Catholic Sex Blog

Have you ever asked yourself this question: Why are humans born male and female? Why don’t we reproduce asexually, like some creatures? Why weren’t we born bisexual? Okay, hermaphrodites are, but that’s a physical defect. Hermaphrodism is an anomaly.

Normal humans are created male or female. Why? If you don’t believe that humans are created, but evolved to be male or female, then let me rephrase the question: why have humans evolved to be male and female?

I would say that there is only one answer to this question, and that is: we are not made to be alone. Humans have evolved to be male and female because evolution has shown that living in a community has higher chances of survival than living alone.

The organs that enable human beings to live as members of a community include the sexual organs, and what drives human beings to live in a community is the sexual urge.

Like all basic functions of the human body which are necessary for survival of the human race, pleasure is attached to sex. This pleasure that is linked to sex, as is linked to eating, drinking, breathing, sleeping, excreting… is what drives a person to do these things necessary for human survival.

Each member of the community contributes in some way to the survival of the community. Some bring food to the table, some cook, some produce art, some build… but one thing that all can do is that all can reproduce. This ensures that each function in the community has direct successors to continue the work that is being done in the community. This is the natural order of human life.

What happens when a human being is not able to reproduce? This is usually because of some physical defect, such as sterility through age or disease. These are not part of the natural order of human life; they are defects that occur through the deterioration of the human body. It is not that defective human’s fault that he or she is unable to reproduce. This human therefore has to contribute to the community in some other way.

What happens when a human being is able to reproduce, but refuses to? Unless this human is sacrificing his or her own reproductive capabilities for a higher purpose, we can say that this human is being selfish, that is, choosing to rely on his or her own self, rather than preserving the unity of the community. It becomes even more apparent when such humans demand the same rights as the rest of the community, while not contributing to it in the same way.

Instead of building up the community as each member ought to, this person is destroying the community by refusing to contribute his or her fertility to the betterment of the community.

We can quite easily see how any act of sexual intercourse that is not open to life stems from self-centeredness. This root of self-centeredness by itself runs contrary to the whole meaning of community living.

We find great difficulty in saying that a person who is self-centered in one area in his life, can be community-centred in other areas, since self-centeredness is a character defect that is at the root of all we do.

A person who says he is community-centred, but has a sexual life that is not open to life, is either being dishonest, or he doesn’t know himself very well, since there is a clear discrepancy between what he says and what he is doing. 

If he is dishonest, it is because he is saying one thing with his mouth, and saying a completely different thing with his body. It is like an unhappy person putting on a brave front, or a smile, and saying that he is happy.

We often don’t realise that our sexual organs and our sexual urge have a particular purpose. They are oriented towards community building, and we know that the very basic community in society is the family.

Thus when a person has sexual intercourse that is not open to life, he is saying with his body: “I want to start a family with you. I want to welcome new life and to help our community to grow.” But he is saying something completely contradictory with his mouth.

This is why contraception, masturbation, oral and anal sex, pedophilia, bestiality and homosexuality are immoral - because they not only do not contribute to building the community, they are tearing it down.

Note: My opinion of homosexuality (or same-sex attraction) is that it is a psychological disorder which can be treated. However, if you are of the opinion that homosexuality is not a disorder, then it’s basically saying that sexually active homosexuals have a character defect which is self-centeredness.

A person who has sexual intercourse is also saying with his body: “I want to be there with you and with our children as they grow up.”

The last line is added, because as humans, we mature far slower in life than other animals. It is therefore beneficial for the human being, as a creature, to remain monogamous in marriage, as this aids the bringing up and maturing of children as adults.

A parent who does not take responsibility for raising the children he bears is also doing something that harms the community, since the child is unable to replicate that parent’s role in the community.

This is why our first reaction to single motherhood due to irresponsible fathers, divorce, polygamy, adultery, and rape is often disapproval, because deep down, we know this does not contribute to the building of community, but instead tears it down.

In conclusion, I would say that sex is not a private matter reserved for the bedroom. Sex is intrinsically linked to the formation of families, the basic unit of community life, the basic unit of society. Thus, for us to turn a blind eye to what couples are doing in the bedroom is to turn a blind and uncaring eye to the future of society.

At the very bottom of it, sex is not so much about what we do, but who we are. We have sex because as humans, we are made (or evolved) to live in community. Everything that has to do with sex concerns the whole community and our whole culture (anthropologically speaking).

Colossians 2:6-15

You must live your whole life according to the Christ you have received - Jesus the Lord; you must be rooted in him and built on him and held firm by the faith you have been taught, and full of thanksgiving.

Make sure that no one traps you and deprives you of your freedom by some secondhand, empty, rational philosophy based on the principles of this world instead of on Christ.

In his body lives the fullness of divinity, and in him you too find your own fulfilment, in the one who is head of every Sovereignty and Power.

In him you have been circumcised, with circumcision not performed by the human hand, but by the complete stripping of your body of flesh. This is circumcision according to Christ. You have been buried with him, when you were baptised; and by baptism, too, you have been raised up with him through your belief in the power of God who raised him from the dead. You were dead, because you were sinners and had not been circumcised; he has brought you to life with him, he has forgiven us all our sins.

He has overridden the Law, and cancelled every record of the debt that we had to pay; he has done away with it by nailing it to the cross; and so he got rid of the Sovereignties and the Powers, and paraded them in public, behind him in his triumphal procession.
____________________

Luke 6:12-19

Jesus went out into the hills to pray; and he spent the whole night in prayer to God. When day came he summoned his disciples and picked out twelve of them; he called them “apostles”: Simon whom he called Peter, and his brother Andrew; James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot who became a traitor.

