Your sexual promiscuity has cheapened your self-worth to less than a bottle of aspirin

My entry is one of the four finalists to the contest to fill in this caption:

My entry is:
"Your sexual promiscuity has cheapened your self-worth to less than a bottle of aspirin."

Please click here and vote for my entry.

Some people might think that I am making a judgement about people who are sexually promiscuous.  The judgement is about the act of sexual promiscuity and the comment is in regard to what the sexually promiscuous person is doing to themselves.

The Catholic Church teaches that sex is to be between man and woman in marriage.  You can read what the Church actually teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church at the Vatican Archives.


The following is a response I had to someone regarding Rick Santorum's comments about homosexuality.  Contraception, sexual promiscuity, and self-worth are discussed and I eventually get back to self-worth, which is the point I made with my caption entry,"Your sexual promiscuity has cheapened your self-worth to less than a bottle of aspirin."


There is more to sex than just pleasure. If there was no pleasure in the act, a species might not procreate.  The primary purpose of sex is procreation.  This cannot happen with homosexual people.  While Rick Santorum's example of equating that act to having sex with an animal is grotesque and strong, it should drive home the point that such sexual activity is done simply for pleasure.

Another purpose of sex is the unifying aspect.  Some of this is the physical contact between the people and some is chemical.  Physical aspect can be accomplished between homosexual people, but not the fluid interaction that actually makes the woman desire that man.  This is also true for many forms of contraception between heterosexual partners.

Denying any of these aspects of sex is immoral. 


A relationship should be based on common interests, love for each other, and enjoying being with the other person.  When a person feels that the value they bring to a relationship needs to be sex, then they have reduced the value of the other things they bring to a relationship because sex is more important.  As sexual promiscuity continues with a person, they continue to devalue the other things they bring to a relationship.  Their self-worth is tied to their ability to bring sexual pleasure.  Some might say otherwise, but if one chooses to end the relationship because sex is not part of the relationship, they have reduced the value of the other person to being an object for sex.  When one feels that the only thing they bring to a relationship is sex, then that is the self-worth to which they have reduced themselves.

Too Busy For Lent

Lent is a season for preparation for Easter.  Outside of the rigors of every day life, this is a time of year that we, as Catholics, need to set aside time for prayer and reflection to prepare for Easter.  I started by looking at my calendar and remembering that there were things that I had not yet added to my calendar.  So I went through my emails and added to my calendar the events to which I committed.  Then I started thinking about when I was going to find time to set aside for myself to pray and reflect.


I paused for a few hours to think about when I would fit in extra time to prepare myself for Easter.  When I returned I was about to write all of the activities that I have planned when I realized that I had already planned time for prayer, fasting, and almsgiving.  I simply forgot that these activities were designed for just this purpose.


About three years ago I decided to purchase and start praying the Liturgy of the Hours.  I pray Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, and Night Prayer every day.  I try to get the Office of Readings in every day as well. When I pray the Office of Readings, I reflect on the readings and write my reflections.  The readings for Lent are designed to prepare the reader for Easter.  So right there is one way I will be preparing for Easter.


I will be going to Mass on Ash Wednesday.  The ashes remind us of our mortality and is a great way to begin our preparation for Easter.


In the evening on Ash Wednesday, our local chapter of the Lay Fraternities of St. Dominic will begin the Total Consecration To Mary.  This will be done as a group for each of the Wednesday's during the 33 day consecration and for the consecration on the 33rd day.  So there went most of my Wednesday's during Lent and I will be doing the other days of the consecration at home.


Thursday of this week I have Lenten Reflection and dinner through a Church organization with which I am a member.  The speaker is Msgr. Eugene Morris apparently I need to hear what he has to say as our parish Knights of Columbus council just had him as a speaker for the speaker program.


Fridays during Lent at my parish means that there will be a Fish Fry dinner run by the Knights of Columbus.  I will be doing my part in setting up, serving food, and, if needed, to clean up afterward.  This is a community event and fund raiser in which the proceeds all benefit the parish in some way.


So that is my Wednesday's and Friday's during Lent along with my first Thursday.  Tuesday is the night of the week that I try to keep clear all year so I can spend time at home.  We will see how I do about that as I look at the rest of Lent.  The rest of the days of the week do not have weekly recurring activities, but there are some monthly recurring events and one time events throughout my calendar.


The first Saturday of Lent has me helping serve beverages at the Irish Festival at the Pontifical College Josephinum.  This is a fun event, but it is giving of my time for a worthy cause.


I could go through the events I have planned, but that is not the point of this post.  The point is finding time during Lent to prepare for Easter.


