Priests – why don’t you ever give homilies on sex?

Dear Priests,

I love you. You know I love you dearly. I pray and fast for you every single day. But why don’t you ever give homilies on sex?

It’s a good question!

I am 34 years old and I have never, ever, not once, heard a priest talk about sex – either in or out of the pulpit. My mum is in her 70’s and she cannot recall ever hearing sex mentioned in church AT ALL throughout her entire life.

I have been thinking about why this could be:

1. This is Britain, and we don’t talk about that sort of thing.
2. Priests are celibate and don’t feel confident talking about sex.
3. There could be children in the congregation.
4. It’s embarrassing.
5. Telling people that artificial contraception is bad would be a very unpopular homily.

It’s a shame because it is becoming more and more obvious that the Catholic teaching on sex is one of THE biggest tools of evangelization in the modern age. The Catholic teaching on chastity, sex and marriage is completely and utterly counter-cultural. It teaches life in our ‘culture of death’. It is so radical that even you, the Priests don’t want to talk about it. (BTW, please don’t use ridiculous terms like ‘nuptial union’ and ‘conjugal act’!!! Instead use terms such as ‘make love’ and ‘have sex’, or if there are lots of children present say ‘be together’ or ‘be intimate’.)

conjugal acts

From my own limited observations, I am confident to say that most people inside and outside of the church have absolutely no idea what the Catholic teaching on sex actually is. The vast majority have never read, or even heard of Humanae Vitae or Theology of the Body. They don’t know about NFP, Billings, Creighton or Napro technology which offers a natural alternative to IVF. They have no clue as to the damage artificial contraception is having on their bodies, their relationships or their souls. Because of this (and I use this word respectfully)… ignorance, they cannot understand why the church opposes gay marriage.

There is call now from liberal Catholics and dissident groups such as ‘A Call To Action’ to publish the results from the recent Vatican survey. They are of course hoping to highlight the fact that most Catholics ignore the church teaching on artificial contraception – and then get the teaching on sex officially ‘modernised’.

It is time for you, Priests, to start teaching your congregations what sex and marriage IS not just what it isn’t. Because if you don’t speak about it, who will?
I’ll tell you… the extremely vocal gay lobby. The sex saturated media. The secularist lefty politicians. The money-making contraception and abortion industry (yes, it is an industry, with sales targets and bonuses and advertising campaigns.)

Please, Priests, do us a favour… learn Theology of the Body and Humanae Vitae like your life depends on it. Give it to us, your congregations in bite sized chunks each week. Trust me, the second you mention the word sex, you will have every eye and ear in the whole place focused on you. No one will be reading the newsletter or checking their Facebook status through that homily!

Visit 1flesh.org and catholicmarriagecentre.org.uk and the Couple to Couple League for tons of info. Explain the awful truth about the history of artificial contraception and its links to eugenics from people like  Marie Stopes and Margaret Sanger. Find out who your local NFP teacher is and invite them to your parish.  Start the conversation within your own parish and keep it going. Because if you don’t preach the beauty of Gods design on sex and marriage, no one will. Please don’t leave us to fight this battle on our own…

Humanae Vitae full version – 

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Theology of the Body full version – 

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM

Happy 1st Birthday Faith in our Families!

fiof birthday

Why Equal marriage law will destroy my Wedding Cake Business (and Free Speech!).

For those of you who know me well, you will know that I have had my own small business working from home for the past 9 years. I make Wedding and Party cakes. I trained hard for 2 years to gain the skills and qualifications to go into this industry and even converted my home to be able to run a business from there. It has been wonderful as I have been able to work on and off these past 9 years around having children. Thankfully at the moment I am currently not working as we are expecting our third child, but I’m afraid that with recent political developments regarding same-sex marriage I will be unable to carry on with the business in the future.

The problem lies here – I am a Catholic. I believe that marriage can only exist between a woman and a man. I believe that children have the right to a mother and a father. I believe that taking part in homosexual acts is sinful – (it causes one to turn away from God and so harms the persons involved) and therefor it is something that can not be celebrated. I certainly could not profit financially from making a wedding cake for a gay couple.

