The fraudulent banner of "pluralism"...

Life Site reports:



"Freedom doesn’t need reassignment surgery. But the scalpel is out. The anesthesia has been administered.

Tragically, most are asleep.

Overnight, we are witnessing the most radical (and destructive) transformation in America’s legal and cultural landscape than we’ve ever seen before. President Obama has long declared his intentions of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America”. No one realized he meant the change would be of a sexual nature.

We’ve gone from “no one should have a say what goes on in the privacy of someone’s bedroom” to forced conformation through the loss of your job or business, the imposing of steep fines or even the threat of prison. Bow to the rainbow god of LGBTQXYZ activism or you will be assimilated. I thought the Borg were some Star Trek fiction. But it’s the Obama administration and its fascist efforts to silence opposition and demand allegiance to the flag of the united states of LGBT fascism.

The recently fired baseball hall-of-famer, Curt Schilling, should have known better than to think free speech applied to him, personally. He dared to post a meme about transgenderism (not my style at all, but the First Amendment is more important than my own personal messaging preference). Silly conservative. It only applies to the Left as they parade their absolute intolerance through mainstream media, Hollywood, academia, public education, courts of law and now—aggressively—through the Department of (In)Justice.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch invoked Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX (as added in the 1972 Educational Amendments to the civil rights bill) in a press conference on C-SPAN attacking North Carolina’s recent House Bill 2, or HB2. She declared that these federal statutes were meant to cover “gender identity” issues because they bar discrimination based on “sex” (although the laws never mention this newly conjured up “gender identity”). Well, if that’s the case, then scholarship-stealing former NAACP chapter president Rachel Dolezal is covered by “race identity”, too. Why can’t white people, who thinks they’re black, apply for any black minority-based scholarship? Who are we to prevent their delusion…I mean, equality?

Lynch, who is adamantly pro-abortion, mentioned how the DOJ is concerned about discrimination against any American. Oh, but not those in the womb. Over 1 million a year have a lack of access to Life, but let’s pretend that the real injustice is the faux LGBT lack-of-access to bathrooms. Never mind that the nation’s largest abortion chain has been caught on video and in documented evidence illegally selling aborted baby body parts for profit. Lynch wasn’t moved, as the nation’s top attorney, to act. But within weeks of #HB2 becoming law, the Civil Rights division of the DOJ moved with lightning speed to protect the “equal rights” of 0.1% of the population.

Lynch says that North Carolina’s common sense #HB2 “presents the problem that does not exist.” We haven’t yet legalized men (whether transgender or not, because those bathroom bills don’t require any proof of such “status") going into girls’ bathrooms and changing rooms on a nationwide scale. Of course, we’ve never seen any articles of men secretly videoing or photographing women in bathrooms or similar facilities. Lynch says “North Carolina’s HB2 is based on distinction without a difference.” Really? No difference? Our sexual anatomy’s the same?

Lynch, like the rest of so-called progressives, compared the “transgender” issue with the struggle for dignity and justice of American blacks. Comparing something that esteemed medical professionals like Dr. Paul McHugh (former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital) and others call a “mental disorder” is nothing like the irrefutable innate characteristic of skin color. Of course, the deluded NAACP’s leadership agrees that opposing men using women’s bathrooms (or vice versa) is akin to racist support of Jim Crow laws. This, from the organization that recently forgot the actual wording of the First Amendment and sued me (and The Radiance Foundation) for exercising my right to free speech. I accurately called the far-left, pro-abortion organization the “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” in several of my articles. Thankfully, Alliance Defending Freedom defended my actual civil rights. The NAACP was crushed in court and smacked down by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for trying to “censor speech it didn’t like.”

Here’s the thing. If we take this twisted liberal “logic” to its illogical conclusion by eradicating gender distinctions, it’s biological women (as if the term “women” needs a qualifier) who will always be harmed the most. Since LGBT activists are hell-bent on pretending that biological binary sex is just a figment of our imagination, let’s just do away with all gender-divided sports, for instance. Men should now be able to play in all women’s sports. Well, actually, there should be no women’s sports—just sports. Gee, I wonder which “gender” will dominate those records? Science has shown repeatedly that even among the most elite of professional athletes, there is a huge gap in performance as evidenced by the 10%-25% difference in world records between men and women.
This isn’t sexism. It’s realism. My wife and I are equal, but we’re not the same. She has a womb. I don’t. And I’m perfectly ok with that. She bore three of our four amazing children. She wins the Trophy of Strength Award for that category, all the way! We’re different, and no amount of political BS (bogus stuff) will change that.