He then came down with them and stopped at a piece of level ground where there was a large gathering of his disciples with a great crowd of people from all parts of Judaea and from Jerusalem and from the coastal region of Tyre and Sidon who had come to hear him and to be cured of their diseases. People tormented by unclean spirits were also cured, and everyone in the crowd was trying to touch him because power came out of him that cured them all.
____________________

Imagine you have a child, and throughout his developmental years, you never said ‘no’ to him. From somewhere you read or heard that if a child hears the word ‘no’ when he makes a request from you, he will grow up with a fear of rejection. So in order to prevent that, you say ‘yes’ to every request. After twenty years of having said ‘yes’, your child asks something of you which you cannot give. Can you say ‘no’? Chances are, you can’t. And your child, whom you’ve never said ‘no’ to, is not your child, but your master; you are his slave.

What does this have to do with today’s readings? In the first reading, St. Paul tells the Colossians: Make sure that no one traps you and deprives you of your freedom by some secondhand, empty, rational philosophy based on the principles of this world instead of on Christ.

What is the philosophy that today’s generation is taught? I think it would be Nike’s tagline “Just do it.” I wrote to an American about sexual freedom recently. Our generation is taught today that sexual freedom means being able to “just do it” without fear of constraints from previous generations or religious beliefs. Today’s generation tends to believe that if they can “just do it”, if they can say ‘yes’ to sex whenever, wherever and however they want to, only then are they sexually free.

However, a generation of people who won’t say ‘no’ to sex, quickly becomes a generation of people who can’t say ‘no’ to sex. A person who can’t say ‘no’ to sex is not sexually free. He or she is a slave to sex. This means that the philosophy that today’s generation is taught is a “secondhand, empty, rational philosophy based on the principles of this world” and it is one that traps them and deprives them of their sexual freedom.

If today’s generation (and I’m not referring just to the youth) is quickly becoming a generation of sex slaves, what then can be done for us? How can we find true freedom if the philosophy of the world only serves to make us slaves? In the gospel reading, we see Jesus and his apostles setting people free of their diseases, their demons, and all that chains them down. Today, we can find freedom from sexual slavery in the Church’s teaching of abstinence.

Abstinence is applicable not only to single persons, but persons who are married as well. The Church teaches abstinence is also healthy for married people. There are times when married people have to abstain from sex, such as when due to illness, pregnancy, travel or other reasons. What would a person who cannot say ‘no’ to sex do in cases when abstinence seems to be the only answer? If you think about it for a moment, you will understand why the media has been glorifying those answers.

Abstinence is the true test of whether one has sexual freedom or not, because abstinence shows that a person can say ‘no’ to sex, even at times when he can say ‘yes’. Freedom means having a choice and being able to make either choice. In Christ we find freedom, not just sexual freedom, but freedom in the best sense of the word.

Today is September 11, the anniversary of the terrorist attacks on America. We also remember that one person that is more dangerous than all the terrorists put together is Alfred Kinsey, the grandfather of the sexual revolution which took place all over the world. The impact of his work on sexual morality has truly devastated the world, and America, much more than any terrorist will ever do.
___________________

Prayer:
Dear Lord, help us to desire true sexual freedom in the way that you offer it to us. Grant us the courage to turn our backs on the secondhand philosophy of the world that we are surrounded with, and turn our eyes to the redemption that you offer us through your cross. Amen.

Give Thanks to the Lord for: Showing us what true sexual freedom is.

Brought up and formed by our culture, it is hard at times for us to abstain, because our culture teaches us to indulge, anytime and anywhere we want. Abstinence is to be avoided.

Abstinence can be the loving thing to when, for example, our bodies need detoxification. We abstain from food and only drink water, so as to purify our bodies.

In marriage, abstinence from sex can be the loving thing to do when one partner is ill.

In church, abstinence from Communion can be the loving thing to do when one knows one is sinful.

I remember a couple of incidents in the past when I was going up to receive Communion and I saw a friend who refrained from receiving, and I asked him “Why?” Isn’t the whole point of coming for Mass about receiving Communion, I asked.

But now I know that choosing not to receive Communion can be the loving thing to do. It can even show a greater respect for the sacrament than receiving it in any condition that we are in.

Likewise, abstinence from food during detoxification shows greater respect for the body than indulging anything at any time.

And abstinence from sex in marriage shows greater respect for the marriage than indulging in sex, whenever and wherever.

Have you ever thought of this question - why was Jesus a man? Why did God become a man, not a woman? It isn’t as simple as saying that if Jesus had been a woman, then people would not have listened to her. As in, it’s not for a cultural or social reason that God became a man. It’s Jesus we’re talking about, and he broke almost all the social and cultural rules of his time. Why then did God become a man? Here, we’re asking why God became specifically a male human.

To understand this, we need to understand two things. First is that God created humans male and female. He could have created us unisex, but he chose to create us male and female. Why? Because if humans are made in the image of God, then humans have to live in a communion of love. When a man looks at a woman, and a woman looks at a man, they understand very well that they are made differently, and that the parts that are different fit together in a complementary way. This is how humans were created in the beginning.

From this reason, it follows that men and women are fundamentally different, not only in terms of the way their bodies are built, but also in the roles they play in life. It is true that women can be a police officer (as opposed to policeman), a fire fighter (as opposed to fireman), and that men can be nurses and secretaries, but there is one thing that a man can do, and no woman can. That is to father a child. In the same way, only women can become pregnant; no man can do that.

So the first thing we need to understand is that God created men and women differently, to play different roles, but to live as a communion of love in God’s own Trinitarian image.

The second thing we need to understand is that God has a male role. I’m not saying that God is male, but that God plays a male role. By this I mean that God is the Initiator, while humans are the Recipient. When we look at the male-female relationship, especially in the conjugal aspect, we see that the man is always the initiator. He gives of himself and the woman receives the man’s seed. This is further strengthened by the fact that the man tends to climax first. I quote the following from Pope John Paul II:

If a husband is truly to love his wife, “it is necessary to insist that intercourse must not serve merely as a means of allowing [his] climax. … The man must take [the] difference between male and female reactions into account… so that climax may be reached [by] both… and as far as possible occur in both simultaneously.” The husband must do this “not for hedonistic, but for altruistic reasons.” In this case, if “we take into account the shorter and more violent curve of arousal in the man, [such] tenderness on his part in the context of marital intercourse acquires the significance of an act of virtue”.

