skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Avatar for MattthewCScallon

( MattthewCScallon )

Comments made by MattthewCScallon

In Contraception Clash, Catholic Latinas Stray From Doctrine

@radiofreem, you can be against both because, as Bl. John Paul the Great wrote in his encyclical, "Evangelium Vitae," they are fruit of the same poison tree, a tree which looks at sex as nothing more than a recreational activity and not a procreative act. When sex is treated as little more than another thrill ride, then pregnancy is treated as a disease --even though it's a natural outcome of sex-- then, in order to prevent that alledged disease, you will seek some kind of preventative measure: a vaccine, if you will. Contraception, more accurately called "Onanism," in theology (c.f. Gen. 38-7-10), becomes that vaccine. And when that "vaccine" fails, the temptation to abort, i.e., cure the disease of pregnancy, is strengthened by first treating pregnancy as an undesired outcome of sex.

In fact, the case against Onanism is so strong that all Protestant churches --that's right, all of them-- opposed it until 1920. The Church of England, ever the bandwagon church, caved in, and all other Protestant churches followed suit. So it is Catholic Church alone now in defending Scripture.

Also, if Onanism is supposed to prevent abortions, then why do we, a country with the easiest access to Onansim, have the highest abortion rate in the Western world? Why do 1 out of 3 pregnancies end in abortion? And why is that, after the former Soviet Union legalized Onanism, the abortion rate didn't go down? Simple answer: Onanism doesn't prevent pregnancy. It justs inhibits the recognition that sex causes pregnancy and keeps adults from maturing in their sexuality to recognize that.

Now, you're entitled to disagree with me. That's fine. The point is that the Catholic Church has the right to hold that view, to teach that view, and not to have the government compel the Church act in a way contrary to that view. As good American, you can't be against that, can you be?

March 27, 2012 at 11:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

In Contraception Clash, Catholic Latinas Stray From Doctrine

@Peking_Duck_SD, on the contrary, HHS is forcing Catholic hospitals, schools, and charities to do something with their money, property, and resources that is contrary to Church teaching. If you don't like the Church's teaching on Onanism --it's a free country, and you're entitled-- don't work or seek treatment at a Catholic hospital, work or attend a Catholic school, and work or seek assistance from a Catholic charity.

On the contrary, the issue is about what the Catholic Church does with its own resources. There are other issues regarding taxpayer dollar going to the Catholic Church --namely, the HHS cancelling a contract with Catholic Charities to help human trafficking victims-- but that's a different issue.

The purpose of the Catholic Church is to save souls. The corporal works of mercy which She does --and does quite well and often-- serves that end (Matthew 25:16-31). When the government threatens the Church by forcing it to make an impossible choice between following Her teachings and serving the poor, it is the government --not the Church-- which is forcing the closure of these services. If you're so concerned about the poor being left to rot, then you should join with me in defending the Church's religious liberty. If you don't defend the Church's liberty, your liberty will be next. Such a stance is only as "political" as the Civil Rights movement and the abolitionist movement, both of which were led by people of faith.

@benz72, you have a First Amendment to your bigoted view of Catholic social services --the same First Amendment whose liberties the government is threatening-- and Ms. Gonzalez has the right --IMHO, obligation-- to join a religion which shares her corrupted view on Onanism. But to claim to be Catholic and, at the same time, reject the truth of Her teachings is hypocritical.

March 27, 2012 at 11:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Planners Say Terminal 2 Will Be On Time And On Budget

And what about the access point/mini-terminal/jumping-off-point/ that is supposed to be next to the freeway and have access via trolley and Coaster? Where's that going? Are the Port District the Marine Corps still not playing nice?