But Obama’s administration is desperately trying to force this nation into having reassignment surgery. Forget the Constitution. Fundamentally transforming America requires ignoring the very thing that makes the United States great. Law. Order. And a rich cultural heritage of Religious Freedom that “hold these truths to be self-evident”.

Apparently, common sense is not evident to this current President and those who work in our Executive Branch. Flagrantly disregarding the fact that they’re not in the legislative branch of government, they act like dictators, twisting the law to suit their gender-confused agenda.
This is no time to sleep, fellow Americans. The surgery is in progress, and it just might be irreversible. This isn’t about loving anyone you want, tolerance, or equality. Love illuminates the truth and lifts people out of their circumstances. Tolerance keeps people where they are and pretends there are no circumstances. (If you think that a perfectly healthy part of your anatomy needs to be cut off, there are definitely some circumstances.) And equality is too precious to have it distorted and defined by those who do all they can to suppress the truth."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Back in June of 2005 I posted the following here at La Salette Journey:


Those who are promoting the homosexual agenda are using time-proven tactics which have been employed by secular humanists for some time now. In the words of Ralph Martin, 'First, a plea is issued for a dominantly Christian society to 'tolerate' what appears to be a deviant behavior. Then pressure is applied to place the deviant behavior on an equal footing with traditional Christian values. Secular humanists argue that a pluralist society cannot do otherwise. They then try to make the deviant behavior seem normal and behavior governed by Christian values seem abnormal - a threat to a pluralist society. The last step is often to use the legal system to protect immorality and to undermine what Christians have always considered righteous behavior.' (A Crisis of Truth, pp. 101-102).


Professor James Hitchcock, in his excellent work entitled 'Catholicism and Modernity' (New York:Seabury Press, 1979, p. 86), explains the role of the media in this entire process: 'The media's alleged commitment to 'pluralism' is at base a kind of hoax. The banner of pluralism is raised in order to win toleration for new ideas as yet unacceptable to the majority. Once toleration has been achieved, public opinion is systematically manipulated first to enforce a status of equality between the old and the new, then to assert the superiority of the new over the old. A final stage is often the total discrediting, even sometimes the banning, of what had previously been orthodox.'

Was I exaggerating?  Cardinal Raymond Burke told the Catholic News Agency, back in 2011, that he could envision a time when the Catholic Church in the United States "even by announcing her own teaching" will be accused of "engaging in illegal activity, for instance, in its teaching on human sexuality."  When asked if he could even see American Catholics being arrested for their faith he replied, "I can see it happening, yes."  See here.

That time is now.  The persecution will now intensify.  Soon, when the Man of Sin reveals himself, that persecution will gradually sharpen until it erupts into full-scale violence and murder.


Related reading here.

George Soros-funded groups advancing a corroding and ambiguous pluralism to destroy the Catholic Church

By now you may have heard about the group Faith in Public Life, which is funded by one-time Nazi collaborator and atheist billionaire George Soros, and its plan to wage war against the Catholic Church and her Bishops.  Another Soros-funded group, Sojourners, which is headed up by Jim Wallis, promotes the New Age Globalist Earth Charter which seeks to replace the Ten Commandments and dismantle the Roman Catholic Church.

Sojourners has an article at its website written by Christian Piatt.  In this article, Piatt writes, "A recent poll found that, despite the teachings and public positions of church leaders, a majority of Catholics not only support contraception, but also support Obama’s mandate to require employers to pay for it. Then there’s the troublemaking American nuns, getting into hot water with the male Catholic gentry for not toeing the ideological church line, particularly with regard to matters of sex and sexuality.


So if over half of the faithful openly differ with the Church, and if the hands and feet of the missional arm of the church vocally oppose the Vatican, what’s the point of the institutional doctrine to begin with?

