Friday, February 3, 2012


The Komen Kowardice roundup:

Rod Dreher

Mark Shea

Creative Minority Report 1

Creative Minority Report 2

Creative Minority Report 3

Badger Catholic has a sickening comparison: a local food bank declined PP food donations, and the abortion bullies came out in force to scream about it

The Deacon's Bench

The Anchoress (with many additional links)

In some of these, the blogger merely shares news articles, but I've included them anyway because their commenters are avidly discussing the matter.

I'll try to keep this updated through the weekend; if there's a Catholic blogosphere reaction you'd like me to share here that I haven't seen, please send it to me at the address in my sidebar.

Now: I'm disappointed, but not particularly surprised. Taking on the national religion is bound to bring repercussions, and Komen wasn't strong enough to stand up to the religion-of-easy-sex fanatics who piled on and screamed about how you just don't love women or care about women's health unless you're willing to turn every woman into a contraceptive zombie and abortion slave. Because, you know, if people started actually embracing chastity, entering into sacramental marriage as opposed to the easily-broken civil sham version of it, and being gladdened by children, our whole economy of vapid materialism, disgusting porn, worthless electronic toys and gadgets and overpriced political coffee would crumble away like the phantasmagoria it is.

So when even the slightest gesture is made to attack the culture of Sex Without Consequences and abortion on demand, the whole army of devoted worshipers at these evil temples turns out in force demanding that the human sacrifices be continued unabated and uncriticized, lest our civilization crumble into dust. Because there is nothing, nothing, nothing more important in America than the right to engage in sex acts anytime with anyone who consents provided that there's no chance whatsoever that conception will result--except the equal right to kill off any children that do result from this rampant, lascivious and promiscuous way of living, via the sacred temple sacrifice called abortion. And what Komen learned is that standing up to this monster is too costly for anyone who isn't actually opposed to the national religion, and thus already treated like outcasts and pariahs and used to such treatment. Komen was used to polite applause and smarmy, unctuous approval, and they never realized that that approval was contingent upon their being happy to be One of Them; that is, one of the followers of the religion of contraception and abortion, of Sex Without Consequences, facilitating that wholesome pastime of skankery and whorishness that America has adopted as its own special sort of virtue.


Anonymous said...

I wrote this on the other thread, but this whole Komen thing is just chilling me to the bone.

Ann Marie

L. said...

"... entering into sacramental marriage as opposed to the easily-broken civil sham version of it...."

I have never heard you call civil marriage a "sham" on this blog before. I understand why you think it's inferior to sacramental marriage, but is "sham" really how you want to describe the bond the unites many non-Christian families?

Siarlys Jenkins said...

I was hoping to see more comments before I offered anything. Disappointment is understandable, just when someone seemed (from the viewpoint of the elated-then-disappointed) to have finally seen the light. It seems to me that the entire episode manifested cowardice in every direction, and everyone has egg on their face.

Komen has now put on the spectacle that it is prepared to jump in any conceivable direction in order to placate critics and pump up donations. That goes for the extended campaign by various right-to-life groups, and the furious outbreak from the friends of Planned Parenthood. Komen obviously cannot claim any commitment to principle either way.

Nobody who put pressure on Komen to "do it our way" can claim purity while pointing fingers at the opposition. The entire episode is a sorry spectacle, doing credit to nobody.

Red Cardigan said...

L., I've published your comment (nice to see you, btw--hope life is back to normal for you now!) but I think that most people will realize I'm talking about those who should know better--e.g., Catholics and others whose own religions teach that a civil marriage alone is not enough (and for good reason).

As I've said before, if two pagans marry civilly and then become Catholic, they have to let the Church decide if they're married in God's eyes, need to have the marriage blessed or convalidated, etc. Not all civil marriages are necessarily invalid.

But a lot of them, especially when they involve believers, are. And a lot of people who should theoretically know better really don't seem to care.

L. said...

Thanks for clarification -- and I'm not exactly "back" -- I never left, I've just been lurking for the better part of the past year, after realizing that my comments here and elsewhere sowed mostly bad feelings and only added to misunderstandings.

Plus, as you know, Lent last year in Japan got "interesting." And it made me realize what is really important to me in life.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

As far as people who have made a profession of faith in any given religion, I think Erin is correct. If you don't believe what a given church teaches is essential, don't become a member. If you join, fulfill the teachings and requirements.

There is an odd twist to civil and sacramental marriages, which briefly popped into the news when a couple married in a Lutheran Church divorced civilly, with one child. The father wanted to remarry a Roman Catholic woman who had never been married. The option, if any, in the RC church would be to "anull" the first (Lutheran) marriage. The new couple apparently was making headway getting one, because the divorced wife was getting angry that the Roman Catholic tribunal had no jurisdiction to "anull" her marriage -- which would mean it never existed. The daughter was asking "would that mean I'm illegitimate?"

I suspect that conservative, faithful, Roman Catholics would say that this use of "anullment" was invalid, and the church should simply tell the man, sorry, you have a wife still living. But there may be other ways to look at it. I know that faithful Mennonites who are civilly divorced decline to remarry so long as their civilly divorced spouse is still living.