How do you solve a problem like Pope Francis?


Did Pope Francis just say that it is ok to use artificial contraception in some cases?

This is the question that is being asked all over the world at the moment. As usual following the off-the-cuff answers given during his airplane interviews, Pope Francis has left a wake of questions and confusion. One begs the question of whether he should be doing this style of interview at all? I often wish he would just take a sedative on his plane trips and have a nice long sleep rather than unleashing the hounds of misinterpretation and misunderstanding.

Let’s gloss over the fact that he just told Donald Trump he was not a Christian, and instead focus on the recent comments concerning the Zika virus. Did he say it was ok to use condoms to avoid a pregnancy in these circumstances?

The first thing to do is to ignore any shock headlines and look up the exact transcript of what was said:

Paloma García Ovejero, Cadena COPE (Spain): “Holy Father, for several weeks there’s been a lot of concern in many Latin American countries but also in Europe regarding the Zika virus. The greatest risk would be for pregnant women. There is anguish. Some authorities have proposed abortion, or else to avoiding pregnancy. As regards avoiding pregnancy, on this issue, can the Church take into consideration the concept of “the lesser of two evils?””

Pope Francis: Abortion is not the lesser of two evils. It is a crime. It is to throw someone out in order to save another. That’s what the Mafia does. It is a crime, an absolute evil. On the ‘lesser evil,’ avoiding pregnancy, we are speaking in terms of the conflict between the fifth and sixth commandment. Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape.

Don’t confuse the evil of avoiding pregnancy by itself, with abortion. Abortion is not a theological problem, it is a human problem, it is a medical problem. You kill one person to save another, in the best case scenario. Or to live comfortably, no?  It’s against the Hippocratic oaths doctors must take. It is an evil in and of itself, but it is not a religious evil in the beginning, no, it’s a human evil. Then obviously, as with every human evil, each killing is condemned.

On the other hand, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one, or in the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear. I would also urge doctors to do their utmost to find vaccines against these two mosquitoes that carry this disease. This needs to be worked on.”

As we know, the Popes words can often be taken out of context and twisted by the media. And that is exactly what happened following this recent plane interview. But then, on 19th Feb 2016 Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi affirmed that the Holy Father was indeed speaking of “condoms and contraceptives” when on the flight back from Mexico, Pope Francis said couples could rightly “avoid pregnancy” in the wake of the Zika virus scare.

Fr. Lombardi told Vatican Radio today, “The contraceptive or condom, in particular cases of emergency or gravity, could be the object of discernment in a serious case of conscience. This is what the Pope said.”

Vatican Radio have issued a sound recording and full transcript of Lombardi’s comments, so there is really no doubt whatsoever that he did actually say that. I suppose there is always the possibility that Lombardi twisted the words of Pope Francis – but I doubt it. There would have been some correction issued by the vatican already if that was the case.


So what do we do now?

For those of us who have struggled with and committed to church teachings on sex and marriage this comes as a major blow. Does the Pope really have no idea how hard it can be sometimes? Does he have no idea about the rewards and benefits to the marriage of remaining in line with the church on this issue? Does he think that bending the rules regarding artificial contraception is being ‘merciful’ in some way?

I don’t know. I just don’t know with him I’m afraid. I’m as confused as you are. This is not the first time this canny old Jesuit has left a wake of upset and confusion in his path, and I don’t think for a moment it will be the last.

I remember a few years back when Benedict came to the UK and I stood on the side of the road literally jumping up and down, cheering as loud as I could as he drove into his papal residence in Wimbledon. Benedict was my hero – my Father. I trusted him. I can’t say I would be doing that if Francis came to visit. I just don’t feel that way about Francis. I feel extremely let down and rather embarrassed if I am totally honest.

But one thing is even worse than that. Francis leaves me with a funny mixed feeling of hopelessness and suspicion which stinks of political motivation. Following everything that has occurred so far in his papacy I am left  with two thoughts:

Either he has absolutely no idea of what he is doing, or he knows exactly what he is doing. I don’t know which is worse…




Technology will Eradicate the Pill


Google has said it is testing a “smart contact lens” that can help measure glucose levels in tears.

It uses a “tiny” wireless chip and a “miniaturised” glucose sensor embedded between two layers of lens material.

The firm said it is also working on integrating tiny LED lights that could light up to indicate that glucose levels have crossed certain thresholds. But it added that “a lot more work” needed to be done to get the technology ready for everyday use. “It’s still early days for this technology, but we’ve completed multiple clinical research studies which are helping to refine our prototype. We hope this could someday lead to a new way for people with diabetes to manage their disease.”