When it comes down to it, what seems to me to be at the heart of such traditions is not so much faithfulness, but rather control. If your inclusion in a system is contingent on you conforming to the beliefs of the leadership, then that institution has the power either to coerce you into compliance or to exile you for disobedience...From what I can tell, Jesus never made his disciples sign a statement of faith." (See here).

No, Jesus never made His disciples sign a statement of faith.  But He did say to His disciples, the Shepherds of His Church, "He who hears you, hears Me.  He who rejects you, rejects Me.  And he who rejects Me, rejects Him who sent Me." (Luke 10: 16).  He also said, "If anyone does not receive you or listen to what you have to say, leave that house or town, and once outside it shake its dust from your feet.  I assure you, it will go easier for that region of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than it will for that town." (Matthew 10: 14-15).  If Jesus did not expect people to conform to His teaching, which is zealously guarded and interpreted by the living teaching authority which He established, why did He say that those who refused to listen and conform to that teaching would fare worse than Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment?

And why did Saint Paul write, "I am amazed that you are so soon deserting him who called you in accord with his gracious design in Christ and are going over to another gospel.  But there is no other.  Some who wish to alter the gospel of Christ must have confused you.  For even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel not in accord with the one we delivered to you, let a curse be upon him!" (Galatians 1: 8).

And why did the Apostle John write, "Anyone who is so 'progressive' that he does not remain rooted in the teaching of Christ does not possess God...If anyone comes to you who does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house; do not even greet him, for whoever greets him shares in the evil he does." (2 John 9-11).

While it is true that a legitimate pluralism exists within the Church, one which, for example, includes diverse rites and spiritualities as well as theologies which reflect the one faith, a pluralism which leaves room for diverse world views, is dangerous because it can occasion relativism. In the Church, such a pluralism has no place. As Pope John XXIII taught, “..there is no other truth than the one truth she [the Church] treasures…there can be no ‘truths’ in contradiction of it.” (Ad Petri Cathedram, AAS 51 (1959) 513, PE, 263.70). The Synod of Bishops, Second Extraordinary Assembly, recognized this truth when it said that, “The pluralism of fundamentally opposed positions” does not build up the Church but “instead leads to dissolution, destruction and the loss of identity.” (Synod of Bishops, Second Extraordinary Assembly, 1985, Final “Relatio”, 2.C.2, EV 9 (1983-1985) 1764-65, OR, 16 Dec. 1985, 7.).

And that is exactly what Sojourners wants: the dissolution and destruction of the Catholic Church which would result from a loss of identity.  A false and corroding pluralism has already found its way into the Church. In his wonderful book entitled “A Crisis of Truth: The Attack on Faith, Morality, and Mission in the Catholic Church,” Ralph Martin explains that, “Pastoral leaders today often fail to exercise their responsibility effectively because they have inadequate models for leadership and employ inadequate criteria to judge their own work and the work of others.

Pastoral passivity is often justified as an appropriate posture for leaders of a ‘pluralist’ Church. Indeed, pluralism in the Church can be a very good thing. The life of the Church is enriched by a certain kind of diversity in cultural expression, pastoral approach, and even theological and philosophical expression of the faith. Yet pluralism is legitimate only if it involves diverse expressions of the one faith as definitively interpreted by the teaching authority of the Church over the centuries.

Today, calls for ‘pluralism’ are often pleas to abandon the one faith. Many of those who work for the ‘pluralistic’ Church of the future, in contrast to the ‘monolithic’ Church of the past, are actually working for the destruction of the Church and any meaningful measure of unity of faith. Pope Paul VI called this kind of indiscriminate pluralism, the kind that lacks any clear criteria, ‘corroding and ambiguous.’ It is indeed at work in the Church today.