- Love and Responsibility, Karol Wojtyla

God always reaches out to humans. He is always the Initiator, and humans are always receiving God in themselves. Throughout the Bible, we see that God’s one desire is to marry us. God literally wants to impregnate us with his Word. In fact, there was one woman in history who was literally impregnated by God’s Word, who later became a unique fusion of God and human - Jesus. This is why Mary is the model for the Church. She represents the Church, who is the Bride of Christ, and she represents humanity, who receives the gift of God himself into us.

So the second thing we need to understand is that God wants to marry us, and that God is always the Initiator in this relationship.

Understanding these two things helps us to see why God had to become a man, not a woman, when he became human. As a God-man, Jesus was able to initiate his gift of love, his gift of self on the cross. If Jesus had been a woman, she would not have been able to initiate anything. She would have to receive something from humanity. But humanity is the one who receives, not initiates.

When we understand the reason why God had to be a man (not a woman), we understand why the Church insists that the ministers of the altar and the Eucharist have to be male, not female. In order to act in the person of Christ at the altar, the priest has to be a man. If we insist on women ordination, then we will not be able to explain why Jesus is a man; why the Church is the Bride of Christ; and why men and women are different.

In addition, if we insist on women ordination, then we will also not be able to explain the importance of having two complementary genders in marriage. Guess what follows? You know it - homosexual unions. This is clearly painted out in the path taken by the Anglican Church, something that began back in the time of Henry VIII.

As you probably know Henry VIII broke away from the Church because the pope refused to allow him to marry another woman. Henry VIII decided to change the meaning of marriage in his new church. But when we change the meaning of marriage, we also change the meaning of Christianity - why God wants to marry us. And we also change the meaning of our own humanity - why we are made male and female.

This is the reason why the Church cannot allow women ordination - because it understands that the priesthood is not merely a career or ministry - it is a role in which the ordained minister acts in the person of Christ… and Christ was not a woman. He couldn’t have been, not without changing the meaning of marriage, the meaning of humanity, and the meaning of Christianity.

This is also why the Church can never approve of homosexual unions not because of discrimination, but simply because homosexual unions deny the fundamental differences between male and female; deny the significance, sanctity, and the very meaning of marriage… and this directly leads to denying the meaning of Christianity. You will find that Christians in support of homosexual unions are not able to explain why Christ is the Bridegroom and the Church is the Bride (Ephesians 5:25; Revelation 19:7-9), or even why Christ lay down his life for his Church. It is, in essence, the denial of the fatherhood of God.

That said, it must also be said that the reason the Church cannot allow women ordination has nothing to do with culture or the degradation of women. On the contrary, the Church holds women in a very high position. Pope John Paul II himself has called the feminist movement “praiseworthy”, and that it must continue. But he also stressed that it must not make the mistake of equating males with females. They have the same dignity, but they are not the same.

The Church does not degrade women. If it did, it would not place Mary as Queen of Heaven, and the role model for all disciples of Christ, and indeed the role model for all humanity. Mary is so highly esteemed because she received God into her so fully that a human person was conceived from that intimate union with God.

Each of us is also called to receive God fully in our lives, so that God may be born into the world. But as none of us can receive God so fully and completely as Mary did, since she was conceived without original sin, none of us will ever be able to physically give birth to a God-man. We can, however, still spiritually give birth to God in the world, increasing his kingdom of heaven on earth.

I remember a friend of mine once told me about discussions she had with her other lady friends. They were of the opinion that if their husband had an affair with another woman, they would immediately leave him. And these were the same women who saw nothing wrong with pre-marital sex.

Why is it alright for their husband-to-be to have pre-marital sex, but not for their husband to commit adultery? Aren’t they really the same thing?

Pre-marital sex is committing adultery in advance. It lets you know something about your boyfriend or girlfriend - he or she is willing to have intercourse with someone who isn’t married. What makes you think that is going to change after you’re married?

The only reason people are having a lot of pre-marital sex is because they have access to contraceptives. Pregnancy is a deterrent to having pre-marital sex.

But guess what? Pregnancy is also a deterrent to adultery. If it is okay to use contraceptives in pre-marital sex, it will be okay to use it in adultery as well… which makes the rates of both pre-marital sex and adultery soar.

It is hypocritical to say that adultery is wrong but pre-marital sex is okay, because both essentially do not respect the marital bond. In both cases, people who are not married to each other are having sex with each other.

If that marital bond is not honoured and respected before marriage, there’s no reason to expect it to be honoured and respected after marriage.

Today, I learnt something new about what the Church teaches about pornography.

First, the secular definition of pornography:

“Pornography is the presentation or production of sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.”

Now the Church’s definition of pornography:

“Pornography consists of removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties.”

See the difference? I didn’t at first, until it was explained to me. The difference is that the Church only considers sexual acts shown to third parties as pornographic. That means that a lot of the secular pornography out there is not really what the Church considers pornography. Images like porn stars displaying their private parts (which are called ‘private’ for a reason), or acting seductively - these are not considered pornography by the Church, although the secular world does consider it pornography. These are considered obscene, a sin against modesty and chastity, but not pornography.

All this while, I have been using the secular definition of pornography without thinking to check what the Church defines it.

What’s the big deal, you ask? I asked that too.

The first big deal is that if we label something that isn’t pornography with the word pornography, we are in danger of not recognising the real pornography for what it is. I don’t agree with this explanation yet, but I pray that with the grace of God, I can come to accept the truth as taught by the Church, the bride of Christ and guardian of the truth.

The second big deal is that we have to ask - who labels these things as pornography when they are not really pornography? The answer? The porn industry. The porn industry labels certain things which are not pornography as pornography. Ask yourself this, do you want to listen to what the Church says, or what the porn industry says? This one I can accept. I don’t want to call things as the porn industry labels them. I would rather listen to what the Church says on this.