DSC00839

When Civil Partnerships became legal in 2004 I had to make the choice of what to do if I was asked to make a cake for a gay couple. I decided at the time that the best way to handle it was to apologise saying that I was already booked up on that date. This of course was a lie and I felt very uncomfortable doing it. The other alternative would have been to try to explain that I was unable to make their cake because I disagreed with gay weddings for religious reasons. As my website had my address and all other contact details I decided that this could put me and my family in a position of danger.

I carried on in this way on and off for the next 9 years (in between having my children) and it seemed to work fairly well except for the awful guilty feeling I had because I was being forced to lie about being too busy to make their cakes.

So why not carry on the same way after my third child is born?

DSC01085

I feel the political atmosphere in the UK has changed dramatically over the past 12 months since David Cameron announced out of the blue that he wanted to re-define marriage. It has become nasty – militant even. You now hear slogans such as “Fair is more important than Faith” and “Equality overrides free speech” and the word “Bigot” is being thrown around like it was going out of fashion.

David Burrows MP told the Daily Telegraph last week that “In the last few days we have heard of a street preacher in Cambridge: Whilst he was speaking to the public about marriage a member of the crowd called the  police because, “Anyone who believes in man/woman only marriage should be sent to jail. Equality overrides free speech and your views are homophobic, intolerant and very very offensive. Nobody should be allowed to believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman in the 21st Century, we’re calling the police and we’re calling them now.” The street preacher was filmed on  mobile phones, as the small crowd declared they had all of the ‘evidence to put him in jail.’

Thankfully, common sense prevailed and the police retreated and went away. However it was a close call, and this even before the law has been changed. The problem is that the Same-sex marriage Bill risks fermenting such attacks on freedom of speech. The Bill creates a state orthodoxy which gives succour to the intolerant baying crowd or the politically correct council in discriminating against supporters of traditional marriage.”

DSC00387

If we take a look at Canada who re-defined marriage in 2005 we can see that approx. 300 Christians have now been prosecuted because of their beliefs in traditional marriage. In March of this year Canada’s supreme court ruled that even claiming that homosexual behaviour is immoral is now classified as ‘Hate Speech’. The court also explained that truth was no defence since “Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction.” http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/03/06/canadian-supreme-court-ruling-has-implications-for-christian-witness/

DSC00149

I now regularly receive abusive comments on my blog and via Facebook, the most recent being a few moments ago from an atheist gentleman (I use that term sparingly) who likes to troll the Christian Concern Facebook page:

 https://www.facebook.com/events/464089323672839/464980736917031/?notif_t=event_mall_reply

Regarding the same-sex marriage bill he tells me: “Ah Clare, I have to call stupid when I see it, nothing is going to change except that a few bigots are going to find it hard to survive in the real world without having to rightly hold their tongue  whilst doing their jobs. I will Gloat and laugh, you come from one of the most intolerant groups this land has to offer and every time you try and hold on to a bit of your self proclaimed superiority the country tells you to stuff it. Your only complaint is that you are going to be prevented from discriminating as much as you used to, Marriage belongs to all the people of the country,  Suck it up and try not to be to paranoid, its a long life to spend being as bitter as you and many of your fellow travellers sound. You lost AGAIN”.

DSC00207

What really gets me about all of this is that these people are shouting under the banners of equality, freedom and fairness. Do they seriously think it is fair that in the UK in 2013 I feel so threatened by possible prosecution, persecution and even violence towards me and my family because the law is about to discriminate against us because we are Catholic (we could be Protestant, Muslim, Sikh, Orthodox Jews or just plain non-religious defenders of traditional marriage) that I feel unable to carry on with my Wedding Cake business?

I am being asked, sorry – TOLD to put my beliefs to one side because they are no longer welcome in this country. I put it to them that THAT is not fair, or equal, or acceptable. In a progressive, tolerant society I would not have to hide my beliefs for fear of prosecution or persecution. People who believe in equality must accept that not everyone is going to hold the same views as them. I am happy to live peacefully alongside people who hold different beliefs to me – why can the liberal community not do the same?

Commit your way to the Lord; trust in him, and he will act.
He will make your vindication shine like the light, and the justice of your cause like the noonday.
Be still before the Lord, and wait patiently for him; do not fret over those who prosper in their way, over those who carry out evil devices.
Refrain from anger, and forsake wrath. Do not fret—it leads only to evil.
For the wicked shall be cut off, but those who wait for the Lord shall inherit the land.
– Psalm 37.