Often an uncritical pluralism is combined with a conception of the pastoral leader as someone who is a ‘unifier.’ Of course, those responsible for families, parishes, and other segments of God’s people need to work to unify their people. But they should not achieve unity at just any price. The unity appropriate to God’s people is a unity based on a common adherence to Christian truth and the person of Christ. Saying ‘yes’ to the teaching of the Church in areas of faith and morals is to say ‘no’ to those who undermine and challenge them. Unity is based on truth. Yet many pastoral leaders today are presiding over a ‘unity’ which contains contradictory elements, a ‘unity’ which includes both acceptance and rejection of Christ, His Word, and the teaching of the Church. To tolerate the corruption of Christian truth in the name of unity or pluralism is to make a mockery of the genuine function and role of pastoral authority. It is, in fact, to preside over that corroding of Christian faith which Paul VI warned about.

Sometimes such corroding pluralism is tolerated because of a muddled or vague understanding of the wheat and the tares parable and other scripture passages that talk of problems within the Church. In this connection it is frequently said that: ‘The Catholic Church is a church of sinners, a broad church that includes everybody; it is not a sect.’ Besides often incorporating an imprecise and often incoherent use of the sociological categories of ‘church’ and ‘sect,’ such formulations are, more seriously, based on a misinterpretation of such scripture passages. The point of such passages is often to describe actual or future situations that can never be remedied simply by human effort, but can ultimately only be fully resolved by an action of God himself. The point of such passages though is not to counsel the advocacy of a lukewarm, passive, indifferent vision of Church life, in which the corruption of Christian truth and God’s people is benignly presided over.

Such false applications of the parable have been common previously in Church history to justify a distorted approach to Church life, and St. Augustine addressed this situation squarely:

‘In answer to these persons I would say, first of all, that in reading the testimonies of Sacred Scripture which indicate that there is presently, or foretell that there will be in the future, a mingling of good and evil persons in the Church, anyone who understands these testimonies in such a way that he supposes the diligence and severity of discipline ought to be relaxed altogether and be omitted is not taught by those same writings but is deceived by his own conjecture. The fact that Moses, the servant of God, bore most patiently that mixture of good and evil among the chosen people did not prevent him from punishing many, even with the sword….In our times, when the sword has ceased to be visible in the discipline of the Church, what must be done is pointed out by degradations and excommunications.’” (A Crisis of Truth, citing St. Augustine, “Faith and Works,” 1737a).

The Council of Trent teaches definitively that the Gospel is the source of all saving truth and authentic moral teaching. As Catholics we are not called to “remain silent” about the Gospel in the name of “pluralism.” We are called, as Dei Verbum of the Second Vatican Council reminds us, “..to hold fast to the traditions” which we “have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (cf. 2 Thes 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (cf. Jude 1:3)…” (Dei Verbum, No. 8).

The leaven of infidelity to the Holy Spirit rises in the Boston Archdiocese

“Dissent, in the form of carefully orchestrated protests and polemics carried on in the media, is opposed to ecclesial communion and to a correct understanding of the hierarchical constitution of the People of God.” (Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, No. 113).


It should come as no surprise that dissent within the Church leads to polarization and undermines truth which is the principle of the Church’s communion. In its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, No. 40, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said that, “The Church ‘is like a sacrament, a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men’ (LG, 1). Consequently, to pursue concord and communion is to enhance the force of her witness and credibility. To succumb to the temptation of dissent, on the other hand, is to allow the ‘leaven of infidelity to the Holy Spirit’ to start to work.”

We are now witnessing such polarization within the Archdiocese of Boston where a false pluralism has been advanced; a pro-abortion, pro same-sex politician has been honored; and a high-ranking priest has issued praise for those who promoted Obamacare (which includes federal-funding of abortion).

The warning of Pope Paul VI, given during his Homily at Holy Thursday Mass on April 3, 1969, has been largely ignored:


"There is talk of renewal in the doctrine and in the conscience of the Church of God; but how can the living and true Church be authentic and persistent if the complex structure that forms it and defines it a spiritual and social 'mystical body', is today so often and so gravely corroded by dissent and challenge and by forgetfulness of its hierarchical structure, and is countered in its divine and indispensable constituent charism, its pastoral authority? How can it claim to be a Church, that is a united people, even though locally broken up and historically and legitimately diversified, when a practically schismatic ferment is dividing it, subdividing it and breaking it into groups which are more than anything else zealous for arbitrary and fundamentally egoistical autonomy, masked by Christian pluralism or liberty of conscience?"

