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).

We know that for some time, homosexuals have campaigned for and succeeded in obtaining the legal right to ‘marry’ in some countries. Is forbidding homosexuals to marry a injustice done to them?

In Singapore, up until recent years, homosexuals were not even allowed to commit homosexual acts, and it is still, on paper, against the law. Is this an injustice to homosexuals?

Perhaps, but I would propose that the greatest injustice done to homosexuals was not done in recent years, but in 1973. What’s the big thing that happened that year?

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a disorder from the Sexual Deviancy section of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. In other words, the APA declared that homosexuality was not a psychological disorder. This declassification is largely based on the research of Alfred Kinsey, who showed (through flawed statistics) that 10 percent of all people are homosexual, hence homosexuality wasn’t so uncommon.

This study was done in 1948 and 1953. More recent studies have been unable to duplicate the statistics that Kinsey acquired. Remember the South Korean scientist who faked his own results regarding cloning? People only realised something was wrong when his results could not be duplicated. Similarly, people are now, or have been since the 1990s, been realising that there is something wrong with Kinsey’s research, since his results could not be duplicated.

The highest percentage of homosexuals in any population in any study that has been properly conducted and verified by its scientific peers is 2.5 percent. And this is the result now, in present day. Do you think there would have been more homosexuals (or people who declare themselves homosexuals) today or back in 1948? Obviously there is something wrong with Kinsey’s data. But what?

The reason that Kinsey’s data is flawed is that he threw out more than 75 percent of samples acquired from the normal population, and kept only those that matched what he wanted. He chose to take samples largely from prisoners, and not only regular prisoners, but those who had been imprisoned for sexual crimes.

Any amateur scientist can see the one fundamental flaw in Kinsey’s research - he didn’t set out to discover the truth. He set out to match the data to fit his own ideas. Having found the data to match his own ideas, and throwing out all the rest, he presented it to the public who eagerly lapped it up without thinking to consider his research techniques. He gave the public what they wanted to hear, not the truth.

Even today, people are citing that “10 percent”. I know of homosexuals who continue to cite it, despite knowing that it is an inaccurate figure. But this 10 percent figure is what resulted in the APA removing homosexuality as a psychological disorder.

I say that this is the greatest injustice done to homosexuals because it indicates to homosexuals that the condition they have is normal. It is not, and I think all homosexuals deep down know this. No homosexual chooses to be the way he or she is.

Leslie Lung, founder of Liberty League, believes that homosexuals are essentially people whose psychological development has been interrupted. Homosexuals, I believe and he agrees, are people who have not accepted themselves as a man or a woman. But Leslie goes one step further and proposes that the best way of helping a homosexual to accept his manhood or her womanhood is to show him or her love, respect, understanding and acceptance.

He should know… for Leslie himself was formerly a sexually-broken transsexual. And a beautiful one to boot. Today, Leslie has devoted his life to working with homosexuals who desire to become whole.

In short, the greatest injustice that has been done to homosexuals, is not preventing them from the legal right ‘to marry’, it is not external pressure to keep their sexual disorder hidden… it is the continued propagation of the lie that homosexual is a valid sexual orientation, rather than sexual brokenness manifesting itself in a psychological disorder. After all, if no one classifies it as a disorder, no one will try to bring order back to it, and almost any homosexual who does want to become sexually whole, will be denied treatment.

Resources:

- more information about Kinsey’s skewed research can be found by googling “Judith Reisman” or visiting her webpage at www.drjudithreisman.com. It is currently under construction, but you can find an older version of the page here.

- Liberty League is a non-profit, non-religious organization dedicated towards helping homosexuals heal their sexual brokenness.

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.

I am aware of some emotional changes through the process, both before and after, so clearly there are some hormonal changes in the body. What are they? Are they really healthy, as many people seem to claim without any medical proof? Or could they actually be harmful? Because I have found no long-term benefit of masturbating regularly, but in fact a lot of negative effects, one of which would be an addiction to masturbation.

There are other substances that cause similar hormonal changes in a person’s body such as nicotine, heroin, cocaine, marijuana… and all of these are harmful. Could masturbation actually be harmful as well? Could masturbation be, perhaps, the nicotine of addiction to pornography?

I came across this website (www.newlifehabits.com) the other day. On one particular post “Masturbation Addiction Explained“. It speaks of the harmful mental and physical benefits of masturbation:

On mental effects, it says:

When a person masturbates, the ability to create and maintain relationships is hindered. Masturbation makes us more reserved and turns us inward to be concerned mostly with pleasing ourselves. Relationships are about caring for others and this is hard to do when we are being so selfish in private. Masturbation can cause us to be less outgoing and we may isolate ourselves from others in shame. We may feel uncomfortable in crowds because we lack the confidence to conduct ourselves in a healthy social way. It can effect our dating relationships and put too much weight on the physical part of the relationship and ignore the friendship that should be developing.