“It is likely to spur a range of other innovations towards miniaturizing technology and using it in wearable devices to help people monitor their bodies better”

Many global firms have been looking to expand in the wearable technology sector – seen by many as a key growth area in the coming years. Various estimates have said the sector is expected to grow by between $10bn and $50bn (£6bn and £31bn) in the next five years. Within the sector, many firms have been looking specifically at technology targeted at healthcare.


Scientists are also developing special tattoos which may allow those with diabetes to more accurately and quickly monitor their glucose levels. Two different research teams, led by Michael Strano at MIT and Heather Clark at Draper Labs, have developed two different types of nanotech ‘ink’ which would be injected in the skin and change fluorescence depending on your blood sugar. Both types of tattoo would require an external device to measure and translate this fluorescence. While still in the very early stages of development, these glucose tattoos could one day improve the lives of diabetics by giving themselves a built-in monitor for their condition. Robotics and genetics may provide the near term revolution in healthcare but this work shows that embedded nanotechnology has the potential to create even larger innovations thereafter.


I am not a scientist – but I can imagine that if this sort of technology can be used to measure glucose, it could surely be adapted to measure Oestrogen and Progesterone levels within the female body. Imagine ladies – no more peeing on sticks, no more early morning thermometers, no more “Does that feel slippery or not?”!

With the new medical technology that is emerging, people will look back over the 20th century as a savage pharmaceutical orgy, where symptoms were treated – not people, and side effects were considered normal. The fact that it was considered the norm for women to constantly pump their bodies full of synthetic hormones to avoid conceiving will be regarded as barbaric as the medieval practice of blood-letting.

Soon i will be able to see exactly where i am in my cycle by scanning my arm, or seeing what colour my tattoo is. I will receive an email to tell me i have ovulated!

Technology will eradicate the pill – mark my words.


There is no Room for Opinion in Effective Evangelisation

It’s good to be back! I have had a 3 month vacation from blogging whilst becoming a mother for the 3rd time. Baby is 6 weeks old now and my fingers are starting to itch again for the keyboard!

I have found this 3 month break to be extremely helpful in evaluating my own progress as a Catholic blogger. My aim in blogging is of course to evangelise – that is, to bring Christ to others. Looking back over my early posts I cringe somewhat at the content. I was full of enthusiasm and fire – to the point of seeming aggressive. Even worse I fell into the trap that snares almost all bloggers – I felt my opinion was important!

In hindsight my opinion has only done damage. Who cares about my opinion anyway?! What does it mean? Nothing! My job is to reflect Christ to others. Much of what I have done has reflected myself. From now on my posts are going to be less about me and more about Him.

Opinion can vary, truth on the other hand is absolute. Opinion can be wrong, truth cannot. Opinion is generally used to appease or oppose people. Truth has no agenda. Opinion usually requires lots of text to explain itself, whilst truth can be spelled out in a single sentence or even a single word or even with no words! Opinion causes division, truth unites. Opinion is rooted in human pride, truth comes from God. Opinion detracts from the truth.

During my studies I was introduced for the first time to Papal documents, the Catechism and I began to study Holy Scripture. Discovering these concrete references to the truth was like a breath of fresh air. I now had the chance to understand why the Church teaches what she does on relevant issues to my own life such as marriage, sex, and family. Most ordinary Catholics under the age of 50 have no idea why or even what the official teaching is on these issues. I once even heard of a woman who thought that Human Vitae was a vitamin pill!

My point is that if we have never bothered to study any of these concrete references to the truth, all we have to go on is our own, or someone else’s opinion. This can mislead and even damage people. If what I am learning is not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, it is never going to entirely satisfy my soul; “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.” – St. Augustine.

If I am to call myself a successful evangelist then “He Must Increase, But I Must Decrease” – John 3:30. In my attempts at blogging I may advance the gospel, or detract from it – yet it remains far bigger than I am. We must all guard against an inflated sense of self, yes? “He must increase, but I must decrease” is a distillation of a humble heart. Are we pursuing this humility when we promote our own opinion? I think not – but then again, that’s just my opinion! 

Lord, teach me to be humble so I may hear the truth.


Happy 1st Birthday Faith in our Families!

fiof birthday

“I’ve lived through the greatest revolution in sexual mores in our history. The damage it’s done appals me.”