Below is a day-by-day list for each week of Lent with the activities I have planned by listing the organization.  One thing I need to mention is that I usually meet with people from a non-religious organization two or three times a week.  The nights I normally do this are Wednesday and Friday.  Since these nights are being taken by the Consecration and Fish Fry, I have to find another night to meet, which is possible every night since I can find such a meeting on every night of the week.  I will try to do that on Monday's, but that is not possible every night.


The following key will be used:
3OP - Lay Faternities of St. Dominic
C - Other church organization or event
KC - Knights of Columbus
NRO - The previously mentioned non-religious organization.
PLM - Parish Lenten Mission


Beginning of Lent
Wed - 3OP
Thu - C
Fri - KC
Sat - KC


First Week of Lent
Sun - KC
Mon - C
Tue - NRO
Wed - 3OP
Thu - KC
Fri - KC
Sat - KC


Second Week of Lent
Sun - (open)
Mon - NRO
Tue - (open)
Wed - 3OP
Thu - KC
Fri - KC
Sat - (open)


Third Week of Lent
Sun - 3OP
Mon - KC
Tue - NRO
Wed - 3OP
Thu - KC
Fri - KC
Sat - (open)


Fourth Week of Lent
Sun - KC
Mon - NRO
Tue - (open)
Wed - 3OP
Thu - (open)
Fri - KC
Sat - (open)


Fifth Week of Lent
Sun - PLM
Mon - PLM
Tue - PLM
Wed - PLM
Thu - PLM
Fri - KC
Sat - (open)


Our Parish Lenten Mission will be given my Msgr. Morris.  As I said earlier, I must really need to hear what he has to say.  I know he is a powerful speaker and I look forward to hearing him.


Holy Week
Sun - (open)
Mon - NRO
Tue - KC (Chrism Mass)
Wed - NRO
Thu - KC (or C if KC is canceled as it should be)
Fri - C
Sat - C


So during Lent, I have nine nights free on my schedule to find time to prepare myself of Easter.  Sometime in here I will need to find time to visit with family as well.


Even though there are only nine nights free on my schedule, many of these activities do help me prepare for Lent.  I forgot that many of these activities are part of my Lenten preparation for Easter.  The fact that I forgot most of these activities in some way were to help me prepare for Easter is a reminder that I need to remind myself of that and treat them as just that - activities to prepare myself for Lent.  I need to take time before each activity and dedicate it to God as I should be doing anyway.

Removing the CAPE

About two years ago I learned of a different kind of Catholic known by some as CAPE Catholics.  I had never heard this phrase and the explanations that ran through my head were people who wore a cape to church and Catholics who live on the cape.  The explanation I got started with the Christmas and Easter only attendees at Mass.  The CAPE Catholics add Ash Wednesday and Palm Sunday to the Masses they attend.

One possible explanation as to why they attend these two additional Masses is that they get something for attending.  This thing they get is not just the Mass receipt, also known as the parish bulletin.  They get the ashes on their forehead and the palms to display in their house as visible signs of their being Catholic.  Many regular attendees at Mass may find this behavior to be deplorable.  I could list many reasons why their behavior is wrong, but deep inside there is a desire to have a Catholic identity.  No matter what their reason to have a visible Catholic identity, there is hope.

When I went off to college and did not even think about going to church.  For the next 16 years I attended Mass when I lived under my parent's roof, was visiting my parents, or my parents were visiting me.  There was a period of time in between when I lived near Chicago and I started to attend Mass every week, but then I moved again and did not look for a church.

During those 16 years, I lived in 5 different cities.  I have since settled in Columbus, OH.  When I visited my parents for Easter in 2007, I went to Mass with them just like I would have any other year.  I do not know exactly what happened to me, but I decided to attend Mass the following Sunday.  Due to my association with a non-religious organization, I had already known where one Catholic church was nearby my home so that is where I went.  Because my childhood parish did not, and still does not, have kneelers I knew I was going to be lost on when to kneel so I followed what the others did.  I also followed the example of others to know where to go for reception of Holy Communion.  Regardless of what was happening, I needed to follow the example of others.

I would like to say that I was warmly welcomed to the parish.  That did not happen.  The thing that kept me coming back was the accessibility of the parish priests after Mass as I asked them for guidance.  They were more than happy to help me relearn the faith.  They also directed me to a bible study and RCIA class.  The RCIA class was the best thing for me as I was able to learn and relearn the Catholic faith.  In the process I also got to know our deacon that runs the RCIA program at our parish and some of the other clergy.  Without the accessibility of the parish priests after Mass, I do not think I would have continued to come back.  Within a few months of my return to the church, they held their annual stewardship fair so people can see what organizations are at the parish and invite people to join them.  At least that is the intent of the fair.  What happened for me is that I signed up with two groups and never got contacted.  I did not make that realization until a year later when I was attending the RCIA class.  I could have easily been turned off from the Church because of the appearance of nobody wanting me.