Fifth Sunday of Lent – Year C

“Let anyone among you who is without sin, be the first to throw a stone at her.”

Gospel: John 8:1-11

1 While Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him and he sat down and began to teach them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, sir.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.”

Gospel Summary

The Scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman before Jesus who was guilty of adultery. The asked Him what should be done with her? They were in fact trying to trick Jesus into going against the law of Moses by not having the woman stoned or going against the Roman law that did not allow the Jewish people to impose the death sentence. Jesus took His time to answer, and then instructed anyone who was without sin to cast the first stone. Of course no-one could do this, and the crowd slowly drifted away. Jesus then tells the woman that He does not condemn her – and that she should go, and not sin again.

Relating the Gospel to our lives today.

How would you feel if you were the adulterous woman’s husband? Or the wife of the man she committed adultery with? Pretty angry right?! There are plenty of words we can use to describe this woman – home wrecker, whore, dirty, cheap, the list goes on. And quite right – adultery destroys marriages and families. So why did Jesus seemingly let her get away with it? There are three reasons here: firstly, Jesus was making the point that as human beings, we do not have the moral authority to condemn one another. We are all sinners, and all in need of God’s forgiveness. Secondly, he was revealing the very essence of Good News – that Gods love and mercy are greater than our sins. And thirdly, He was drawing attention to the fact that this woman was not just a sinner but a person.

In some ways, my own judgemental reaction to this woman reminds me of the elder brother’s reaction in the prodigal son – “How can God love this sinner as much as He loves me?” At the end of the day we have to face our own reaction for what it is: jealous, self-righteous moral snobbery (ouch!). This story is a true lesson in humility for us!

How do we react to our fellow sinners? The drug addict, the prostitute, the divorced and re-married, the homosexual, the atheist, the young woman who had an abortion? Do we see the person, or just the sin? Do we take into account that there are circumstances and a complex history for this person that has led them to where they are? Or do we stand there holding our stone, ready to throw it?

Judgment day will come, and justice will be served – but that is God’s job, not ours.

  • Each one of us is created in the image and likeness of God.
  • Do I realise my own dignity?
  • Do I realise the dignity of others?

Make me a channel of your peace. Where there is hatred let me bring your love. Where there is injury, your pardon, Lord. And where there’s doubt, true faith in you.

Make me a channel of your peace. Where there’s despair in life, let me bring hope. Where there is darkness, only light. And where there’s sadness, ever joy.

Oh, Master grant that I may never seek, So much to be consoled as to console. To be understood as to understand. To be loved as to love with all my soul.

Make me a channel of your peace. It is in pardoning that we are pardoned. In giving to all men that we receive. And in dying that we’re born to eternal life.

 – St. Francis of Assisi

* GOD BLESS OUR NEW POPE FRANCIS! *

602138_480432038688828_782792559_n
POPE FRANCIS  TRUE DISCIPLE OF JESUS Pope Francis I In 2008, on the Holy Thursday, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio(Pope Francis) washed the feet of 12 recovering drug addicts at a rehabilitation centre in Buenos Aires, Argentina(in this Pic). As Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, he showed compassion for the victims of HIV-AIDS and in 2001, visited a hospice to kiss and wash the feet of 12 AIDS patients. True disciple of Christ!!! To be more precise True Vicar of Christ!!!

Gay Marriage – What happened in Parliament…

I was overwhelmed to hear the MP’s tell of how much mail they had received on the same-sex marriage issue. They said it was the most they had ever received on one single issue, and the vast, vast majority of it opposed the bill. (Of course those in favour decided not to talk about their bulging mail bags – because that would put them in a position where they would look as if they were IGNORING their constituents!)

But what really struck me yesterday while watching the same-sex marriage debate in parliament was how un-equal the legislation actually is. So much so that David Cameron has actually had the word ‘Equal’  removed from the title of the bill! The main points of inequality are that same-sex marriages do not require fidelity, or even consummation. Therefor, the grounds for divorce are completely different from those of a hetero marriage. And if equality was really the goal then surely civil partnerships should also be offered to hetero couples? (This would however create a situation in which it was legally viable for me to marry my sister! – or even my son! which would probably make the whole thing a laughing stock right?! – but hey, each to their own – we wouldn’t want to discriminate against people who want to marry within their own families would we? After all if the two people really love each other then what’s the problem?!…)

(Here is a lovely pic of the happy couple – just before they formalise their non- faithful, non-consummatory, legally equal, hetero civil wedding-marriage!… Lol! – just kidding!)