Great article…

By  A N Wilson

PUBLISHED: 23:24, 4 January  2013 |  UPDATED: 19:03,  7 January 2013

Humorous: In the view of poet Philip Larkin, the Sexual Revolution started 50 years agoHumorous: In the view of poet Philip Larkin, the Sexual  Revolution started 50 years ago

The Sexual Revolution started 50 years ago.  At least, that was the view of the poet Philip Larkin, who wrote:

‘Sexual intercourse began In nineteen sixty-three. Between the end of the Chatterley ban and the Beatles’ first  LP.’

Probably when today’s students read this  poem, they understand the reference to the Beatles first LP, but need a bit of  help with ‘the Chatterley ban’. D.H. Lawrence’s novel, Lady Chatterley’s  Lover, had been banned for obscenity, and all the liberal-minded ‘great and the  good’ — novelists, professors of literature, an Anglican bishop and sociologists  — trooped to the Old Bailey to explain to a learned judge why Penguin Books  should be allowed to publish it. To my mind, Lawrence’s account of how a  sex-starved rich woman romps naked in the woods with her husband’s gamekeeper is  risible. It is hard to read the accounts of them  cavorting in the rain, and sticking wild flowers in one another’s pubic hair,  without laughing.

Yet the great English Literature professors  of the Fifties and Sixties spoke of Lady C in the same breath as the most  wonderful writings of the world, and the Chatterley trial in 1960 marked a major  watershed. The prosecuting counsel, Mr Mervyn  Griffith-Jones, lost the case when he shot himself in the foot by asking the  jury whether they considered Lawrence’s bizarre novel was something they would  wish their wives or servants to read. By putting the question in that way and  referring to ‘servants’, he seemed to suggest that being loyal to one partner  was as outmoded as having a butler and a parlour-maid.

With the ban lifted, Lawrence’s book became  the best-selling novel of the early Sixties. And by the end of the decade,  hippies with flowers in their hair, or would-be hippies, were practising free  love Chatterley-style. Those who could not classify themselves as hippies looked  on a bit wistfully. Of course, Larkin — born in 1922 — was being  ironical and humorous. But the 1960s were a turning-point, and the decade did  undoubtedly herald the Sexual Revolution.

I was born in 1950, 28 years after Larkin.  And far from being ‘rather late for me’, the revolutionary doctrines of the  Sixties were all readily adopted by me and countless  others. From being schoolboys who read Lady  Chatterley under the sheets, to teenagers and young men who had the Rolling  Stones reverberating in our ears, we had no intention of being stuffy like our  parents. The arrival of a contraceptive pill for women  in 1961 appeared to signal the beginning of guilt-free, pregnancy-free sex. We  were saying goodbye to what Larkin (in that poem) called ‘A shame that started  at sixteen / And spread to everything.’
The Sixties: Teenagers and young men who had the Rolling Stones (pictured in 1964) reverberating in their ears had no intention of being stuffy like their parentsThe Sixties: Teenagers and young men who had the Rolling  Stones (pictured in 1964) reverberating in their ears had no intention of being  stuffy like their parents

But if the propagators of the Sexual  Revolution had been able to fast-forward 50 years, what would they have expected  to see? Surely not the shocking statistics about today’s sexual habits in the UK  which are available for all to study. In 2011, there were 189,931 abortions carried  out, a small rise on the previous year, and about seven per cent more than a  decade ago. Ninety-six per cent of these abortions were  funded by the NHS, i.e. by you and me, the taxpayer. One per cent of these were  performed because the would-be parents feared the child would be born  handicapped in some way. Forty-seven per cent were so-called medical abortions,  carried out because the health of mother and child were at  risk. The term ‘medical abortion’ is very widely  applied and covers the psychological ‘health’ of the patient. But even if you concede that a little less  than half the abortions had some medical justification, this still tells us that  more than 90,000 foetuses are aborted every year in this country simply as a  means of lazy ‘birth control’. Ninety thousand human lives are thrown away  because their births are considered too expensive or in some other way  inconvenient.

Lazy: When women neglected to take the Pill, there seemed all the more reason to use abortion as a form of birth controlLazy: When women neglected to take the Pill, there  seemed all the more reason to use abortion as a form of birth control

The Pill, far from reducing the numbers of  unwanted pregnancies, actually led to more. When women neglected to take the Pill, there  seemed all the more reason to use abortion as a form of birth  control. Despite the fact that, in the wake of the  Aids crisis, people were urged to use condoms and to indulge in safe-sex, the  message did not appear to get through. In the past few years, sexually transmitted  diseases among young people have hugely increased, with more and more young  people contracting chlamydia, gonorrhoea, syphilis and other diseases, many of  them unaware they were infected until after they had been sexually active with a  number of partners.