Indeed. And that is the question in Boston.

Pray for the Archdiocese of Boston. Pray for its leaders. That they may all come to understand that dissent leads to polarization and harms the Church's credibility and her witness. What must change? The structure of the Church or that of the human heart?


Related reading here. And here.

Father J. Bryan Hehir: A Corroding and Ambiguous Pluralism Which Leads to Dissolution, Destruction and the Loss of Identity

As reported here, Father J. Bryan Hehir, Secretary for Healthcare and Social Services, has argued that, “We [Catholics] could, on the basis of living in a pluralistic society, remain silent on the contraception question in the public policy area while upholding the Church’s teaching internally.” Father Hehir further argued that such an approach is consistent with Catholic tradition because, “Catholic tradition doesn’t always try to translate internal policy into public policy.”

While it is true that a legitimate pluralism exists within the Church, one which, for example, includes diverse rites and spiritualities as well as theologies which reflect the one faith, a pluralism which leaves room for diverse world views, the sort of pluralism advanced by Fr. Hehir, is dangerous because it can occasion relativism. In the Church, such a pluralism has no place. As Pope John XXIII taught, “..there is no other truth than the one truth she [the Church] treasures…there can be no ‘truths’ in contradiction of it.” (Ad Petri Cathedram, AAS 51 (1959) 513, PE, 263.70). The Synod of Bishops, Second Extraordinary Assembly, recognized this truth when it said that, “The pluralism of fundamentally opposed positions” does not build up the Church but “instead leads to dissolution, destruction and the loss of identity.” (Synod of Bishops, Second Extraordinary Assembly, 1985, Final “Relatio”, 2.C.2, EV 9 (1983-1985) 1764-65, OR, 16 Dec. 1985, 7.).

In his wonderful book entitled “A Crisis of Truth: The Attack on Faith, Morality, and Mission in the Catholic Church,” Ralph Martin explains that, “Pastoral leaders today often fail to exercise their responsibility effectively because they have inadequate models for leadership and employ inadequate criteria to judge their own work and the work of others.

Pastoral passivity is often justified as an appropriate posture for leaders of a ‘pluralist’ Church. Indeed, pluralism in the Church can be a very good thing. The life of the Church is enriched by a certain kind of diversity in cultural expression, pastoral approach, and even theological and philosophical expression of the faith. Yet pluralism is legitimate only if it involves diverse expressions of the one faith as definitively interpreted by the teaching authority of the Church over the centuries.

Today, calls for ‘pluralism’ are often pleas to abandon the one faith. Many of those who work for the ‘pluralistic’ Church of the future, in contrast to the ‘monolithic’ Church of the past, are actually working for the destruction of the Church and any meaningful measure of unity of faith. Pope Paul VI called this kind of indiscriminate pluralism, the kind that lacks any clear criteria, ‘corroding and ambiguous.’ It is indeed at work in the Church today.

Often an uncritical pluralism is combined with a conception of the pastoral leader as someone who is a ‘unifier.’ Of course, those responsible for families, parishes, and other segments of God’s people need to work to unify their people. But they should not achieve unity at just any price. The unity appropriate to God’s people is a unity based on a common adherence to Christian truth and the person of Christ. Saying ‘yes’ to the teaching of the Church in areas of faith and morals is to say ‘no’ to those who undermine and challenge them. Unity is based on truth. Yet many pastoral leaders today are presiding over a ‘unity’ which contains contradictory elements, a ‘unity’ which includes both acceptance and rejection of Christ, His Word, and the teaching of the Church. To tolerate the corruption of Christian truth in the name of unity or pluralism is to make a mockery of the genuine function and role of pastoral authority. It is, in fact, to preside over that corroding of Christian faith which Paul VI warned about.

Sometimes such corroding pluralism is tolerated because of a muddled or vague understanding of the wheat and the tares parable and other scripture passages that talk of problems within the Church. In this connection it is frequently said that: ‘The Catholic Church is a church of sinners, a broad church that includes everybody; it is not a sect.’ Besides often incorporating an imprecise and often incoherent use of the sociological categories of ‘church’ and ‘sect,’ such formulations are, more seriously, based on a misinterpretation of such scripture passages. The point of such passages is often to describe actual or future situations that can never be remedied simply by human effort, but can ultimately only be fully resolved by an action of God himself. The point of such passages though is not to counsel the advocacy of a lukewarm, passive, indifferent vision of Church life, in which the corruption of Christian truth and God’s people is benignly presided over.

