Home | About | Donate

What Should Be An Entirely Unnecessary News Flash For Kavanaugh: Contraception Is Not Abortion


dara –

There is no arguing with male-supremacist religious fanaticism –

Except that Pope John XXII did override all of the fanaticism with Vatican II where
he told Catholics to use their own free personal conscience to decide for themselves
whether or not to use contraceptives. In acknowledging every Catholics’ right to
free thought and free conscience, he made the Church a democracy.

Very quickly, Pope John XXIII was dead and the two Popes who succeeded him, both
of whom were preparing to overturn the Church’s ban on contraceptives.

A right wing coup of violence rose in the Vatican which then tried to bury Vatican II.

NATURE also stands against any religious cult’s attempts to force females to childbearing
as it provided many ways through plants to give women ways to control reproduction –
to limit fertility – even permanently if they wished – and to interrupt conception.

Plants are not only our nutrition – they are our medicines/drugs.

“Christianity” (male-supremacist religion) warred on women and their knowledge of plants
which gave women reproductive freedom. Women were burned at the stake for their
knowledge (women’s wisdom) in an attempt to destroy that knowledge and the plants.
The violence of the church has gone on 2000 years and the idea that they no longer have
armies may be an illusion.

According to John Stockwell, CIA whistleblower, whose truths about the CIA and our US/
CIA government have been broadcast over C-span numerous times, the C.I.A. is actually
“Catholics In Action.”

Of course, Catholic women use contraceptives – and Catholic women everywhere have
just as many abortions as any other women.

The ridiculousness of “Christianity” continuing on to suggest that females are inferior to
males is overcome by its widespread rejection. Members continue to leave the Church.
As have priests and nuns.


I have always seen conception used in terms of fertilization. The back and forth of definitions misses the larger point that at fertilization, a new human life is created. Purposely taking action that will kill a fertilized egg is the ending of a human life and is morally wrong.


I cannot find any source that reports this statement by Pope John XIII. This statement also counters everything I have seen on his stance on abortion.


The church has not sexually abused any children. Some priests have abused their power and preyed on children. And they need to be rooted out and punished, as should those who enabled them.


I cannot either. It seems all he did was set up a panel to study the issue which later supported birth control (not calling it abortion) which was rejected by the next pope. John XIII was known to have opposed birth control and abortion.

Thankfully many Catholics can learn to think for themselves and it doesn’t matter a damn what a stupid pope says - " Over [90 percent] (http://world.time.com/2014/02/09/poll-catholic-beliefs-at-odds-with-vatican-doctrine/) of Catholics in France, Brazil, Spain, Argentina, and Colombia have no problem with birth control."


Vatican has done everything they can to


Here’s an article which comes very close to making it clear –

How the Vatican Almost Embraced Birth Control – Mother Jones

But it was written about at the time bu Humanist Magazine, for one, which made it completely clear.

But it was done in an even more sweeping manner by Pope John XXIII in acknowledging the
right of all Catholics to free thought, freedom of personal conscience, and free will.

Which did two obvious things – it acknowledged the right of Catholics to decide for themselves
whether or not to use contraceptives –

And it made the church a democracy – which obviously should be true of all religions.

Additionally you’ll see that various panels were created to study the need for approval of the pill
and other contraceptives – and all of them returned with POSITIVE declarations supporting
birth control – actually based in the fall of the church if it didn’t happen.

But also citing the suffering of Catholics who unfortunately surrender their free thought and
free will to religions which are cults/dictatorship.

And for any other readers interested – this was a period of time where the World had a growing
opportunity due to the efforts of President John F. Kennedy, PM Nikita Khrushchev and Pope
John XXIII for democracy throughout the world and peace. It was a time when the Pope was
acknowledging the male/female nature of their “god” and moving to modernize the church –
including ending the ban on abortion. All were quickly removed from the stage very quickly by
right wing coups.

After Pope Pius XXIII who was deceased very shortly after Vatican II, the next two Popes who
would have also overturned the ban on contraceptives were also very quickly dead. After that
the world was given the CIA Pope – who quickly ended all of the study groups/panels which had
studied the effects of the ban on contraceptives on members.