Here are some of the MP’s comments opposing the bill from yesterday’s debate:

Tory John Glen (Salisbury) questioned the politics of the move: “By a factor of a least 30 to one my constituents have expressed their opposition to this. The level of disappointment of a much larger minority, as witnessed by the 635,000 who have signed the coalition for marriage petition, is keenly felt and will, in my view, be a highly motivated electoral minority in future elections.”

Senior Tory Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 Committee, said: “I will vote against this measure tonight not because I think the world will end if we see it pass but because I have serious misgivings that in spite of the minister’s commendable efforts, recognised by the Church of England, it is impossible to guarantee that religious freedom will not be compromised.”

David Burrowes said he had received death threats about his opposition to the measure and his children had been taunted and told “their dad’s a bigot”. He said he was “very sad” at Mr Cameron’s plan and added: “The redefinition downgrades marriage to a personal relationship not bound by the obligations to society, community and family which have stood the test of time and is an increasingly popular institution.”

Former minister Edward Leigh said the plans were an affront to many traditional Conservatives. “We should be in the business of protecting cherished institutions and our cultural heritage otherwise what, I ask, is a Conservative Party for? Indeed we are alienating people who have voted for us for all their lives, leaving them with no one to vote for.”

Tory former defence minister Sir Gerald Howarth said the legislation was a “massive change” which “deeply affects the core fabric of our society through the challenge it poses to the whole institution of marriage”.

Conservative Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) said: “It is not possible to redefine marriage. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman, has been historically, remains so. It is Alice in Wonderland territory, Orwellian almost, for any Government of any political persuasion to seek to come along and try to re-write the lexicon. It will not do.” It had been suggested, he said, that a civil union bill could be created “that applies to all people irrespective or their sexuality, or their relationships, and that means brothers and brothers and sisters and sisters and brothers and sisters as well”. Sir Roger stressed he did not subscribe to the notion, but added he recognised the merit in the argument.

The size of the vote against the Bill’s second reading indicated that scores of Tory MPs opposed the measure but a number of Labour MPs also spoke against the plans.

Stoke on Trent South MP Robert Flello said: “Civil partnerships are equal to marriage – they might not have the same name but they are equal. “It’s not simply about the love and commitment of the happy couple, as important as that is. If marriage was simply about love and commitment, we would first have to define love as being sexual love otherwise non-sexual relationships based on love and commitment would also have to be treated as marriage if that really were the definition of equality.” Mr Flello said the Bill would create two forms of marriage – traditional marriage and same sex marriage – which were still not “equal” with the plans trying to “engineer cultural equivalence”.

Labour’s Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) said the Bill would change the very nature of marriage and law and was both “hasty and destructive”.

Dr Sharon James, Coalition For Marriage said “We’re absolutely delighted at the scale of those MPs who voted against this. It’s way more than we thought it would be at the start of our campaign. I’m disturbed to hear many MPs say that people are writing to them to say they disagree with gay marriage, but that they’re wrong. Those MPs are holding their constituents in contempt. However, I was pleased to hear in the parliamentary debate that some MPs talked of being flooded with letters and emails from people against gay marriage, and that those MPs are listening. This isn’t a done deal, it’s the beginning of a parliamentary process.”

So you see, David Cameron now has a huge problem. The majority of his own party (approx. 140) voted against him last night. and about another 75 conservatives abstained. This was a much larger opposition than anyone was expecting. It now causes Davy Boy a real problem. And it is a problem that is not going to go away. How long do you think it will be before we start to hear shouts of no confidence coming from the bowels of the conservative party?! Tread carefully David – you’re on thin ice.

Catholic, Protestant and Muslim Mothers unite in Support of Traditional Marriage.