Such false applications of the parable have been common previously in Church history to justify a distorted approach to Church life, and St. Augustine addressed this situation squarely:

‘In answer to these persons I would say, first of all, that in reading the testimonies of Sacred Scripture which indicate that there is presently, or foretell that there will be in the future, a mingling of good and evil persons in the Church, anyone who understands these testimonies in such a way that he supposes the diligence and severity of discipline ought to be relaxed altogether and be omitted is not taught by those same writings but is deceived by his own conjecture. The fact that Moses, the servant of God, bore most patiently that mixture of good and evil among the chosen people did not prevent him from punishing many, even with the sword….In our times, when the sword has ceased to be visible in the discipline of the Church, what must be done is pointed out by degradations and excommunications.’” (A Crisis of Truth, citing St. Augustine, “Faith and Works,” 1737a).

The Council of Trent teaches definitively that the Gospel is the source of all saving truth and authentic moral teaching. As Catholics we are not called to “remain silent” about the Gospel in the name of “pluralism.” We are called, as Dei Verbum of the Second Vatican Council reminds us, “..to hold fast to the traditions” which we “have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (cf. 2 Thes 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (cf. Jude 1:3)…” (Dei Verbum, No. 8).

John H. Garvey and a Corroding and Ambiguous Pluralism...

Responding to my posts on John H. Garvey, Nancy Danielson reminded me that we live in a pluralistic society. Indeed. However, as Ralph Martin said in his wonderful book entitled "A Crisis of Truth: The Attack on Faith, Morality, and Mission in the Catholic Church," "...pluralism in the Church can be a very good thing. The life of the Church is enriched by a certain kind of diversity in cultural expression, pastoral approach, and even theological and philosophical expression of the faith. Yet pluralism is legitimate only if it involves diverse expressions of the one faith as definitively interpreted by the teaching authority of the Church over the centuries..

Today, calls for 'pluralism' are often pleas to abandon the one faith. Many of those who work for the 'pluralistic' Church of the future, in contrast to the 'monolithic' Church of the past, are actually working for the destruction of the Church and any meaningful measure of unity of faith. Pope Paul VI called this kind of indiscriminate pluralism, the kind that lacks any clear criteria, as 'corroding and ambiguous.' It is indeed at work in the Church today.." (p. 176).

It was Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand who said, "False irenicism is motivated by a misconceived charity at the service of a meaningless unity. It places unity above truth. Having severed the essential link between charity and defense of the truth, irenicism is more concerned with reaching a unity with all men than with leading them to Christ and His eternal truth. It ignores the fact that real unity can be reached only in truth. Our Lord’s prayer ‘that they may be one’ implies being one in Him and must not be separated from His words in John: ‘And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice. And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.’"

The Church must always be a scandal to the world. The cross is folly to those who are perishing. Progressives who have lost their faith have decided not to leave the Mystical Body of Christ but instead to "reform" it. Such people are so enamored with the spirit of the world that they have succumbed to false norms.

Related reading here and here.

Sign the Letter of Support for Pope Benedict XVI

For background on the controversy, read Fr. Euteneuer's excellent response here. And the Holy Father's statement on condoms here.

The conduct of the media, in particular, has been offensive. And only serves to confirm what Professor James Hitchcock, in his excellent work entitled "Catholicism and Modernity" (New York: Seabury Press, 1979, p. 86), had to say: "The media's alleged commitment to 'pluralism' is at base a kind of hoax*. The banner of pluralism is raised in order to win toleration for new ideas as yet unacceptable to the majority. Once toleration has been achieved, public opinion is systematically manipulated first to enforce a status of equality between the old and the new, then to assert the superiority of the new over the old. A final stage is often the total discrediting, even sometimes the banning, of what had previously been orthodox."


"Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection." (Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae, No. 17).


* See here for example.