I came across a quote by Hugh Hefner the other day and was trying to find it on the Internet. While searching for it, I came across this rather interesting interview with him by On The Media. Here is an extract of it:

WOMAN (from video): The role that you have selected for women is degrading to women because you choose to see women as sex objects.

WOMAN (from video): You make them look like animals! Yes! Women aren’t bunnies. They’re not rabbits. They’re human beings! The day that you are willing to come out here with a cotton tail attached to your rear end–

HUGH HEFNER: We’ve been accused, obviously, of exploiting women, exploiting sex. I think Playboy exploits sex — you know I just think “exploit” is an unfortunate word. Playboy exploits sex like Sports Illustrated exploits sports! [LAUGHTER]

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Now I noticed that you never responded to her specific challenge about the bunny tails. I mean it would, after all, be antithetical to the Playboy aesthetic to attach a little fuzzy ball of cotton to your own tush, wouldn’t it?

HUGH HEFNER: Yes, I think so. [LAUGHTER] [LAUGHS]!

BROOKE GLADSTONE: But is that fair?

HUGH HEFNER: And– that feminist diatribe– didn’t make a lot of sense back then; it seems very foolish today. I think that in the intervening years women really have become truly human. That anti-sexual part of feminism is very antiquated, and quite frankly was anti-revolutionary even at the time. To be truly hu– human, women have to embrace their sexuality. And that’s all Playboy’s really all about. I think it’s one of the reasons why the magazine and the Playboy symbols and why the, the rabbit image are so popular now with young women, and you see Playboy fashions in all the leading women’s magazines. We have come a long ways, baby.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: I think that’s true, but I do think that some of that Playboy style that you’re referring to - the bunny costumes - have a– certainly something to do with kitsch. And what’s more, back in the early days when you were creating that costume and that image, it wasn’t women expressing their own sexuality; it was women putting on the costume that you had designed for them!

HUGH HEFNER: Yes.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: This was, this wasn’t them “embracing their own sexuality.” This was them embracing yours!

HUGH HEFNER: True. That’s right.

Source: http://www.onthemedia.org/yore/transcripts/transcripts_112 803_bunny.html

That last line by Brooke Gladstone and the confirmation by Hefner was what struck me most. Women have been, and are still being, taken for a ride if they thought or think that embracing their sexuality means to conform with the picture that the secular media paints.

I still can’t find my quote. Guess I have to spend $25 and get that book in which I saw it. But from what I remember, it was along the lines of why Hefner chose the rabbit to be the mascot for Playboy - for its “humorous sexual connotation” and due to the image being “frisky and playful”. Of course the rabbit is also hunting game for men.

Women or girls who wear the Playboy symbol on them and don’t know what that symbol means had better beware. It’s like painting a big bull’s eye on them for perverts to come after them, hunting them, and conquering them. They’ll be off with a “C’ya!” before you even have time to put on your clothes.

Incidentally, here’s another one for women: Have you ever wondered why the secular media paints thin to be in?

When you look at paintings of famous artists in the past, we see that they had a very different idea of what it meant for a woman to be beautiful. None of them were slender as they are today. What changed? How did our perception of beauty change?

In pre-modern ages, fat women were judged more attractive than slender women because food was scarcer. Also, women who were bigger in size were more attractive than thin women because they could bear more children and were more physically resilient to handle the effects of bearing many children.

What changed?

Over time, people began to associate large families with poverty. If you have fewer children, you have more money to spend on yourself, they realised. This was also around the time that the fashion industry began to pick up, and of course the drivers of the fashion industry realized this. So what did they do? They promoted the idea that thin was fashionable. Why? Because thinner people are less likely to bear many children, which meant that they had more money to spend. Spend on what? Fashion, of course, keeping up with the latest fashion trends.

Women, you have been exploited, and are still being exploited by men, in your search for independence and freedom from men. Freedom is found only in the truth. Where can you find the truth? Only one man can offer you that freedom. Jesus tells us, “If you make my word your home you will indeed be my disciples, you will learn the truth and the truth will make you free.” (John 8:31-32)

Some time ago, I received an email that said that the Singapore government is going to amend the Penal Code, particularly pertaining to homosexual behaviour. One of the amendments is to legislate that anal and oral sex, if done in private between a consenting adult heterosexual couple aged 16 years old and above, would no longer be criminalised.

I haven’t been in touch with the local blogosphere, but I wonder if anyone wrote headlines like “Government says OK to be cocksucker”?

In addition, People Like Us (PLU) (a gay advocacy group in Singapore) has written a document saying that the proposed reform is discriminatory and prejudicial to Singapore’s interests with the following reasons:

1. It damages family and public life by encouraging deception and dishonesty (pretending to be straight). when people try to avoid discrimination and conflict;

Speaking of deception, I wonder how many people have been influenced by gay advocacies and activists to believe that they cannot live a chaste life? After all, there are a number of testimonies from former gays who have become straight and lead chaste lives. Is the deception not created by gay advocacies in the first place - that gays cannot change their behaviour? Isn’t homosexuality a psychological illness? Haven’t psychologists and pastors treated homosexuality with success?

If gay advocacies encourage homosexuals to act out their sexual desires, do they also encourage heterosexuals with a fondness for young boys and girls to act out their sexual desires? If not, isn’t that discriminatory as well?

2. It creates pressure to emigrate, thus

(a) undermining Singapore’s desire to retain our native talent pool. Somewhere around 10 percent of each generation is GLBT and to bleed population each generation through such discriminatory policies is unwise and near-sighted;

Not true that 10 percent of each generation is GLBT. This myth is based on Alfred Kinsey’s “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” which used biased research methods.

In his book, Kinsey made the statement that “ten percent of males are more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55″. However, he also stated that only four percent of the males used in his study “are exclusively homosexual throughout their lives, after the onset of adolescence”.

Do you see the difference between the two statements?

