymous

    William: I’ve commented on this until I’m blue in the face…EVEN f you STOP pre-funding, the USPS will bleed cash to the tune of 3-4 billion a YEAR…CUT back the number of post offices, lay off (sorry) excess postal workers, Cut back to 5 day a week delivery, raise BULK mail postage, eliminate franking privileges for Congress, AND drop the restrictions on Fed Ex and UPS from carrying non-priority letters and you won’t miss a thing…except all this crying over how an archaic and increasingly obsolete form of communication is costing us way too much money…SIGH

  • Anonymous

    Contraceptives violate natural law?  Like seatbelts?  Helmets? 

    • Anonymous

      If contraceptives are natural, then why didn’t God give them to Adam and Eve, and tell them to use them?

      • Anonymous

        Because God gave Adam and Eve brains and He expected them to figure it out for themselves?

        • Anonymous

          God told them to multiply and fill the earth.  The earth has a long way to go before it is full.  The entire population of the world could fit in the state of Texas, and the population density would be less than that of what New York City currently is.

          • Anonymous

            “There is a point at which religion becomes indistinguishable from mental illness”

            Gemni NYT

          • Anonymous

            C’mon now: the carrying capacity of the Earth requires a much lower density than New York City. We need to grow food, remember?

            What’s with the Catholic obsession with filling the world with people, anyway?

          • Anonymous

            God states in the Bible that he is a jealous God.  His plan for us is that he wants us to worship him and glorify him for all eternity, and in exchange, he offers us an eternity of unfathomable happiness.  For God, it’s the more the merrier.  He’s the one who knows when there will be too many people on the earth.  The earth is just passing away, as are we while we’re here.  Eternity is what God intends for us to be our focus.

          • Anonymous

            How can an omniscient being fall prey to a simple human emotion: jealousy? If there is a god, or many gods (crazy idea on it’s own), I’m sure he is bigger than that.

          • Anonymous

            Exodus 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

            Exodus 34:14  For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

          • Anonymous

            I get that the bible says it. I just think it’s nuts…

          • Anonymous

            I’m with Hop.  You got an awful bossy and egotistical God.  He was also way too interested in the interior decoration of His house….. a tassel here, and another there. Brass columns with silver hooks over there and curtains over on the other side. Ooooo, Looking good!

          • Anonymous

            Ah the old 72 virgins promise.  LOL

          • Anonymous

             We have to grow food?  Now you’re being logical.  Shame on you. 

          • Anonymous

             Yes, the entire population of the world could fit into the Sahara Desert or Antarctica, but we couldn’t live there.  If we did what you want, we’d all starve.

      • Anonymous

        I’m not a believer in those ancient stories, and it remains a mystery to me why anyone would be.

        Unwanted pregnancy, however, is very real.  And needs to be addressed here and now in the real world.

        • Anonymous

          Tell her to cross her legs and say no.  Easiest way to address it, and natural, too.

          • Anonymous

            You do live in a dream world, don’t you?  :/  

          • Anonymous

            That’s worked really well in the states that have adopted “abstinence only” sex education.  They are the states with the highest teen and single mother pregnancies. 

      • Anonymous

        You don’t really believe people came from Adam and Eve, do you? It’s 2012, after all…
        (psst: Earth is round and revolves around the Sun)

        • Anonymous

          LOL

      • Anonymous

        Because He invented Adam an Eve on the 6th day and on the 7th He didn’t invent anything more because He’d kicked back was watching the Bruins and having a beer.  Contraceptives just weren’t on his mind that day. So now we have to listen to a bunch of old men in skirts prance around and tell us what they thought God was thinking that day. Sigh.  Religion is funny stuff. 

        • Anonymous

           On the seventh day he threw rocks at New England.

          • Anonymous

            LOL

  • Anonymous

    Doctrine of the faith is no more than the fox guarding the chicken house..Bishops were  hiding the priests under the watchful eyes of the  ” watchdog of the vatican” Cardinal Ratzinger! Beni Dominus Vobiscum.  Wasn’t the father of USPS riddled with syphilis?I think safe sex was banned by the Vatican as well back then.  LOL

  • Anonymous

    Natural law?  Where else in nature do a bunch of celibate males get to tell the females what to do without the females tearing said males to shreds?  Nothing natural about it.