Three mothers from South London have come together to represent their communities in support of traditional marriage. Whilst all respect the fact that individuals can live how they choose, they believe that marriage is, and always has been, a sacred institution between 1 woman and 1 man. All three have signed a letter explaining their views and presented it to their local MP:

Katie McGowan, a Protestant Christian says “Our faiths dictate that ‘marriage’ is an institution between one man and one woman. In countries where marriage has already been redefined, people of faith have faced prosecution for upholding their beliefs. Evidence shows that governments have not been able to protect ordinary people who believe in traditional marriage. We worry that, should the bill be successful, teachers will be sacked for refusing to endorse gay marriage in the classroom, and couples will be banned from fostering children if they disagree with gay marriage. Obviously, these are just a couple of examples.
Furthermore, it may be assumed that the general public are largely in favour this proposal. However, the voters have not been given a say. None of the parties included it in their election manifestos. Marriage is going to be redefined over our heads. In a recent poll by YouGov for The Sunday Times, published on 11 March 2012, a larger proportion of those questioned were against gay marriage than were for it.”

Asma Dar, a Muslim says “Marriage is meant for 1 woman and 1 man, and it is the place to raise a family. We believe that all children have the right to a Mother and a Father. Sadly, however well-meaning they are, a same-sex couple simply cannot offer this to a child. If my husband and I were to die suddenly and our 3 girls were taken into the care of the local authority, it would be possible that they be placed with two men. This would not only be against our wishes and our faith, but it would also rob our girls of any chance of having a mother. What indeed is the legal position of the wishes of deceased parents on this issue?
According to the 2011 Office for National Statistics survey, the gay population in the UK stands at 1%. The population for Christians and Muslims combined stands at 64.1%. The majority of UK residents oppose the bill on the grounds of faith. If marriage is re-defined, the new law will be forced upon millions of people who strongly oppose it. This is especially true in the area of education and adoption. We are stepping into unknown territory and no-one can predict the effect this law will have on children and on society as a whole.”

Clare Short, a Roman Catholic says “I think it is a disgrace that teachers could face being sacked if they fail to promote same-sex relationships to children as young as age 4. Why doesn’t the government concentrate on teaching our kids to read and write, rather than forcing sexual information on them that they really don’t need to know about at that young age. This is a deeply personal political issue that is doing more harm than good in society. I believe it is creating unwanted tension between the gay and straight communities. It is not something people of faith are ‘just going to get used to’ over time. It is an issue of such importance, that we are willing to fight against it for as long as it takes. There is a particularly nasty undertone in the UK at the moment where people are being made to feel guilty for expressing their opposition to the re-definition of marriage on the grounds of being ‘politically incorrect’. This sort of political bullying is completely unacceptable in a civilised democratic society. We hope from reading our story that more people will find the confidence to contact their MP to voice their opinion. Every voice counts.
The issue of re-defining marriage is uniting people of all faiths, and also those who do not have a faith. David Cameron needs to realise that the vast majority of people in the UK do not want marriage re-defined.”

“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: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257379/Ive-lived-greatest-revolution-sexual-mores-history-damage-appals-me.html#ixzz2J0IckCM2 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257379/Ive-lived-greatest-revolution-sexual-mores-history-damage-appals-me.html#ixzz2IxHNohFl

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.

 

Sources:

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/can_the_philippines_keep_aids_at_bay_if_it_embraces_condom_culture

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/20/world/low-rate-of-aids-virus-in-philippines-is-a-puzzle.html

http://www.cbcpnews.com/cbcpnews/?p=8354

A WIN for the rights of Christians! A WIN for traditional marriage!

HUGE success for the rights of Christians and traditional marriage YES!!! Watch Adrian Smith’s speech…

http://news.sky.com/story/1012303/demoted-christian-wins-facebook-post-ruling

From Sky News:

Demoted Christian Wins Facebook Post Ruling

 

Adrian Smith lost his managerial position and had his salary cut after writing about his opposition to gay marriage on Facebook.

A Christian man demoted for posting his opposition to gay marriage on Facebook has won his breach of contract action against his employers.

Adrian Smith lost his managerial position, had his salary cut by 40%, and was given a final written warning by Trafford Housing Trust (THT) after writing gay weddings in churches were “an equality too far”.

The comments were not visible to the general public, and were posted outside work time, but the trust claimed he broke its code of conduct by expressing religious or political views which might upset fellow workers.

Mr Smith brought breach of contract proceedings, saying the trust acted unlawfully in demoting him.

At London’s High Court Mr Justice Briggs ruled in his favour, saying the trust did not have a right to demote Mr Smith as his Facebook postings did not amount to misconduct and was a breach of contract.