Sounds like the story of my life, if you ask me…

As for physical effects, it says, in a summarized form:

There are different chemical reactions happened when you masturbate as opposed to having healthy sex in a marriage. A lot of what is going on during and after these acts originates in the pituitary gland. Two main hormones are interacting and regulating each other. These are the dopamine and prolactin hormones.

Dopamine makes us feel excited and prolactin makes us feel relaxed. When a person reaches climax after arousal, the body knows how to release prolactin to suppress the dopamine so we will feel relaxed and satisfied. In marriage this is accompanied with many emotions of love and so the satisfied feeling is multiplied and you become bonded to your spouse physically and emotionally.

Over 400% more prolactin is released at climax when engaged in healthy sex with a loved one than when one masturbates. So what does that mean? It means that the person who masturbates is no where near as satisfied and definitely not bonded in love as they would be in a healthy normal marriage. In fact, the person who masturbates has no idea what they are missing out on but instead have sort of a pseudo miserable bond with fantasies that are ever changing and progressing in order to keep the person somewhat satisfied.

The person who masturbates will continue to be excited by the unregulated levels of dopamine. They may feel a little relaxed but the arousal returns quickly and they must masturbate again in order to feel relaxed again. So with a shorter period of relaxation the person must masturbate more frequently to try to reach the equivalent level of relaxation they would have in a healthy marriage. They will never reach this level of satisfaction.

In this uncontrolled and unhappy state the person is definitely not even ready to experience a marriage since they have no self-control and would bring their warped sense of love into the marriage. Remember, true love involves self-control.

In conclusion, no good comes from masturbation. Those who promote it either have never dealt with the problem or have just created an opinion with little knowledge of the negative effects.

Dictionary.com defines marriage as:

the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Canon Law defines marriage as:

The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between the baptized, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

Of course the definition of marriage in Canon Law applies only to baptized Christians, but even in the dictionary.com definition, we see that marriage has to be between a man and a woman. That’s the very definition of marriage.

To ask for a man to be married to a man or a woman to be married to a woman is to change the very definition of marriage. Or should I say, such a thing does not exist. There can be no real union between two people of the same gender, and there can be no real biological fruit from such a thing.

It’s not a marriage, so why call it a marriage? It does not fit into the definition of what a marriage is, so why call it a marriage? Call it “barriage” or something else, because “marriage” is reserved for a man and a woman.
After making a mental note to blog this down, I managed to get back to an uneasy sleep.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If I gather rightly, Ms Bundchen is advocating for more sexual promiscuity and for more people to have irresponsible sex, that is, sex without consequences.

The rising rate of number of abortions procured, and spread of STDs can only be attributed to larger numbers of people having irresponsible sex because they can, or because they believe that contraceptives make them invincible.

But no contraceptive is 100% effective, and when there are larger numbers of people taking part in irresponsible sex using contraceptives, the number of unwanted pregnancies is only going to rise. Contraceptives are causing the very thing they were supposed to be preventing - rising numbers of unwanted pregnancies, and rising rate of STD transmission. And a country that uses contraceptives to reduce the number of abortions procured is throwing gasoline to put out a fire; it’s only going to get worse.

The Church is not just against the use of contraceptives; it is against the rotten fruits of contraception as well.

Let’s face it, contraception isn’t about preventing the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. There’s already a 100% effective solution to that, one that the Catholic Church advocates, and the secular world rejects, simply because the secular world promotes the spread of that which they claim to be against. Otherwise why would the secular world promote contraception instead of abstinence?

The secular world is interested in promoting what they call sexual liberty, but which is, in fact, sexual enslavement.

No? Take a good look at Ms Bundchen’s stand on contraception and sex. She is saying, together with the rest of the secular world, that men and women today cannot say ‘no’ to their sexual urges, and must jump into bed with someone before they are married.

What do you call a person who can’t say ‘no’ to his desire for another drink? An alcoholic. What do you call a person who can’t say ‘no’ to another smoke? A smoking addict. What do you call a generation of young men and women who cannot say ‘no’ to their desire to have sex? Sex addicts. Sexual enslavement is what this so-called “sexual liberty” is in fact resulting in. And the consequences? You know it - rising numbers of unwanted pregnancies and STDs.

Let’s face it, contraceptives are never going to work in lowering the rates of unwanted pregnancies and spread of STDs. For even if one day contraception acquires a 0% failure rate, there is still going to be user failure.

So what happens then? Obviously abortion is used to take care of all the unwanted pregnancies that result from irresponsible sex. Now this is serious, because each abortion procured is the murder of a child.

A fetus is not a ‘thing’, it is a human child, a living human person. All scientific arguments are against the position of abortionists and in favour of the Catholic position. If someone wants to put this to the test, let him simply ask a non-Catholic doctor who has performed an abortion whether what he has extracted from the womb is no more than a thing, or whether it is a living being. And if it is a living being, of what species is it?

No; the abortionist position is not based on science or on reason. It is based on prejudices and interests, neither of which have anything humanitarian about them.