The divorce statistics tell another miserable  story. About one third of marriages in Britain end in divorce. And because many  couples do not marry at all before splitting up, the number of broken homes is  even greater. This time of year is when the painfulness of  family break-up is felt most acutely. January 3 has been nicknamed ‘divorce day’  by lawyers. In a moving article in the Mail recently, Lowri Turner, a  twice-divorced mother of three children, wrote about the pain of waking up on  Christmas morning without her children. She looks at the presents under the  tree, with no children to open them, and thinks: ‘This isn’t the way things are  supposed to be.’

Every parent who has been through the often  self-inflicted hell of divorce will know what she means. So will the thousands of children this  Christmas who spent the day with only one parent — and often with that parent’s  new ‘partner’ whom they hate. I hold up my hands. I have been divorced.  Although I was labelled a Young Fogey in my youth, I imbibed all the  liberationist sexual mores of the Sixties as far as sexual morality was  concerned.

I made myself and dozens of people extremely  unhappy — including, of course, my children and other people’s children. I am  absolutely certain that my parents, by contrast, who married in 1939 and stayed  together for more than 40 years until my father died, never strayed from the  marriage bed. There were long periods when they found  marriage extremely tough, but having lived through years of aching  irritation  and frustration, they grew to be Darby and Joan, deeply  dependent upon one  another in old age, and in an imperfect but  recognisable way, an object lesson  in the meaning of the word ‘love’.

Happiness: The GfK's most recent poll shows most of us feel that what will make us very happy is having a long-lasting, stable relationship, having children, and maintaining, if possible, lifelong marriageHappiness: The GfK’s most recent poll shows most of us  feel that what will make us very happy is having a long-lasting, stable  relationship, having children, and maintaining, if possible, lifelong  marriage.

Back in the Fifties, GfK National Opinon Poll  conducted a survey asking how happy people felt on a sliding scale — from very  happy to very unhappy. In 1957, 52 per cent said they were ‘very  happy’. By 2005, the same set of questions found only 36 per cent were ‘very  happy’, and the figures are falling. More than half of those questioned in the  GfK’s most recent survey said that it was a stable relationship which made them  happy. Half those who were married said they were ‘very happy’, compared with  only a quarter of singles.

The truth is that the Sexual Revolution had  the power to alter our way of life, but it could not alter our essential nature;  it could not alter the reality of who and what we are as human  beings. It made nearly everyone feel that they were  free, or free-er, than their parents had been — free to smoke pot, free to sleep  around, free to pursue the passing dream of what felt, at the time, like  overwhelming love — an emotion which very seldom lasts, and a word which is  meaningless unless its definition includes commitment.  How easy it was to dismiss old-fashioned  sexual morality as ‘suburban’, as a prison for the human soul. How easy it was  to laugh at the ‘prudes’ who questioned the wisdom of what was happening in the  Sexual Revolution.

About one-third of marriages in Britain end in divorceAbout one-third of marriages in Britain end in  divorce

Yet, as the opinion poll shows, most of us  feel at a very deep level that what will make us very happy is not romping with  a succession of lovers. In fact, it is having a long-lasting, stable  relationship, having children, and maintaining, if possible, lifelong  marriage.

An amusing Victorian historian, John Seeley,  said the British Empire had been acquired in ‘a fit of absence of mind’. He  meant that no one sat down and planned for the British to take over large parts  of Asia and Africa: it was more a case of one thing leading to another. In many  ways, the Sexual Revolution of the Sixties and Seventies in Britain was a bit  like this. People became more prosperous. People were  living longer. The old-fashioned concept of staying in the same marriage and the  same job all your life suddenly seemed so, so boring. But in the Forties and Fifties, divorce had  not been an option for most people because it was so very expensive, in terms of  economic as well as emotional cost. So people slogged through their unhappy  phases and came out at the other end.

It is easy to see, then, if the tempting  option of escaping a boring marriage was presented, that so many people were  prone to take the adventurous chance of a new partner, a new way of  life. But the Sexual Revolution was not, of course,  all accidental. Not a bit of it. Many of the most influential opinion-formers of  the age were doing their best to undermine all traditional morality, and  especially the traditional morality of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, which has  always taught that marriage is for life.