While Kinsey was making the claim that 10 percent of males delve into homosexual behaviour for at least three years of their lives, he actually reported that only four percent of those men surveyed claimed to remain exclusively homosexual for the rest of their lives. Yet, for years, homosexual advocates have quoted Kinsey as the ultimate authority proclaiming that 10 percent of the population is indeed homosexual. People will believe what they want to believe.

The truth is that only 1-3% of the population is homosexual, as shown by these more findings concluded using more sophisticated research methods:

- An article in The Wall Street Journal (March 31, 1999), “Homosexuals and the 10% Fallacy” found that less than five percent of men and women have had any homosexual contact in their lifetime. Not only does it make this claim but also goes on to explain that “no more than three percent of men and considerably fewer women claim to be bisexual or exclusively homosexual.” These findings came from a review of more than 30 surveys in America, Europe and Scandinavia.

- The Alan Guttmacher Institute found that 2.3 percent of “sexually active men aged 20 to 39 have had any same-sex gender sexual activity during the last 10 years”, and only 1.1 percent of these men said that they have been exclusively homosexual within this time frame. (”Sexual Behavior of Men in the United States”, Family Planning Perspectives 25, no.2 (March/April 1993) 52-56

- Milton Diamond from the John A. Burns School of Medicine at the University of Hawaii makes the statement that, using the largest figures available, the findings are still only “five to six percent for males and two to three percent for females”. It’s important to understand that this study represented all individuals who have ever engaged in any kind of same-sex behaviour. (”Homosexuality and Bisexuality in Different Populations”, Archives of Sexual Behaviour 22, no.4, (1993) 303.

What’s amazing is that even some individuals who identify themselves as gay agree that the 10 percent myth is untrue. This matters because gay activists are knowingly promoting a lie. They are declaring to the world that homosexuality is “normal” and should be accepted as such. They’re hoping that the more people begin to think homosexuality is normal, the more their identity will be accepted by the majority of people.

But if you think about it, this reasoning is lame. For instance, 10-15 percent of Singaporeans suffer from alcoholism, but we don’t accept this behaviour as normal or healthy. Even if 95 percent of the population is addicted to alcohol, we still would not think of it as normal - or acceptable.

We go on with PLU’s reasons:

(b) splitting families when we say at the same time that stable and supportive families should be the bedrock of our society;

3. It undercuts Singapore’s attraction for potential incoming talent, so critical for our future;

Not so applicable now that we know that only 1-3% of the population is homosexual. Still, I have to admit that gays are extremely talented. Life is fair. Will come back to 2(b) later.

4. It restricts the ability of the government to respond to the threat of HIV, when government agencies feel that they cannot engage with the gay community in any way except a condemnatory one. Failure to deal with HIV in the gay community puts the larger community at risk.

Ah ha! There’s something fishy about this reason, don’t you think? Isn’t PLU admitting that HIV is prevalent in the gay community?

One of the myths that many of us believe is that AIDS is as much a risk for heterosexuals as it is for homosexuals. However, there are two points to note here.

1. Homosexual male relationships are rarely monogamous and those involved are more at risk for life-threatening illnesses.

Many studies have found out that the average male homosexual is far more promiscuous than the average heterosexual. The following are findings in one of the most extensive studies conducted by researches A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg:

- 73 percent of gay men had over 100 partners
- 58 percent of gay men had over 250 partners
- 41 percent of gay men had over 500 partners and
- 26 percent of gay men had over 1,000 partners

Source: A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A study of Diversity Among Men and Women, (New York: Simon and Shuster, 1978), 308, Table 7.

Another study (”The Homosexual Lifestyle and Sexual Practices”, The Berean League (June 1991)) reveals that two homosexual researches found that 73 percent of adult male homosexuals had sex with boys age 19 or younger. Any heterosexual guy who has slept with that many women would be considered a sex addict. Yet, this seems to be the norm among homosexuals.

While there are some who would promote the myth that homosexual relationships are no different than heterosexual ones as pure fact, there are also those from the gay community who admit it to be a false statement. Andrew Sullivan, a prominent conservative gay author, says that gay couples adhere to a very different moral standard than straight couples do. He says their moral standard is one in which “a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets” exists. (McWhirter, D. and Mattison, A., The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Prentice-Hall 1984).

The same source mentions two researchers who professed themselves to be a gay couple came to the conclusion that gay relationships between men rarely survive if they are not open to outside sexual contacts.

So much for stable and supportive families… How do you support infidelity?

2. The risk of contracting AIDS from a single act of unprotected heterosexual intercourse is 1/715,000. The risk of contracting AIDS from a single act of unprotected homosexual intercourse is 1/165. (Tom W. Smith, “Adult Sexual Behaviour and the Risk of AIDS”, Family Planning Perspectives 23, no.3 (May/June 1991), 104.)

It is an undeniable fact that the potential for an individual to become infected is much more pronounced for homosexual men.

“Hard as it may be to understand, some gay men have unsafe sex because they want to get HIV - or at least skate close to the edge. Danger can be erotic, even the threat of contracting a deadly disease,” reported a Newsweek article. The article also quoted a University of Florida student saying, “If someone has AIDS or HIV, that kind of lionizes them. It’s heroic, like fighting the battle… When you get with someone who has HIV, it’s like being with someone greater than you are.” (Mark Peyser, “Deadly Dance”, Newsweek, Sep 20, 1997, 76)

Here is the most important thing among my initial thoughts:

Studies have indicated that the body’s natural immune system is broken down by repeated exposure to semen during anal intercourse. Also, the tearing and rupturing which can take place during such intercourse exposes the individual to infection by manifold serious and fatal diseases. Of these, AIDS is the most well-known and the most dangerous.

Source: Larry Burtoft, Ph.D, Setting the Record Straight: What Research Really Says About the Social Consequences of Homosexuality (Focus on the Family 1994) 32-33

PLU calls for the amendment not to apply only to heterosexual couples, but to all people. I feel that there should not be an amendment in the first place. Anal sex is wrong, whether it be for homosexuals or heterosexuals, because of this abovementioned reason.