Not every infrequent attendee of Mass has the desire to (re)learn and get active like I did.  When the CAPE Catholics come to church, it is important to be a good example for them.  This call is not just to be an example of what to do at Mass and when to do it, but an example after Mass as we are called to live our faith in every thing that we do.  The example we provide to infrequent Mass attendees, like CAPE Catholics, may turn them into regular attendees.  Some might just be going about their ritual to attend Mass on a day where they feel compelled to attend.  Any one of them might see or hear something that makes them realize they need to be there every week.  Rather than treating the CAPE Catholics as someone in the way at Mass four times a year, treat them with true Christian charity and be willing to help them if they ask.  Perhaps they might remove the CAPE and become a practicing Catholic.

About that 98% Of Catholic Women That Use Contraception

I posted the following on my Facebook page on Monday, February 13.  Even though there are many comments about the 98% statistic being thrown around by now, I figured it wouldn't hurt if I posted mine as well.

Here is the study that is used to make the claim that 98% of Catholic women use contraception >>>  http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Religion-and-Contraceptive-Use.pdf.

The Guttmacher Institute was founded in 1968 as the "Center for Family Planning Program Development", a semi-autonomous division of ThePlanned Parenthood Federation of America.  Keep that in mind when reading their study and their motives for misleading people.

"This report was based on data from the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG). Designed and administered by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), the NSFG produces national estimates of factors affecting pregnancy, including sexual activity and contraceptive use.  Data were gathered using in-person interviews with 7,356 women aged 15–44 between June 2006 and December 2008.  All data used for this analysis were weighted, and the findings are nationally representative."  Let us assume that the CDC did not have political motivations in collecting or massaging the data.  I have not found the exact data set used from  www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg.htm, but I have found a variety of studies with a different number of women included.  This ranges from near 7,356 (the amount in the Guttmacher study) to 61,561.  This makes me question if Guttmacher excluded women from their dataset or if they based their study on the CDC study, but conducted it themselves.  If the former is the case, an explanation on their part is needed as to why some were excluded (Please contact me if you have the actual data source Guttmacher used.)  If it is the latter, then there is clearly a sample bias.  How great the sample bias is depends on where and how (Planned Parenthood office, independent facility, over the phone, etc.) the interviews were conducted.

My understanding of polls is that many people do not like taking polls regarding sex.  Those most likely to take a poll regarding sex are those that are more likely to be engaged in the activity.  So there is a bias here too.  Depending on if Guttmacher used only CDC data or if they did their own study based on CDC's study, the degree of bias can be quite significant.

"A Religious affiliation is based on an item that asked women for their current affiliation."  One would hope that people would not lie on this question to skew the results.  This includes women who are Catholic by name and do not attend Mass and women who had contracepted and later converted to Catholicism without contracepting after conversion.  

The 98% figure of Catholic women using contraception is that they have had sex and that they contracepted at least once.  First, this excludes those who have not had sex!  That 98% number needs to come down.  Secondly, just using contraception once in their lifetime includes a respondent into 98% group.  The better question is whether they are currently using contraception when they have sex.

Some people have been errantly advised by a priest that contraception is not immoral.  This may have been an honest mistake by the priest or just opinion of theirs on what the church teaches.  Shame on the priest if it is the latter.  Regardless of why the errant advise was given, through no fault of the woman she did the immoral thing of using contraception.  Some even went as far as having a sterilization surgery, which is quite costly to reverse and might not even work.  Through no fault of these women, they are still contracepting.

The study excludes women outside of 15-44 years of age. While this might be useful in studies regarding contraception, to use that to make a statement about all women in a religious group would be erroneous.

In regards to the part of the study involving choice of contraception, they first make an unsubstantiated claim,"Most sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant...practice contraception."  The data is certainly available through the CDC to show this, but nothing is shown in this report (this is another reason I question how the data was collected).  The preference of contraception method is among those not trying to get pregnant.

The 98% figure is made out to be representative of all Catholic women.  It is representative of the lifelong sex choices that a specific age group of Catholic women that have had sex made at least once in their life have made rather than what all Catholic women are doing today.

In regard to the 98% being used to support forcing religious organization to go against their conscience, regardless of what the percentage of Catholic's who do not follow the teachings of the Church, there are some (probably a large majority) that follow the teachings of the Church in this regard.  By forcing the Church or any related organization to provide this coverage forces someone to do something against their moral conscience.  This applies with both religious and non-religious employers.  No matter how great the numer is, the government has no right to force someone to do something against their moral conscience! 