A decade on from the Chatterley trial, in  1971, an ‘alternative’ magazine called Oz, written by the Australian Richard  Neville and his mates, was had up, not for obscenity, but for ‘conspiracy to  debauch and corrupt the morals of children’. What brought the authors into trouble was  ‘The School Kids’ Issue’, which depicted Rupert Bear in a state of arousal, and  which carried many obscene adverts. The three perpetrators of the filth were sent  to prison, but the sentence was quashed on appeal.

The 'alternative' magazine called Oz, written by the Australian Richard Neville (pictured) and his mates, was had up for 'conspiracy to debauch and corrupt the morals of children'The ‘alternative’ magazine called Oz, written by the  Australian Richard Neville (pictured) and his mates, was had up for ‘conspiracy  to debauch and corrupt the morals of children. Their defender was none other than dear old  Mr Rumpole of the Bailey, John Mortimer QC — warming to the role of the nation’s  teddy bear. He said that if you were a ‘writer’, you  should be allowed to describe any activity, however depraved. Obscenity could not be defined or  identified. And it was positively good for us to be outraged from time to  time.  Even the Left-leaning liberal Noel Annan,  provost of King’s College, Cambridge, suggested this was nonsense. He remarked  that it was impossible to think of any civilisation in history that fitted  Mortimer’s propositions.  But when the Oz Three were released from  prison, the Chattering Classes all rejoiced.

Of course, this was the era when the BBC was  turning a blind eye to the predatory activities of Jimmy Savile, and when the  entire artistic and academic establishment was swayed by the ideas which John  Mortimer presented to the Court of Appeal: namely that old-fashioned ideas of  sexual morality were dead. Moribund. Over. From now on, anything goes — and it was  ‘repressive’ to teach children otherwise.

The wackier clerics of the Church of England,  the pundits of the BBC, the groovier representatives of the educational  establishment, the liberal Press, have all, since the Sexual Revolution began,  gone along with the notion that a relaxation of sexual morality will lead to a  more enlightened and happy society. This was despite the fact that all the  evidence around us demonstrates that the exact opposite is the  case.

In the Fifties, the era when people were  supposedly ‘repressed’, we were actually much happier than we have been more  recently — in an era when confused young people have been invited to make up  their own sexual morals as they went along. The old American cliché is that you can’t put  the toothpaste back in the tube; and it is usually a metaphor used to suggest  that it is impossible to turn the clock back in matters of public behaviour and  morality. Actually, you know, I think that is wrong.

One of the brilliantly funny things  about  the TV sitcom Absolutely Fabulous was that the drunken,  chain-smoking, sexually  promiscuous old harridans Edina Monsoon (played  by Jennifer Saunders) and her  friend Patsy (Joanna Lumley) are despised  by the puritanical Saffy — Eddie’s  daughter.

The TV sitcom Absolutely Fabulous featured the drunken, chain-smoking, sexually promiscuous old harridans Edina Monsoon (played by Jennifer Saunders, left) and her friend Patsy (Joanna Lumley)The TV sitcom Absolutely Fabulous featured the drunken,  chain-smoking, sexually promiscuous old harridans Edina Monsoon (played by  Jennifer Saunders, left) and her friend Patsy (Joanna Lumley)

A small backlash has already definitely  occurred against that generation. I have not conducted a scientific survey, but  my impression, based on anecdotal evidence and the lives of the children of my  contemporaries, is that they are far less badly behaved, and far more sensible,  than we were.My guess is that the backlash will be even  greater in the wake of the whole Jimmy Savile affair, and in reaction against  the miserable world which my generation has handed on to our children — with our  confused sexual morality, and our broken homes.

Our generation, who started to grow up  ‘between the end of the Chatterley ban and the Beatles first LP’ got it all so  horribly wrong.We ignored the obvious fact that moral  conventions develop in human societies for a reason.We may have thought it was ‘hypocritical’ to  condemn any form of sexual behaviour, and we may have dismissed the undoubted  happiness felt by married people as stuffy, repressed and old  hat.

But we were wrong, wrong,  wrong. Two generations have grown up — comprising  children of selfish grown-ups who put their own momentary emotional needs and  impulses before family stability and the needs of their  children. However, I don’t think this behaviour can  last much longer. The price we all pay for the fragmentation of society, caused  by the break-up of so many homes, will surely lead to a massive  rethink.  At least, let’s hope so.