There is great physical danger in circulating the myth that homosexuals are not at a greater risk for contracting AIDS than homosexuals. People’s lives are at stake! Of course, there are other risks for those who are involved in homosexuality: isolation, heartache, confusion, disillusionment, abandonment, etc. When you’re living outside of God’s will for your life - whether by experimenting or willfully embracing any other sin - you will feel the effects one way or another. And probably the biggest result of living a sinful life is not having peace with God.

Now other than this last paragraph, there has been no mention of God at all, so don’t any atheists come and write that “It’s because of bullshit like this that’s why I’m an atheist”, as someone did before…

Most of the information in this post has come from an excellent booklet “Straight Answers - Exposing the Myths and Facts about Homosexuality”. I found this at the Anglican St. Andrew’s Cathedral in Singapore.

More information about homosexuality and living a chaste Catholic life can be found here.

Now as a final section to this post, you might be wondering: What can I do to help someone struggling with homosexuality?

The best thing you can do for someone you know battling the sin of homosexuality is pray! Ask God to give you opportunities to show your care and concern for them and pray for the strength and courage to share the truth in love. Here are some steps to remember:

1. Remember that all of us have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. So, be willing to share about your own personal struggles and temptations.

2. Don’t condemn. People have not “chosen” to “have homosexual feelings” the way some choose to live in a certain city. To describe it this way is to convince them that you have no understanding at all about their experience - and no sympathy for it, as well. Know that the core of the homosexual struggle is rejection.

3. Don’t start citing all the problems with homosexuality. Consider how rarely exhortations convince someone to give up alcohol or smoking. But don’t go to the opposite extreme either. Unquestioning acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate “alternative” may seem at first to be the only compassionate option. But there are better and more appropriate approaches that show concern and understanding, yet deal with the reality of the situation.

4. Try to prevent the problem before it occurs. Openly discuss the subject of homosexuality with your friends or anyone you are close to who may be struggling. Familiarize yourself with the causes and address them at an early time. Help them understand the risks.

5. Share specific avenues of help like Courage that has helped thousands of people in the midst of their struggle with homosexuality. Give them hope that change is possible! Even if the person is defensive and resistant, a specific route of assistance that is lovingly offered may be followed some day down the road.

6. Show love, concern and gentleness as you point the way to healing.

Now if only I knew all these things eight years ago, then my four friendships with homosexuals might have turned out better…

Back to the amendment, Singaporeans must know that once the law is passed in favour of the gay agenda, there’ll be no turning back the gradual undermining and destruction of the biblical family values, as well as the freedom to preach godly sexuality standards, as is now happening in parts of Britain, Australia and the U.S.

As a lay Christian, you can do your part by sending feedback to the government at www.reach.gov.sg. Scroll down to “Something to SAY?” You’ll know it by the big green question mark. Click on “Email Us today”.

The subject line should always mention: Penal Code Amendment

All you need to do is write something like: “With respect to the coming Parliamentary debate on the above subject, I would like to state that I’m against passing laws to allow same sex marriages or homosexual practices.”

A parent could send in something like: “I have three young children and I’m against any legislation that allows for same-sex marriages.”

Other possible statements:

“I don’t hate homosexuals, but I don’t believe their lifestyle is good for the future of our country.”

“I believe that real family is made from Dad and Mum, not Dad & Dad, or Mum & Mum.”

“Please don’t allow our country to be influenced by people who are confused about their own gender. Please don’t legalize same-sex marriages.”

We Catholics are always saying things like “The Church should…” This time, the onus falls on our shoulders to be that Church to do something about the morals of this country. Play your part in imbuing the country with Christian values today!

I’ve just finished reading a book called “Contraception and the family - The immorality of contraception and its effects on family life” by Fr. Roberto A. Latorre. Below is a summary of my reflections on contraception together with some excerpts from the book.

I’m not going to write much on the use of contraception outside marriage, because all forms of extramarital sex, be it adultery, fornication (prostitution), pre-marital sex, bestiality or sodomy are against marriage. I’m going to focus more on the use of contraception in marriage. We’ll discuss other topics in another post.

Naturalism vs Natural Law

There is a common misunderstanding that the Church considers contraception immoral and sinful because it is artificial. In other words, it involves some interference with our normal biological processes. Conversely, periodic continence, or Natural Family Planning (NFP) is not immoral because it does not interfere with those processes. If this were true, then the use of other artificial things like medicines, dentures, prosthetic limbs, etc would be immoral too.

The position of the Church is based on Natural Law, not on naturalism.

Naturalism maintains that something is immoral if it goes against the laws of nature, nature here being understood as biological nature. The seriousness of a sin depends on how much it disrupts the natural balance. This position is found in certain naturalistic sects of “new age” inspirations, but not in the Catholic Church.

Natural law doctrine, on the other hand, maintains that something is immoral if it goes against human nature, not just biological processes. Its conception of human nature is based on a “total vision of man” (see Humanae Vitae, no. 7) as a person “in unity of his spiritual and biological inclinations and of all other specific characteristics necessary for the pursuit of his end.” (See Veritatis Splendor, no. 50)

Human nature is ultimately based on the plan and ordination of the Creator. We can know this ordination, and therefore the contents of the natural law, by looking at what is according to right reason.

This means that the natural moral law is the unique way in which man carries out the plans and purposes of God for the creatures of the universe. Brute animals fulfil God’s purpose for them by blindly following their instinct. But man fulfils his end by using his freedom following the light of his reason.

The conjugal act is a gift of love

The conjugal act should not be considered merely as giving vent to an instinctive urge. Passions and emotions have their rightful place in marital relations, but in order to be truly human, the spiritual element should always prevail.

Like a friend tells me, “The human body only has enough blood for one head to function. Don’t let it be the head down there.” Even when making love to your wife, you should be in complete control of yourself, otherwise there is no freedom, and your gift of yourself is devoid of meaning. Your act of conjugal love changes from one of “I give myself to you in this act of love” to “I can’t help it. I can’t control myself. I need to have sex.”