CIA = "Catholics in Action"


dara –

You would have to read all of Vatican II – or have press reports where it was actually read by
reporters to explain it to you –

What happened at this point was the rise of the right wing within the Church – subsequently represented by the CIA Pope who next took over and had to quiet down the move to “personal conscience” by once again trying to re-enforce the ban on contraceptives. But, fortunately, it was too late as Catholics did use their own consciences – not only in the decision to use birth control but in the decision to have abortions.

Also, in the interim, after Pope John XXII there were two other succeeding Popes who died very quickly under suspicious circumstances.

Sadly, where the Church still has control over societies, they manage to continue their war on women and on reproductive freedom – which is basically a war on families - males included. How many males today would want to see the pill disappear? That’s the road that White Power/Kavanaugh and Trump are on.

Establishment by John XXIII[edit]

With the appearance of the first oral contraceptives in 1960, dissenters in the Church argued for a reconsideration of the Church positions. In 1963 Pope John XXIII established a commission of six European non-theologians to study questions of birth control and population.[1][2] Neither John XXIII nor Paul VI wanted the almost three thousand bishops and other clerics then in Rome for Vatican II to address the birth control issue even though many of these bishops expressed their desire to bring this pressing pastoral issue before the Council.[3]


Majority Report

The commission produced a report in 1966, proposing that artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves about the methods to be employed.[1][2][4][5] This report was approved by 64 of the 69 members voting.[6] According to this majority report, use of contraceptives should be regarded as an extension of the already accepted cycle method:

The acceptance of a lawful application of the calculated sterile periods of the woman–that the application is legitimate presupposes right motives–makes a separation between the sexual act which is explicitly intended and its reproductive effect which is intentionally excluded. The tradition has always rejected seeking this separation with a contraceptive intention for motives spoiled by egoism and hedonism, and such seeking can never be admitted. The true opposition is not to be sought between some material conformity to the physiological processes of nature and some artificial intervention. For it is natural to man to use his skill in order to put under human control what is given by physical nature. The opposition is really to be sought between one way of acting which is contraceptive and opposed to a prudent and generous fruitfulness, and another way which is, in an ordered relationship to responsible fruitfulness and which has a concern for education and all the essential, human and Christian values.


TJ –

And clearly what has happened all over the world in sexual abuse of children could not have
continued on without the cooperation of Church officials –

Stop trying to alibi for the “Church” dictatorship which you prefer over democracy –

Pope says sorry for sins of church

You’re wrong – the church has admitted its sins – not yet including sexual abuse of children,
though the Italians make clear to all that the Vatican was involved in sexually abusing children
since the first day of the Vatican/RCC …

The fact that Pope Francis is being called to resign for covering up and even promoting church
officials who were involved in cover ups is further evidence that the “Church” was involved.

But the Church has also confessed to its thousands of years of violent PERSECUTION of
Jews, Women, Homosexuals, Native people all over the globe, Africans.

Pope says sorry for sins of church

Rory Carroll in Rome


Monday 13 March 2000 06.37 EST First published on Monday 13 March 2000 06.37 EST

Saving one of his most audacious initiatives for the twilight of his papacy, John Paul II yesterday attempted to purify the soul of the Roman Catholic church by making a sweeping apology for 2,000 years of violence, persecution and blunders.
From the altar of St Peter’s Basilica in Rome he led Catholicism into unchartered territory by seeking forgiveness for sins committed against Jews, heretics, women, Gypsies and native peoples.


Elites are concerned with control over others for their own profit – while they do whatever they want.


dara and TJ –

and for whomever is interested in this subject …

What we also have to understand about “Christianity”/Vatican is that it is a extremely wealthy church
at the expense of the poor all over the world, as it underpins Elite-Patriarchy and as a religion based
in male supremacist beliefs and run by a Vatican which is male-dominated in its hierarchy
and all of its church officials. It has also benefitted Elites-Patriarchy with its license to exploit Nature in
“Manifest Destiny” and “Man’s Dominion Over Nature” – and which includes the right to exploit other
human beings they define as “inferior” including women and native people, etal.

What has to be understood is that regularly the RCC has been being overturned as a dictatorship
by its own members – from those the church labeled “heretics” to the Spanish peasants who were
attacking Catholic Church because they understood that they were the backbone support for Elites/
Patriarchy in Spain –

As a result SPAIN moved to declare itself a republic with Separation of Church & State which was
a threat to the Catholic Church and its wealth as SPAIN stopped its monetary support for the Church.