Reply from Senator Sherrod Brown and My Response (2/17/2012)

This is my first post in this blog.  The name "Les Expos" comes from my long time love of the Montreal Expos.  Most of my posts will have little to do with the Expos and I do not intend to claim that my views are those of the former team or their fans.  It is a name I have used elsewhere and rather than coming up with a catchy name that may eventually lose its meaning, I went with a name that likely has no meaning to the content I post.

Anyway, I recently sent an email to our Senator, Sherrod Brown, regarding the mandate imposed on religious employers through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding health insurance.  What follows is his form letter email response and the questions I sent to him in reply in red.

Dear Mr. Gissel:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me regarding health insurance and contraception coverage.  Like most Ohioans, I believe we must respect both religious institutions and the interests of women in receiving affordable health care.

Through the Affordable Care Act (ACA), young adults under 26 can remain on their parents’ insurance plan while in college or looking for their first job.  Seniors who reach the Medicare “donut hole” receive discounts on their prescription medication and have improved access to preventive care screenings.  In Ohio, that meant that 185,000 seniors saved $95 million in prescription drug costs last year.  And in 2014, small businesses and individuals will be able to purchase affordable insurance on the new health insurance exchanges.

Another goal of the act was to eliminate insurance coverage discrimination against women.  Prior to the passage of the ACA, it was legal in nine states for insurance companies to deny coverage to women who were victims of domestic violence because it was considered a pre-existing condition.  For the 14 million women who purchased health insurance in the individual market, pregnancy could have been considered a pre-existing condition, thus excluding maternity coverage.   And in most states, women were charged higher premiums — sometimes 150 percent more than men — especially during their reproductive years.  

In light of the discrimination women face in the health insurance market, the ACA requires all health plans to cover comprehensive women’s preventive care [This comment is being added for the blog.  From what are the women being prevented with this care?  Women's preventive care keeps them from being women] and screenings at no additional cost to women.  The preventive care covered by the ACA is based on recommendations from the Institute of Medicine (IOM), a panel of 15 medical experts, and includes domestic violence screening and counseling, gestational diabetes screening for at-risk women, postpartum counseling, lactation counseling, HIV- and sexually-transmitted infection testing and counseling, contraception coverage, and an annual well-women visit.

In keeping with the IOM’s recommendations, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a regulation requiring most employers to provide these services in their health insurance plans.  Under the department’s initial criteria, a church or other house of worship that is opposed to contraception on religious grounds would not have been required to provide contraception coverage under its insurance policy.   Because they educate students, treat patients, and hire individuals regardless of their religious beliefs, universities and hospitals affiliated with a religious order would need to provide this coverage.

However, after hearing from interested stakeholders, President Obama announced an expansion of the religious exemption.  Under the new rule, religiously affiliated institutions — such as universities, charities, and hospitals — will not be required to cover contraception services in their health plans. [Did the law actually change?  If so how?  Secondly, what about businesses that are not religious, but who are morally against providing such coverage?  What about employees of non-religious companies being forced to pay for a coverage to which they are morally opposed?] Instead, women working for these institutions will be able to access contraception coverage directly from their insurance companies.  The insurance company, not the employer or employee, will be responsible for the costs associated with this coverage.  Insurance companies should not need to raise premiums due to this new rule.  For example, insurance premiums did not increase after contraception was added to the Federal Employees Health Benefit system.

[Were any insurance companies contacted for input on this?  How do they feel about providing coverage for free?  If the cost of providing contraception coverage is that minimal, why not have the manufacturers of contraception provide this for free?

Secondly, insurance is regulated by the states.  Is the Federal Government going to step into the regulatory process and insist that the State Departments of Insurance allow companies to provide a coverage for free?]

The Catholic Health Association supports the revised policy [Are you aware that the Catholic Health Association does not speak for the Catholic Church?  The bishops of the Catholic Church speak for the Catholic Church and every one of the bishops of the United States has spoken out against the mandate from the HHS and the so-called compromise.  Why have they been excluded from conversations?] — stating that a “resolution has been reached that protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions.”  By requiring insurance companies, rather than religiously affiliated employers, to provide contraception coverage, the exemption protects both the interests of religiously affiliated employers and the right to access to health care of employees.  More than half of women between ages 18-34 struggle to afford contraception, which they often need for medical purposes not related to contraception.  As such, all women — regardless of their place of employment — should enjoy full access to preventive health care.

Some Ohioans have told me that the IOM’s recommendations require that abortion services must be included in insurance policies and that Catholic hospitals must perform abortions.  This is incorrect.  The IOM recommendations do not require any health insurance plan to cover abortion services.  Additionally, the IOM recommendations regarding contraception coverage only apply to insurance plans; they do not require hospitals or health care professionals to provide such services.

I appreciate your taking the time to voice your thoughts on this important matter.  Thank you again for getting in touch with me.

                         Sincerely,

              

                         Sherrod Brown

                         United States Senator