  • Anonymous

    Has anyone looked into the history of  exactly why the USPS has been forced  to pre fund health and pension benefits creating this huge  $326,000,000,000 fund.  No other agency has found it necessary to maintain this kind of  money pool.  Does this pot of gold have anything to do with the very strenuous efforts of Republicans to privatize the USPS?  Who is lining up to buy the USPS?   $326billion would seem to be a huge gift to who ever bought it.  What is going on?  Are taxpayers getting scammed again?  There seem to be more questions than answers.

    • Anonymous

      Depends what the fund is invested in. If it is US government bonds (like Social Security), it was just a way for the government to spend under the guise of savings.

      • Anonymous

        Does any one know how the money is invested?  

  • Anonymous

    If contraception violates “natural law”, what about all other modern medicine? Why is that exempt?

    • MaineHiker

       All major religions are voodoo religions.

      • Anonymous

        No doubt!

    • Anonymous

      Pregnancy is not a disease.  Contraception prevents the natural end result of sex.  It is not unnatural to use medication to cure an illness.  In Biblical times, people used herbs for medicine, so medicinal use has been natural for a long time.

      • Anonymous

        How about helmets? Head injuries are the natural end result of bonking your noodle. And I believe there are herbs the ancients used to terminate pregnancies…

        Rationalize it how you want: it’s silly.

      • Anonymous

        What about the natural herbal contraceptives and abortifacients wild carrot, blue cohosh, pennyroyal,  ergot, juniper and silphium used during biblical times?   Natural, yup.  Used for a long time, yup.  Banned by the Church in the second millennium, yup. 

        • Anonymous

          And if you were using them in pre-modern times to prevent pregnancy or to abort a pregnancy, the Catholic Church would have said their usage is immoral.

          • Anonymous

            But the bible didn’t  and the Church didn’t either until the second thousand years of it’s existence. 

          • Anonymous

            I don’t believe the Bible says anything about birth control or about abortion directly. The church has taught about the purpose of sex within marriage since its founding. Artificial birth control wasn’t really an issue until the 20th century. The church has issued its teaching on the morality of artificial birth control.
            Women can obviously take it or leave it. No woman is forced to be Catholic, or forced to forgo using birth control if she wants to use it.

          • Anonymous

            The first known non-Biblical writings of the apostles (70 A.D.) had a passage which states, “Thou shalt not procure an abortion.”  A lot earlier than the 2nd millenium.

          • Anonymous

            That would be Barnabas and he also said “thou shall not corrupt boys”

          • Anonymous

            Too bad the gay priests didn’t pay attention to that.  The translation I have seen is “thou shall not seduce boys.”

          • 98% of all molestation are performed by heterosexual men who prefer pre prubesant boys. Homosexual men want a real man. 00% of all the molestations in the Catholic church were perpetrated by priests who do not identify as gay (50% do identify). I was molested by a heterosexual male, I am female so do we ban all hetersexuals, no. Pedaphilia is not homosexual.

          • Anonymous

             Yes, that’s in First Charlatans 13, I believe.

          • Anonymous

            LOL  Thanks for the chuckle of the day.

          • Anonymous

            The early Church did not consider it abortion until the fetus had “quickened”.  

      • Anonymous

         Would you ban seatbelts on this basis?  They prevent some of the worst consequences  of the “natural law” of smashing into objects at high speeds.

    • Anonymous

      Contraception is considered immoral not because it is medicine, but because it interferes with what the church says is the purpose of sex. It goes like this: god created man and woman and told them to have sex. That sex was so that the man and woman could become one flesh (there’s the fun part of sex) and also increase and multiply (that’s the responsibility part of sex). The church teaches that anything that deliberately interferes with either of those purposes is an immoral act. Hence contraception, which renders sex deliberatly sterile, is considered unnatural, and thus immoral.