George Seldes

The Vatican Propaganda Machine: The Spanish “Civil War” Lesson

From George Seldes, the “dean and granddaddy of investigative reporters,” when it comes to issues important to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, “… there is no free press in America.” Seldes’s extensive study of the Spanish Civil War and the related control of the American press by the Catholic hierarchy is exceedingly instructive for all who are concerned about this freedom.

and essentially that is what was happening in the 1960’s with the three-some of JFK, Khrushchev and
John Paul XXIII in his efforts to bring the church into a more modern era in acknowledging the right of members to make their own personal decisions.

Even 40 years later, the wounds have not healed. For many Catholics, both clergy and lay, their relationship with the church would never be the same. And the church itself would be radically altered, unable to move forward; forever defending a teaching that was judged indefensible 40 years ago and has only become more so with the passage of time and the arrival of new issues related to contraception, such as preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS.

Some may recall that the insanity of the right wing of the Catholic Church extended even to the use of

What Really Happened at Vatican II and How It Affects Us Today

In 1931, Spain became the Republic of Spain, a liberal democracy that separated church and state, ended State monetary support for the church and adopted the principles of Freedom of Conscience, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of the Press. The Vatican feared for the Church’s very survival in Spain. There had been four insurrections since 1835, and it was the Spanish people, the poor workers and poor peasants, who burned the churches because they blamed the hierarchy for having persistently backed the upper class. The latest uprising against the Catholic Church took place throughout the country in July, 1936. One historian described it as “the work of masses of common people, a spontaneous uprising.” The Vatican feared that the liberal democracy with its freedoms would spell the end of the Church in Spain.

In 1963 a papal commission was working on a new statement on marriage as part of the Second Vatican Council convened by Pope John XXIII to update the teachings of the Catholic church. Some of the conservative members of the pope’s staff were afraid that the more liberal members of the commission would use the occasion to reopen discussion about the hierarchy’s prohibition on “artificial” methods of contraception, such as condoms and diaphragms, which the hierarchy had banned in the 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii. Although the hierarchy taught that only the “rhythm” method of timing intercourse for a woman’s infertile period was acceptable to limit births, the contraceptive pill recently had been developed and there was much talk of the hierarchy sanctioning its use for Catholic couples because it used naturally occurring hormones to mimic the infertile period of pregnancy. In addition, a new generation of theologians, led by Dr. Hans Kung of Switzerland, was arguing that there was no good theological basis for the ban. So conservatives decided to take the issue of contraception off the table and convinced the pope to establish a separate commission to discuss contraception. This commission consisted of six people; four of them laymen. After Pope John XXIII died, the commission was continued by his successor, Pope Paul VI, who expanded it to 13 members in 1965 and 58 in 1965, including five (married) women as part of its contingent of 34 lay members

The commission took its job seriously. It studied the history of Catholic teachings on contraception and found that many of the scientific and theological underpinnings of the prohibition on contraception were faulty or outdated.

In the end, the commission voted overwhelmingly to recommend that the church rescind its ban on artificial contraception, saying that it was not “intrinsically evil” nor the popes’ previous teachings on it infallible.

But in the end even the bishops were swayed by the logic of the case for contraception. They voted nine to three to change the teaching, with three bishops abstaining. The official report of the commission said the teaching on birth control was not infallible; that the traditional basis for the prohibition on contraception—the biblical story of Onan and his spilled seed—had been interpreted incorrectly in the past; that the regulation of fertility was necessary for responsible parenthood and could properly be accomplished by intervening with natural processes; and, finally, that the morality of marriage was not based on “the direct fecundity of each and every particular act,” but on mutual love within the totality of marriage.

This final report basically said that the teaching on contraception could not change—not for any specific reason, but because the Catholic hierarchy could not admit it was wrong:

Notice that the very concept of “Papal Infallibility” was being acknowledged as NOT “infallible.”
This was a concept invented by Pope Pius IX after the French and Italians had shut down the Pope’s
Jewish Ghettoes in France and Italy and after Italy had drive the Vatican and Pope back to it’s current
1 or 2 mile square Vatican base – as they acknowledged “All are equal.”
At that point – about 1864 – the Pope went into seclusion for about four years and when he again
appeared he announced HIS concept of Papal Infallibility.