Read more: Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Do Condoms Prevent HIV?

December 1st is World AIDS day, and before I continue I would like to pay my respect to all those who have died – and to those who are bravely living with the disease. God bless you all.

Dr Valerie Delpech – Health Protection Agency head of HIV surveillance, today told the BBC: “Obviously this is a serious illness and it is worrying that we’re still seeing a lot (of infections) in men who have sex with men and this is a record year. Transmission in the UK is largely sexual, so safe sex is the best way to prevent yourself getting HIV.”

Dr Valerie – I’m sorry but this is NOT true! There is overwhelming evidence to show that condoms have failed, and continue to fail, to stop the spread of this deadly disease.

In the late 1980s, Thailand and the Philippines had roughly the same number of HIV/ AIDS cases at 112 and 135 cases, respectively. In the early 1990s, the government of Thailand enforced the 100% condom use program in its booming commercial sex industry. The Philippines on the other hand, was characterized by its very low rate of condom use and the firm opposition of church and government to condoms. In 2003, almost fifteen years later, the number of HIV/ AIDS cases in Thailand had risen to 750,000 while the number in the Philippines remained low at 1,935.

Just to clarify: Thailand’s approach was 100% condom use. This resulted in  750,000 becoming infected with HIV over the next 15 years. In contrast – the Philippines didn’t chose condoms. They chose to promote abstinence from sex, outside of marriage. This resulted in just 1,935 people becoming infected with HIV over the next 15 years.

The results are clear: In countries where condoms are promoted, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS increased. The latest book of Harvard University AIDS research expert Dr. Edward Green, Broken Promises: How the AIDS Establishment has Betrayed the Developing World, boldly takes up this topic and suggests that a “sex-positive” approach and condom promotion in Africa, have contributed to the continent being the home of the greatest number of AIDS victims in the world. Even way back in his 2003 book, Rethinking AIDS Prevention, Dr. Green had already pointed out that behavioural change was more effective than condom promotion.

According to the New York Times, U.S. Public health officials say they are stumped by this so called ‘paradox’  in the Philippines, where a very low rate of condom use and a very low rate of H.I.V. infection seem to be going hand in hand. They are stumped by the fact that “AIDS-prevention efforts often focus on the use of condoms, but they are not widely available here – and are mostly shunned – in this conservative Roman Catholic country.”

They are saying that “experts can only guess” at the reasons for the low infection rate. No more than about 10,000 Filipino’s are believed to be infected with HIV in a population of 84 million, and the relatively low rate is not thought to be a case of underreporting. ”It’s quite perplexing!” said Zahidul Huque, who heads the United Nations team group on HIV/AIDS for the Philippines. ”We’ve been talking about it a lot and frankly, we don’t know why it’s low.”

How is it possible that the United Nations HIV/AIDS experts are so perplexed by this rather obvious outcome? I am no expert, but even I can understand that if you are having sex with only one person ie. your spouse, then it is extremely difficult to spread a sexually transmitted disease! I also understand that if you tell people that “use a condom you are safe…'” that people are lulled into a false sense of security. In this situation of ‘promised’ safety, people tend to take more risks than they would have otherwise.

But perhaps there is a darker reason:

“No amount of condom can prevent the spread of AIDS unless a person adopts a responsible sexual behaviour.” This is how an Rene Bullecer (country director for Human life international, and the director of AIDS-Free Philippines) expressed his concern for the Filipino people after a government official shared the findings of another study conducted by the United Nations Programme on HIV which pointed to condoms as AIDS-fighting ammunition.

“UN agencies consistently insist on the use of artificial contraceptives, including condoms, as part of responsible sexual behaviour, and call access to these by the youth – regardless of marital status – and children as a ‘sexual right.’ While AIDS is incurable, it is a ‘behavioural disease.’ No matter how many condoms you wear, it’s never a guarantee of protection,” warned Bullecer, who heads the private organization AIDS-Free Philippines and who has been entrenched in the AIDS prevention campaign for 20 years now. “I have been in the anti-AIDS campaign since 1992, and I can tell everybody and look them straight in the eye that these so-called ‘anti-AIDS pro-condom advocates’ are not happy that after 28 years, the Philippines has only cumulative cases of less than 12,000,” the doctor said.

He added that non-government groups working “under the shadow of the Department of Health” have been, for nearly two decades now, receiving “millions in funds from condom advocates. Thus, in return, they have to promote their products.”