Justice Briggs concluded: “Mr Smith was taken to task for doing nothing wrong, suspended and subjected to a disciplinary procedure which wrongly found him guilty of gross misconduct.

“(He was) then demoted to a non-managerial post with an eventual 40% reduction in salary. The breach of contract which the Trust thereby committed was serious and repudiatory.”

Mr Smith said in a statement: “I’m pleased to have won my case for breach of contract today. The judge exonerated me and made clear that my comments about marriage were in no way ‘misconduct’.

“Britain is a free country where people have freedom of speech, and I am pleased that the judge’s ruling underlines that important principle.

“But this sad case should never have got this far. Long ago, Trafford Housing Trust should have held their hands up and admitted they made a terrible mistake.

“Had they done this then my life would not have been turned upside down and my family and I would not have had to endure a living nightmare.”

The Christian Institute, the group that paid for Mr Smith’s legal case, welcomed the ruling.

Spokesman Mike Judge said: “This is a good day for free speech. But would Adrian have won his case if marriage had already been redefined? I don’t think so. The Government should stop playing politics with marriage, because it’s ordinary people like Adrian who’ll get it in the neck.”

Matthew Gardiner, chief executive at Trafford Housing Trust said: “We fully accept the court’s decision and I have made a full and sincere apology to Adrian.

“At the time we believed we were taking the appropriate action following discussions with our employment solicitors and taking into account his previous disciplinary record.

“This case has highlighted the challenges that businesses face with the increased use of social media and we have reviewed our documentation and procedures to avoid a similar situation arising in the future. Adrian remains employed by the Trust and I am pleased this matter has now concluded.”

My Body is a Temple…

“Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in  you, whom you have received from God?  You are not your own; 20 you were bought  at a price.  Therefore honour God with your body,” 

(1 Cor. 6:19-20).

Since the birth of my two children I have gained over 2 stone in weight and despite my best efforts – I have not been able to lose it. Unfortunately, God did not give me one of those bodies that just pop back into shape!

I eat junk to try to take my mind off of the stress in my life and it has worked, for the most part. Chocolate and crisps has got me through 2 rounds of post natal depression, the death of a family member, a very difficult patch in our marriage, the long lonely nights of the new-born feeds, the stress of un-employment and endless demanding screaming kids! Junk food is my best friend, my loyal companion, my rock in times of trouble, my comfort and pleasure.

So why am I about to end this love affair?

1 week ago I leaned over the bath to turn the taps off and BOOM! – My back went. It is not the first time it has happened (another result of carrying large babies and lifting toddlers!) This time it was really bad. I have spent all week on crutches and have to see the back doctor pretty much every month for ever now. The fact that I am 2 stone over weight and completely unfit and out of shape has contributed to this.

During the week we had no food at all in the house so I went with my daughter to the local supermarket. We walked through the door and the security guard felt so sorry for me he told me to use the electric mobility scooter to do my shopping!!! (Secretly I have always wanted to have a go on one of these!) Before I could politely decline, my 3-year-old daughter has already climbed into the driving seat! “I seriously CAN NOT do this!” I told the guard “I’m 32 years old!”. Anyway, I  estimated that the chances of seeing someone I knew were very slim at that time in the morning – and my daughter wanted to ‘have a ride on the special car!’ so we took it!

Actually it was such great fun! she sat on my lap and we whizzed along making terrified people jump out of the way! It was quite embarrassing when I was trying to reach some breakfast cereal and she suddenly grabbed hold of the controls and shot us into reverse at top speed sending us careering backwards into the Coco pops!

Anyway, the point of this post is for me to come to terms with the fact that my body and my faith are not separate things. It is a very common thing to think that they are. But didn’t Jesus use His body to serve God and mankind by dying on the cross? How much more physically/spiritually connected can you get?! God gave me this body as am opportunity to honour Him with it – and it is up to me to take care of it. It has served me and my husband and my children well so far, through work, sex and child-bearing, and it is my responsibility to keep it working.

The catechism puts it like this…

II. “BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE” 

364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honour since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. 233

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

Used in accordance with His will, my body becomes a prayer to God – a way of acknowledging that what He wants for my body is better than what I want. It is a very hard and humbling thought and I know I am going to struggle with this one. I am going to have to give up and grieve for my beloved junk food, and face life stress depending on God now, not chocolate. But I know I am not alone.