It is easy to see why wives would feel used when their husbands treat them as a vent for their instinctive urges. This is one reason why some couples feel unfulfilled during sex - because they are being made use of as objects, instead of being treated as persons.

Contraception tends to minimize human control over the person’s sexual behaviour, because with contraception, you can do it anytime. That is one of the main reasons people use contraception - so as to be able to do it anytime they want to. Or feel that they have to.

Contraception makes the conjugal act less human because it implies lack of dominion and self-control, in favour of the sensual and erotic aspects of the conjugal act. On the other hand periodic continence, when morally justified, encourages self-mastery.

Who is more in control of himself? The person who can have sex anytime and any place he wants, and the person who can control himself and really make himself a total gift to the only person he loves? Equally applicable for women.

Both contraception and Natural Family Planning (NFP) are ways to plan the family. But where contraception favours instinct, NFP favours the will.

Fruitfulness of the conjugal act

The fruit of marriage is children. The point of contraception is to avoid children while still engaging in sexual activity, even during the woman’s fertile period. The point of NFP is to avoid children, for the time being because of serious reasons, by abstaining from sex during the woman’s fertile period.

This is the main problem that people have with contraception and the use of NFP. Isn’t NFP just a “natural” way to contracept? NFP is not meritious because it’s “natural” and biological (see above “Naturalism vs Natural Law”). It is meritorious because it is geared towards human nature.

Does the conjugal act have to be fruitful? What about those couples who are childless? What about those who get married knowing full well that they are past the child-bearing age?

Just because these couples cannot have children doesn’t mean the conjugal act cannot be fruitful. We do not judge the fruitfulness of the conjugal act by its results. The act itself is fruitful regardless of the outcome.

The object of marriage is not just any kind of sexually-related activity. The object of marriage is geared towards a sexual act which by its very nature is procreative. Other unnatural sexual activities such as masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, etc, have no place in marriage because the are not open to life, not procreative, not fruitful.

Contraceptive sex by its very nature is not fruitful, not procreative. It doesn’t matter when you have contraceptive sex, it’s not procreative. It doesn’t matter whether you have sex when the woman is fertile or not, because the act is not procreative.

The conjugal act by its very nature is always fruitful, regardless of when you have it. When a couple abstains from sexual relations during the fertile periods, they are indeed avoiding a new life, but then, they are not engaging in an act that is ordained to life.

As you see, it is the act itself that we are talking about, which makes each contraceptive act closed to life, and each conjugal act open to life.

It must be noted, however, that a couple who practises periodic continence must be morally upright, sincerely seeking the will of God and collaborating with his plans. That is why they must have proportionately serious motives to abstain from sexual relations during the fertile periods.

Their main motive should not be just to avoid a new human being, as that would fall into a contraceptive mentality. They should be thinking of another legitimate good (health, family well-being, etc) which, after having weighed all the circumstances in the presence of God, overrides the great good it means to have another child at the moment.

In other words, the intention of using NFP to space out children must be there. The use of NFP should be accompanied by generosity and a positive view of children as the fruits and crowning glory of conjugal love. And for a Christian, he should not lose sight of the dimension of the cross of Christ and the need to have confidence and trust in God as our loving Father.

Effects of use of contraception

Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae had already predicted what would happen when countries accept and approve of the use of contraceptives - the general lowering of morality, the loss of respect for womanhood, the human rights abuses of government in this field (Humanae Vitae, no. 17).

We compare the other European countries with Poland where the Church has succeeded remarkably, thanks to then Cardinal Karol Wojtyla’s (later Pope John Paul II) influence.

Here, in terms of doctrine, there is a strong tradition of both orthodoxy and academic excellence. Pastoral programmes are vigorous and there is a very strong Christian life. One sign of this is the abundance of vocations. While other European countries and importing priests to fill the ranks, Poland is sending out its Polish priests to other countries.

It would not be wrong to say that the problem of vocation shortage in a country is linked to the use of contraceptives. While it is hard to tell directly whether a country’s people uses contraceptives or not, we can have a good idea of the usage by looking at the country’s abortion laws.

Abortion is the fail-safe for contraceptives. All contraceptives have a certain failure rate. As such, when people use contraceptives, there will be a certain percentage of women who will get pregnant anyway. Because of the contraceptive mentality, these children are unwanted. Hence the solution to these women’s “problem” is abortion.

No one can support the use of contraceptives without supporting the legalization of abortion. These two are directly linked to each other.

Pope John Paul II summed up in Familiaris Consortio, no. 32, why contraception is intrinsically evil:

“The innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.”

Big words, but take them slowly and you will see the beauty and truth in those words.

Effect of contraception on marriage

Pastoral experience has shown that contraceptive practice often leads to a weakening of the love and mutual respect of couples. Perhaps without realizing it, their outlook towards each other and their attitude towards their relationship begins to change. They see themselves as accomplices rather than as partners. There is uneasiness deep inside.

As the quality of their love deteriorates, discords are less easily resolved, the temptations to infidelity become harder to resist. It would not come as a surprise if a correlation can be established between marital breakdowns and contraceptive practice.

If you love them…

One of the ways of appealing to the masses in the use of contraceptives is the slogan, “If you love them, plan.” This was used in the Philippines. But this is a deceptive form of advertisement because the idea of “planning” here is that of diminishing. It would be more accurate, and less appealing, to say, “If you love them, have less of them.” However, the contradiction is immediately obvious. The contradiction arises from the fact that contraception is a lie.

The alternative Christian slogan to this is, “If you love them, let God plan.” In NFP, couples are following God’s plan, and God is the best planner there is. With contraception, couples are excluding God from their plans. We are not the arbiters of the sources of human life, but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator (Humanae Vitae, no. 13).