A new report from the UN Program on HIV/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (UNAIDS), strangely states that new incidents of HIV infections dropped worldwide by 50 percent from 2001 to 2011, but the Philippines remains one of nine countries in which HIV rates have continued to increase. Now the promoters of the anti-life Reproductive Health (RH) Bill  in the Philippines are using the report to push for greater support and passage of the Bill, and an increase in contraceptive usage.

Of course, we know that both the Department of Health and the pro-condom non-government groups have a common agenda to pass the RH Bill. Passage of this bill will mean millions more in funds for condoms; discouraging the promotion of behavioural changes and allowing the continuous flow of condoms. As a consequence more and more cases of HIV and AIDS; and more and more funds coming in to fight the inevitable increase in HIV/AIDS. The statistical likelihood of these outcomes is a simple case of mathematics, and the fact that no one in the department questions any of this raises the possibility of corruption.

Perhaps the “experts” are overlooking the facts on purpose? – I’m just saying.



Read 50 Shades of Grey? Still having boring Sex? Here’s why…

Are you one of the 20 million women who have purchased 50 Shades of Grey?

Women all over the globe seem to be raving about this latest ‘mummy porn’. “It’s helped put the ‘life’ back into our sex life!” “Me and my husband are trying new and really naughty things!” and even “I have run the batteries flat on my vibrator!”.

Ok, so let me ask you another question…

How is your sex life, I mean really?

Because the overwhelming feeling i am getting from all these women is one of relief. Relief that the drudgery of their sex lives has been interrupted by this gasp-worthy and shock-tastic piece of erotic literature.

Why are 20 million women so unsatisfied with their sex lives?

Well its a good question! Obviously the initial attraction and excitement of wanting to rip your spouses clothes off at the beginning of a relationship naturally declines, but really – BDSM?! Surely there is a better alternative!

For some who don’t understand love, this decline in initial excitement is the beginning of the end – “The fire’s gone out of our relationship…” But wait! The alternative to BDSM is here!: If you grab the latest copy of Cosmopolitan or its equivalent, it will be able to tell you 101 ways how to “Spice up your love life!” (no joke, this is a serious suggestion from a hip and trendy woman’s mag…):

“…Dip into your kids’ toy chest, you paid for all those board games

— why not borrow them and play strip versions?…”

However, after about 5 seconds of reading these hilariously weak, stupid, embarrassing suggestions, one is left feeling a little um, uninspired. Can you imagine the excitement of Strip-Scrabble?! The unbridled eroticism of Strip-Hungry Hungry Hippos?! With Strip-Monopoly it would take over 2 hours before you even got your socks off!

The truth is of course that the poor misguided souls who read this rubbish believe that the initial feeling of sexual arousal/relationship excitement they felt at the beginning – that ‘fire’ – is the key to a happy and successful long-term relationship. So they spend years finding more and more bizarre 50 Shades-ish ways to ‘spice things up’, desperately trying to ward off that feeling of boredom that they dread so terribly.

Yes that’s right – you dread sexual boredom. After all, isn’t having ‘exciting’ sex the highest prize, the pinnacle of personal success in our pleasure-seeking, orgasm driven society?

Ok, I’m not going to claim to know the answer to everyone’s sexual dissatisfaction, but i do very much agree with one theory that is floating around out there…


I’m serious. And many other people are starting to wake up to this fact. Here are the facts as reported from 1Flesh – the fantastic new website giving us the truth about artificial contraception

For almost fifty years,  men and women have relied on contraception for liberated, satisfied sex lives, free from fear and unwanted consequence. And by and large, contraception has provided…for men. Women, on the other hand, are far more dissatisfied with their sex lives. Recent surveys found that 63% of married women would rather be watching a movie than having sex with their husbands, and, according to the 2010 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior, only 64% of women report having an orgasm in their last sexual encounter.

It is entirely possible that part of women’s sexual dysfunction is the result of the birth control pill. A study published on May 4th, 2010 in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, reported that sexual functioning was negatively correlated with use of contraception in a study of over 1,000 German medical students. They reported both reduced sexual desire and arousal, indicating a potential link between contraceptive hormones and lack of sexual satisfaction. In an editorial published with the study, Dr. Irwin Goldstein of the Journal stated, “The irony is that these women are provided a medication that enables freedom from reproductive worries, but these same women are not provided information that there are significant adverse sexual effects that may ensue.”