There was much opposition to this declaration of a new doctrine from Protestants, the Orthodox church and the Church of England, who objected that this was a new doctrine not supported by Scripture and tradition, but it is less widely known that there was internal Catholic opposition to the declaration of the doctrine. Some of the opposition remained within the church, but others were forced out.

Those who left the church were the ‘Old Catholics.’

And, by 1974, 83% of Catholics disagreed with the continuing ban on contraceptives.
Today, just as many Catholic women all over the world use contraceptives – and
disagree with the Church’s ban.

Reaction to the encyclical ranged from dismay and disappointment to outright dismissal. Many Catholics had made up their own minds about birth control in the years the commission had spent debating the issue. Foreshadowing the crisis of authority that would consume the church in later years, prominent Jesuit philosopher Rev. Robert Johann told the New York Times the day after the encyclical’s release that, “educated Catholics are not going to pay any attention to this statement.” Commonweal magazine said: “For millions of lay people, the birth control question has been confronted, prayed over and settled—and not in the direction of the pope’s encyclical.” A Manhattan housewife told the Times: “I don’t care what the pope says. I have a feeling the clergy are talking to themselves on this issue. I have made my decision and couldn’t care less about people at the Vatican.” (New York Times, July 30, 1968)

In fact, a survey just a year after the encyclical’s release found that 44 percent of Catholic women of childbearing age who were regular churchgoers were using “artificial” contraception. By 1974, 83 percent of Catholics said they disagreed with Humanae Vitae.

As I said, a clear report of what Pope John XXII said in Vatican II was made by Humanist Mag –
a copy of which I have somewhere. I’ll see if I can find it on line – or if I locate it will supply dates.


I have as many specific references here as you do. I read a number of books on the subject of abuse twenty years of so ago, one of which addressed the issue of male versus female frequency of abuse. Few studies existed, and almost all public claims were based on two biased methods of sampling. One was interviewing only people at abuse shelters, shelters that only admitted women and children. The other record was review of arrest and conviction records, but these are biased based on what might stick in court rather than what happened.

Another reference about society attitudes at the time was the LA Times comics section. In those days, not that long after the OJ Simpson trial, the idea of joking about abuse was as popular as joking about the Holocaust. Or was that really true? One day three strips used abuse as a joke, but there was no outcry because the abuser was a woman, the victim here husband. As another example of this, look at the crowd in the opening scene of the film Mary Poppins.


gde –

Where are your references?

How about the names of the books?

Are you saying that the women and children at shelters were victims, or abusers?

You have only to look at the news every day to see that MALES are those who commit
violence in our societies – and women are their most constant victims.

During the Vietnam War Years, where 57,000 American soldiers lost their lives, at the
same period of time 57,000 women in the US were also murdered by boyfriends and ex-
boyfriends, and ex-husbands. This continues on as reported every day in our newspapers
and on internet. Currently, thanks to the NRA, women in America have 11X the risk of
being killed by a man with a gun as women in other wealthy nations.

Your last paragraph provides no way to check anything you are saying.


You ignored my point. Many abusers are male, and I agree with you that is a huge problem. I claim many abusers are also female, and that is a huge problem too, while you deny this without backup.

Looking u LA Times archives for comics at the LA City Library, or LAT headquarters, is inconvenient but doable. It might take a few minutes to find the opening scene of Mary Poppins. It probably will take less time to find the only article I read on domestic violence yesterday, search LA Times Lorenzen Wright.



I didn’t ignore your illusion to having a point – I asked for more information.

Women will abuse children, especially when they are under the influence of a heterosexual male.
That’s what studies show.

Males – grandfathers, fathers, uncles, male cousins and male friends of the family are responsible
for the sexual abuse of children which we call incest and pedophilia.

Looking u LA Times archives for comics at the LA City Library, or LAT headquarters, is inconvenient but doable. It might take a few minutes to find the opening scene of Mary Poppins. It probably will take less time to find the only article I read on domestic violence yesterday, search LA Times Lorenzen Wright.

Then supply the links and the relevance.