Condoms & ‘Gay’ Adoption of Children

TIA,

Regarding this article [on Life in the 1500s], I recognize the information that was stating the false facts, because I actually had just read it today for the first time while researching medieval living. I appreciate your correcting the information.

What I read was written loosely and very generalized. I also thought it was off; however, I do not know an awful lot about that time period. It was refreshing to have some realistic information and I enjoyed reading it!.

      Thanks,

      R.M.

Dear TIA,

This is an interesting Powerpoint on Monet’s gardens. I hope you and your readers will enjoy it.

It is meant to give you a little relief from the hard fight you maintain against the enemies of the Church.

      E.J.

TIA,

I noticed in the church bulletin of a parish I was visiting this Sunday in Los Angeles, California, that there was a boast about the parish's support of the Global Aids Interfaith Alliance... or G.A.I.A., for short. This rung a dark bell. I looked it up.

Apart from its acronym being the name of a pagan goddess, so-called, of Mother Earth, it became even more curious by the fact all references to condom distribution had been, seemingly, wiped from the internet, a fact that cannot be denied by its primary supporter, The Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation. Roman Catholic disapproval of the organization was also, peculiarly, missing.

It proved futile to find something, anything, that would censor Roman Catholic support of an organization that partnered with a generous on-going donor of condoms as part of the solution to the Sub-Saharan Aids epidemic. I was left to my own conclusions.

For a moment I wondered if such circumstances as a man with a lethal weapon at the door (that weapon being AIDS) would not justify a woman putting on armor (condoms). It seemed, at face value, a reasonable right of the victim.

Then, I realized it was the act of victimhood... a surrender to circumstances. It was also an affront to the idea that our souls are greater than our lives.

St. Maria Goretti sacrificed her life for that greater idea... that any cooperation with a sin is unconceivable. As did Saint Philomena because of an oath of chastity. The compendium of Catholic saints is their company in upholding this ideal. The Gospel, itself refers to this earthly dilemma in Luke 17:33..."whosoever shall seek to save his life will lose it...".

So where does this bring the faithful of the Sub-Sahara or any place of moral tribulation? In practical terms, the wife of an AIDS husband might well be compelled to remove herself, in a just separation, considering herself a de facto widow. Yes, it would be hard given the poverty. It gives the appearance of life being unfair. Yet, atonement, for ourselves and others, is our lot as exiles from Eden.

But what about targets of rape attacks? Best to fight with all might and means, and should one's resistance result in death, better it be physical than spiritual. To negotiate hard truths is to deal with the Devil. One will always lose the bargain.

Our Faith was, and always will be, a call to the valiant; anything less is to hold the saints, virgins and martyrs of the Holy Faith in contempt.

      M.K.

TIA,

This is probably the most awesome animation that I ever received, demolishing atheistic claims.

To watch it, just slide the bar left or right or left click on anything you want to enlarge or get more information about it.

If you have some friends who are science, chemistry, geography teachers, they will enjoy the show as well. Great for kids too.

Be sure to go both ways on the sliding bar. Adobe flash player required.

Click here to watch it..

      Frank Rega

Dear TIA,

I have a comment and a question regarding the gay marriage issue.

First, it seems that even if one were to make the false assumption that "gay" is just a "natural expression" of sexuality, one would be led to the conclusion that gay marriage is wrong.

Assumption: Homosexuality is in accord with nature and good.

If homosexuality is in accord with nature and good, it would seem then, that unlike the nature of heterosexuality, which naturally leads to procreation, the nature of homosexuality is not to produce children since a homosexual coupling could not result in fecundity.

But the nature of marriage is to join a man and a woman together for the purpose of creating a family. The very word, matrimony, alludes to the woman becoming a mother.

Therefore since the homosexual coupling does not result in fecundity and the creation of a family, an institution created for the purpose of a woman becoming a mother is inappropriate for the homosexual nature.

Therefore, marriage is inappropriate for same-sex couples.

So to me, even taking the most "pro-gay" position, it could be logically deduced that the idea of gay marriage is wrong.

I think it is instructive to see that while gay people claim their "lifestyle" to be "natural," the gay agenda is seeking to mimic normality, creating an artifical "mock" heterosexuality.

But one of the things that bothers me is that gay adoption somehow did not become a big issue, and was accepted before gay marriage! I don't understand how that happened. Even Romney supports gay adoption, but not gay marriage. A rather illogical position to be in!

Do you have any idea how it happened that gay adoption did not become the big issue, which would seem to have been the natural reaction?

       In Christ,

      M.R.

TIA responds:

Dear M.R.,

Thank you for sending us your considerations on “gay” marriage.

We also do not have a precise idea why more indignation did not follow the permission given for homosexuals to adopt children.

Comparing the adoption of children with marriage, however, one reason surfaces, which is that homosexual “marriage” is a more blatant attack against natural law than the adoption of children. Thus, it seems explicable that more people reacted against such "marriage" than adoption.

       Cordially,

      TIA correspondence desk

TIA,

I love your bit on Our Lady of Rocio. However, I just wanted to let you know that in the translation of the Salve del Ole, it is taken from the Hail Mary, so if I am not mistaken it should be “Hail Mary….” Not “G-d hails you”. Also she is named after “El Rocio” which is a place, and not translated just like we don’t translate Fatima, or Guadalupe. There is another Lady of Rocio, which is named after the Dew, which is in Ecuador.

We invite you to join us on May 27th at St. Victor’s in West Hollywood, for the celebration of Our Lady of Rocio at 10 30 am..

      God Bless,

      R.N.B.