The problem with hormonal contraception is that it increases estrogen (and sometimes progesterone) levels in a woman’s body, fooling it into acting as though pregnant in order to suppress ovulation. In an actual pregnancy, a woman’s sex drive is frequently reported to fluctuate dramatically, often increasing during the first trimester of pregnancy and tapering off during the second two, dropping off drastically postpartum. How these fluctuations are influenced by estrogen and androgen levels is poorly understood, and most will collectively blame “hormones.” But it is no secret that women typically experience dramatic changes in sex drive during the course of pregnancy.

It would be naïve, then, not to expect a similar change in sex drive with the use of hormonal contraception, which creates an ‘artificial pregnancy’, but involves none of the emotional and relational satisfaction that comes from a healthy pregnancy and anticipation of a child. We have put women in a medical situation that has no precedent in our experience. In short, hormonal birth control’s effect on a woman’s sexual satisfaction is a possible detriment, and needs to be studied as such.

The study of German medical students cited earlier in this article is so important because thus far, it is one of a kind. In the 50 years  in which hormonal contraception has been legal, there has been virtually no reliable research conducted to determine if contraception is really meeting one of its goals: allowing women to be sexually satisfied. In granting women sexual “liberty”, they could be physically cheapening a woman’s ability to be satisfied sexually. The scientific community responsible for reproductive health must critically reevaluate if their current agendas for hormonal contraception are based on women’s best interests.

Please visit for more info, and lets start the revolution ‘Bringing Sexy Back’!

If you have enjoyed reading this post, please don’t forget to ‘like’ my Facebook page, sign up for my blog, or follow me on twitter @FaithIOFamilies – and don’t forget to share! 🙂

The link between Porn and Kentucky Fried Chicken!

Ha! Ha! I knew that heading would get your attention!

(Please let me start by saying that it is not just KFC that i am using as an example here (before i get sued!) it is all fast food outlets!)

So what’s the link? It is what they both lack.

KFC like porn, is quick, easy and doesn’t cost very much. It is available when ever you want it at any hour of the day. It is the lazy mans food of choice. There is no preparation involved, very little creativity, and is served to you by people who are only doing it for the money. Colonel Saunders doesn’t love you! All he is interested in is getting you to part with your hard-earned cash by attempting to satisfy your superficial hunger! (There is also the feeling afterwards that you have done something wrong!!!)

What fast food and porn lack is love, beauty, creativity and wholesomeness. People get addicted to both in an endless quest to satisfy their thirsts. So why is it never satisfying?

The human being needs love. It is our basic need. as Mother Teresa so wisely said:

“The greatest disease in the West today is not TB or leprosy; it is being unwanted, unloved, and uncared for. We can cure physical diseases with medicine, but the only cure for loneliness, despair, and hopelessness is love. There are many in the world who are dying for a piece of bread but there are many more dying for a little love. The poverty in the West is a different kind of poverty — it is not only a poverty of loneliness but also of spirituality. There’s a hunger for love, as there is a hunger for God.” – A simple Path’ by Mother Teresa

The human being also needs beauty and creativity. There is not a lot of beauty or creativity in porn or KFC! I’m not talking about the superficial beauty of a glamour girl, but the kind of infinite beauty that makes you gasp, stops you in your tracks and leaves you with no words to express it. It is only in this infinite beauty that we find lasting satisfaction. Take for example a beautiful piece of music: it is impossible to say that you have heard everything Adagio for strings has to offer, or Monet’s Water Lillies or even the flowers in your garden. It is because we will never be able to define what beauty is that it keeps us satisfied. We as humans need that link to infinity – that link to awesomeness, that link to God.

So last of all – wholesomeness. I guess if the opposite of porn is loving, unrestricted, un-contracepted love-making within a marriage, the opposite of KFC would be a fantastic home cooked meal! Lets take Christmas dinner for example: first of all it is a celebration. Secondly it is an event that is shared. And thirdly it requires input, a bit of creative hard work. What we gain from a family meal like this is much more than just nutritional sustenance. It gives us a sense of who we are, it gives us joy and purpose and love. We miss out on all these things when we pop out for a KFC on our own!

So there you have it – it is possible to survive only on KFC and porn for the rest of our lives, but is this manufactured, processed, replicated nourishment going to satisfy our deeper needs?

One thing is for sure – after reading this post, you are never going to look at Colonel Saunders in the same way ever again!!!