      • Anonymous

        Crazy…

        • Anonymous

          Totally bonkers….

  • Anonymous

    The Catholic Church and it’s followers may believe and follow what they will, however they have NO right to dictate their teachings to the United States of America.   This is not Italy.  

    • Anonymous

      Ironically, Italy has just decided to *tax* the Catholic church!

      • Anonymous

        Good luck with enforcing that in Italy.

  • Anonymous

    The supreme irony here is the people constantly bashing the Roman Catholic Church are the ones who were telling us, not that long ago, that to do so was bigoted.  How do you like them now?  AHHHHAHAHAHA

    • Anonymous

      Really?  When was that?  Who was defending them then, but not now?

      • Anonymous

        It was the same type of liberals who said that JFK should have been elected president.  The same liberals that said that the Roman Catholic Church was a legitimate denomination of the Christian church.  The same liberals who had a major problem with a McCain supporter who articulated his opposition to the Catholic Church.  You’re reaping what you’ve sown.

        • Anonymous

          Do you not understand the difference between objecting to the racism and bigotry of the anti-Catholic John Hagee and objecting to the Catholic Church’s refusal to pay  for comprehensive health insurance?  

          • Anonymous

            What earthly difference does consistency to doctrine make when your priests are raping little kids and your bishops are spending millions to cover it up.

          • Anonymous

            I’m just not following your logic.

          • Anonymous

            John Hagee’s comments on Catholicism are racist and bigoted, but yours are objections to the Catholic Church’s refusal to pay for comprehensive health insurance?  What a joke.

          • Anonymous

            ???

        • Anonymous

          The Catholic Church is not a denomination.  It is the Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ, and intended by him to be the only Christian Church.  All other non-Catholic Christians are members of denominations.

          • Anonymous

            The Roman Church has never been anything more than one denomination among many.  The early Church was even more diverse than today.  There were Ebionites (probably the original Christians — they followed Jesus rather than worshiping Christ, kept the Saturday Sabbath — look them up), the Marcionites, Donatists, Montanists, Gnostics, Adoptionists, Pelagians, Arians — and more — and, not to be forgotten, the Eastern Orthodox Churches that survive to this day and are older than the Church of Rome. The Arians almost became the “orthodox” Church, and almost replaced the proto-Catholics. Two Emperors were Arian Christians, and the Ecumenical Councils of Rimini and Selucia (between the times of Nicaea and Constantinople) voted in favor of the Arian position. But when Theodosius became Emperor, the Arians were banned and their Councils were deemed to not have been “real” councils, because they didn’t go the way Theodosius liked.
            This is no criticism of the Roman Catholic denomination — they have the same right to religious freedom everyone else has. I’m not laughing at you as others on this page are doing. I take you seriously. Just please don’t legislate your doctrine into some Catholic Sharia Law that we all have to follow.

        • Anonymous

          You’re making broad accusations against “those liberals” without pointing anyone out as an example.  My previous question remains…

  • MaineHiker

    The Catholic church does not teach Natural law. It teaches supernatural law. 

  • Dear Friends, please stop arguing with WhaWell he is an angry, poorly informed person. By arguing with him you are giving hom a soapbox tp spread his lies. By ignoring him peraps he will spend more time with whomever he still has in his life that he has not pushed away yet.

  • Anonymous

    Sarah, “objective truth” and “natural law.” Two vague and esoteric concepts. Seems like there should be more practical tasks for “believers” to spend time on.

  • Anonymous

    Nonsense.  Health insurance represents the employees’ money.  Any contribution which an employer makes to health care is considered to be part of their employees’ benefit packages.  So the Church is dictating to its employees how their own money should be spent.Why should employees at Catholic hospitals – some of whom are Catholic and some of whom are not – have their medical coverage limited because contraception violates Catholic dogma?  Nobody is forcing Catholics to use contraceptives – what right do they have to place obstacles in front of others who choose to do so?It is analogous to pharmacists who will not fulfill birth control prescriptions because of their personal beliefs.  If you want to be a pharmacist, you waive your right to pick and choose which medical products your customers want to use.  

Similar Articles