To use an analogy, ministers of the altar have to follow the prescribed rules and guidelines of the liturgy as laid out in the GIRM. If a priest chose to change the liturgy as he saw fit, he would no longer be the minister of the altar, but an arbiter. And we immediately know that what this priest is doing is wrong; he doesn’t have the power to decide how the liturgy should be. Likewise, couples do not have the power to decide when and where life should be created. We are called to cooperate with God to bring new life into the world.

We hear this a lot: Man cooperates with God’s plan to bring new life into the world. But how does Man cooperate with God? Unlike other creatures, man’s reproduction entails the exercise of freedom, a gift that only humans have. This is why our use of our sexual faculties is a deeply moral act.

- adapted from “Contraception and the family - The immorality of contraception and its effects on family life” by Fr. Roberto A. Latorre

I suppose the best way to address the issue of sex is first to ask, “What is the purpose of sex as God intended it to be?”

A careful examination and reflection of the question, which anyone can do in his or her own time and space, will reveal three possible answers:

1. For pleasure
2. For reproduction
3. For bonding between couples

No doubt that sexual intercourse does produce pleasure, but is that its sole purpose? For example, eating is pleasurable. Does that mean that the purpose of eating is for pleasure only? For people who think so, they end up obese and unhealthy, just because they eat for the pleasure of it. Rather, the purpose of eating is to nourish our bodies.

Take another example. Sleeping is pleasurable, especially when one is tired. Does that mean that the purpose of sleeping is for pleasure only? For people who think so, they end up being a lazy slob, and probably end up missing important appointments, just because they sleep for the pleasure of it. Rather, the purpose of sleeping is to allow our bodies to recover.

How about sex then? Sex between a couple is pleasurable, especially when both climax at the same time. Does that mean that the purpose of sex is for pleasure only? For people who think so, they end up being addicted to sex, and can’t think of anything else throughout the day. Rather, the purpose of sex is something else altogether.

You see, for all bodily functions which are necessary for humans to carry out in order to live in a way that God has ordained, God has cleverly attached pleasure as a side-effect to these functions, like eating, sleeping, shitting, farting, urinating (especially with a full bladder), …, and having sex. But to pursue these activities for the pleasure alone is unhealthy.

So we’ve established that answer #1 is not the right answer. True, sex does give pleasure, eating does give pleasure, sleeping does give pleasure, and the same goes for all other natural bodily functions including shitting, farting, urinating, breathing, yawning, sneezing, etc. But pleasure is not the sole purpose of any of these bodily functions.

If you look at it another way, what would happen if a couple engaged in sex purely for pleasure? Well, for one thing, they’d end up with multiple babies. What a bother. You can’t kill them, since that’d be murder. You can’t keep bringing them to the adoption agency - they’d give you counselling. Repeated abortions is dangerous for the mother’s health. So what do you with them?

Society’s answer has always been to address the ‘problem of fertility’ at the root. Maybe in the course of having sex, there was a way to separate the pleasure from the babies? Maybe we can prevent babies from even being born in the first place?

And so society has come up with condoms which prevent conception, masturbation (mutual or otherwise) which prevents conception, anal sex, oral sex, the Pill which either works to change a woman’s natural cycle so that she doesn’t conceive, or affects some hormones post-conception so that the fertilised egg cannot attach itself to the womb. In actually, such a Pill causes abortion of the pregnancy, hence is called abortifacient. The most common of these is Mifepristone also known as “RU-486″ and marketed under the brand name Mifeprex. It is widely known that such Pills induce abortion.

Once you handle that problem of the irritating babies that keep popping up, you’re free to have sex in any form for the sake of pleasure alone.

Actually, society has also come up with a way to deal with the problem of overeating. You want to eat, but you don’t want to additional weight that comes with it. So you either regurgitate the food out, so that you can eat some more (no one would hesitate to call this perverse or an illness), or you take a pill that allows the food to pass through your system undigested. More pills… Remember those weight-loss pills that promise to allow you to lose weight while maintaining your normal diet? This is how they work.

The problem here is, what if you were to do this all the time? For regurgitators, they will end up malnourished, and if it carries on, they will eventually die.

So what happens if an entire society does the same with sex? To separate pleasure from reproduction? To put it simply, society will end with this generation, because there is no more reproduction of the human species. Hence, a culture of death.

I missed out one answer, didn’t I? Answer #3 - sex is for bonding between couples. Well that’s actually incorporated into having babies. If one does not try to separate answers #2 and #3, and answers #1 from answers #2 and #3, one would tend to end up with a healthy marriage and family.

It is no secret that a married couple who uses contraceptives will be more likely to end up in divorce. Why? The reason is spiritual, but saying that doesn’t make it less important. It’s not a secret at all… it’s just not made known well enough…

Firstly, humans are beings made of a fusion of spirit and matter. We are neither completely matter, like animals, or completely spirit, like angels. We are spirit and matter. What we do in the flesh, we affect our spirit as well… which is why sins committed in the flesh can have an effect on our spiritual state, and our spiritual state can affect our physical being. Which is why when you can’t control your addictions (to food, sex, sleep, drugs, etc), you are more likely to be unable to control yourself spiritually and end up living a life of sin… if your addiction does not already lead you there.

In having sex, a couple bonds not just physically, but spiritually as well. A complete physical bonding reflects a complete spiritual bonding. What happens if you put a physical barrier, like a condom or a diaphragm, into a sexual intercourse? The physical barrier is a reflection of the spiritual barrier.

Sex is a time when couples express their marital vows - to give of themselves completely to each other, to receive of the other partner completely, in a free, total, faithful, and fruitful way. But with contraceptives, whatever the form, the couple is saying with their bodies, “I give you all of myself, except my fertility.” or “I want all of you, except your fertility.” Such an action is a reflection of a deeper withholding of something else on a spiritual level.

In the end, contraceptives not only creates a barrier to prevent reproduction (#2), it also creates a barrier to prevent bonding between couples (#3).

Answers #2 and #3 are intrinsically linked to each other; they cannot be separated… just as physical union cannot be separated from spiritual union during sex.

And that, is the purpose of sex.

———–

Visit my main blog.