March 27, 2012 at 10:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

In Contraception Clash, Catholic Latinas Stray From Doctrine

So, KPBS, true to form, aligns itself with hypocrites like Gonzalez. Fine. Since everybody else feels qualified to tell the Catholic Church what to do, wait until the Catholic Church responds to being told what to do. You think health care is bad now. Wait until the Catholic Church closes all of Her hospitals. <b>All of them!</b>

You think the schools need to improve. Wait until the Catholic Church closes all of Her schools. <b>All of them!</b>

You think the poor are suffering. Wait until the Catholic Church closes all of Her social services. <b>All of them!</b>

Since everybody else wants to tell the Catholic Church what She can do, just wait for Her righteous --and justified-- response.

March 27, 2012 at 5:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Will Prop. 19 Cause You To Drive While Stoned?

To legalize or not to legalize. That is the question. Are people getting high now? Of course. Will they get high if it's legalized? Ditto. Are they more likely to get high once it's legalized? Probably. Why? Because we have an ethos in this country which says, "If something's legal, it must be good." Nevermind the laundry list of things which disputes that notion, but that's how the average American responds. One of the reasons that pot is "less harmful" than alcohol is that alcohol is more legal, increasing access to those who are stuck on stupid. While we can't outlaw stupidity, we can limit the avenues by which stupid people can do harm to others.

October 28, 2010 at 3:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Firing Juan

What exactly were those "series of deeply troubling incidents?" The only other one that the Ombudsman mentions is referring to Michelle Obama as Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress. While not exactly polite, two incidents does not equal a "series." Also, it seems that the two comments he made which were taken as right-wing in tenor are "deeply troubling" to NPR managment, but the 99.9% of his comments that are left-wing in tenor roll off NPR management like water off a duck's back.

October 26, 2010 at 8:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Firing Juan

I'm not surprised that NPR fired Juan Williams. With mutli-million dollar contributions from Soros, they can't have people who comment on Fox News contaminating their orthodoxy.

Now, I don't mind that NPR has a left-wing bias --no, it's not what "a lof of people think," it's the reality. What I mind is this more-tolerant-than-thou sanctimony that acts as though that, by virtue of being left-wing, they are more open-minded. The firing of Juan Williams demonstrates they are just intolerant as those they distance themselves from: Rush, Beck, Hannity.

What I also mind is that such indoctrination occurs on the paytaxers' dime. If I'm not allowed to use a voucher to teach my child in a Catholic school, NPR is not entitled to a voucher to indoctrinate a hatred of Catholicism and a love of Islam.

Speaking of Catholic, what if Williams was asked about how he feels when he sees a Catholic priest, in a Roman collar, sitting next to a child in an airplane? Would Williams had been fired if he expressed "nervousness" about that priest?

October 25, 2010 at 1:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

South Bay Power Plant Operators Want New Discharge Permit

Too bad the Chargers didn't build a new stadium at this site. Say what you will about large sports stadia, it would be much better to look at than this eye sore, and probably better for the environment.

July 7, 2010 at 1:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Non-Violent Criminals Are Linked, By DNA, To Violent Crimes

@mapplebe, good question. As I'm not an attorney, my opinion might not hold up in court, but here goes. Fingerprinting has met the scientific standard for credible sources; DNA matching is still relatively new. Also, fingerprinting is part of the booking process which a pro forma arrest warrant would make certain to include. Finally, fingerprints are things which are in plain sight. DNA usually involves internal extraction, unless the police can use trickery to capture your DNA from a volunteered source (eg. coffee cup).

July 6, 2010 at 3:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Non-Violent Criminals Are Linked, By DNA, To Violent Crimes

I hate siding with the ACLU, given their opposition to the right to life and their opposition to the free speech of pro-lifers, but the ACLU is right. Unless the police can issue a warrant, it's an unlawful search. Someone who is charged with a felony is just that: charged. They are innocent until proven guilty. They have 5th Amendment protections. While I'm sure that they commented those other crimes, we have these protections against the overreaching hand of the State for a reason.

Now, once they're convicted, that's a different ballgame. They have been convicted and therefore lose most of their 5th Amendment protections.

June 17, 2010 at 10:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )