Via Media

Via Media


Planned Parenthood is so awesome

posted by awelborn

They’re into art and everything…



Advertisement
Comments read comments(40)
post a comment
PNP, OP

posted January 12, 2006 at 1:40 pm


Hey, if they can shamelessly advocate murdering children, then what’s a little artistic vandalism?



report abuse
 

Cheryl

posted January 12, 2006 at 1:45 pm


Edgy!
Really makes you think, doesn’t it?
I’m thinking a few things, all right…



report abuse
 

Richard

posted January 12, 2006 at 1:54 pm


Oh. My. God they didn’t.



report abuse
 

Cranky Lawyer

posted January 12, 2006 at 1:55 pm


Spectacular, really. Here is the Source and Author of life and love Himself, reaching out to His creatures to give them . . . life-preventing technology.
As Frank Costanza would say, “That’s PERVERSE!”



report abuse
 

Lickona

posted January 12, 2006 at 2:08 pm


Following up on Cranky Lawyer’s observation –
Shouldn’t the condom be covering God’s finger?



report abuse
 

Jules

posted January 12, 2006 at 2:11 pm


That’s our painting!!



report abuse
 

Mark Adams

posted January 12, 2006 at 2:18 pm


It is the perfect image of what’s wrong with contraception. In the moment that God reaches out his hand to touch you do you really want a piece of rubber in between?



report abuse
 

Amy Pawlak

posted January 12, 2006 at 2:24 pm


That’s right up there with the “hypocrite” car magnet Mark Shea blogged.
It makes me wonder how many cheeks we have to turn, because we sure get slapped a lot. But, you know, we can never be upset or insulted because we’re merely Christian.



report abuse
 

JonathanR.

posted January 12, 2006 at 2:53 pm


We can interpret it as God taking away Man’s condom.
“That’s enough outta you…”
They’re not the only ones who can profane the other side’s art.



report abuse
 

Dan

posted January 12, 2006 at 2:55 pm


PP types worship the Almighty Condom much like the religious worship God. When they sing the praises of the Almighty Condom the way they do so is captured by the words Catholics and others use to praise the Glory of God: we worship you, we give you thanks, we praise you for your glory.



report abuse
 

Francis J. O'Bannon

posted January 12, 2006 at 3:16 pm


I suggest that this outrage be brought to the attention of Father Larry Spiteri, a priest and civil attorney from the U.S., who works in the Vatican Legal Office (Rev. Larry Spiteri, Vatican Legal Office, 00120 Vatican City, Europe). Since this famous image is owned by the Holy See, perhaps one needs permission to use it. If so, Planned Parenthood could be sued.
Civil attorneys who read “Open Blog,” is this a possibility?



report abuse
 

Jason

posted January 12, 2006 at 3:21 pm


“As Frank Costanza would say, “That’s PERVERSE!”
LOL



report abuse
 

chris

posted January 12, 2006 at 3:40 pm


Francis J. O’Bannon: you may be on to something here.
In 1999, when I visited the Sistene Chapel, I attempted to take a non-flash photograph of this very piece of artwork. I didn’t get very far before a security guard gently yet firmly informed me that this was not allowed, and noticing that my camera had no flash, made it a point to mention that flash photography wasn’t the concern. Apparently, Fuji or some company, having largely paid for the restoration, has all rights to sale of reproductions and such for a period of time.



report abuse
 

Angela

posted January 12, 2006 at 3:46 pm


We can interpret it as God taking away Man’s condom.
“That’s enough outta you…”
Another LOL



report abuse
 

Conrad

posted January 12, 2006 at 3:55 pm


How can people be so damn blind. PP is the most disgusting company on earth. How can the government even THINK about funding its (shiver) nauseating business.



report abuse
 

Susan Peterson

posted January 12, 2006 at 4:25 pm


And remember, United Way funds PP….and the business about designating your donation elsewhere doesn’t work because they allot a portion of donations to each agency so if the one you choose already has its quota the rest goes into the general fund…and potentially to PP. Yet, someone I go to daily mass with works for United Way, and when I tried to make a point about this to her husband (she didn’t happen to be there that day when he mentioned that she worked for UW), the pastor said that the parish school gets donations through United Way and therefore encourages employees to donate through them. Since Catholic Charities often gets some funding through UW many Catholic Dioceses encourage donation to designated agencies through UW. Some of this money may wind up at PP. And should we be part of anything which expresses by its policies that PP is a beneficial “helping” organization deserving of contributions?
Susan Peterson



report abuse
 

Maclin Horton

posted January 12, 2006 at 4:32 pm


I find myself feeling disgust at this but not much outrage or anger. It’s like watching monkeys play with feces.
More than anything else, I have the feeling of observing the disintegration of reason. Simply to say it’s stupid doesn’t seem to do it justice. The whole condom-worship thing is disturbing to me not so much for its moral offensivenes as for its similarity to the deliberate destruction of reason practiced by the diabolical agents in C. S. Lewis’s That Hideous Strength.



report abuse
 

Father Todd Reitmeyer

posted January 12, 2006 at 5:08 pm


I thought the same thing about a lawsuit. I would hit them as hard as possible and give the money to prolife causes.



report abuse
 

John

posted January 12, 2006 at 5:15 pm


NO RESPECT FOR CHRISTIANS. AND ESPECIALY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.



report abuse
 

Caroline

posted January 12, 2006 at 5:32 pm


Susan, The difficulty of giving without indirectly supporting the unacceptable perplexes me. How does one avoid it?



report abuse
 

LadyHatton

posted January 12, 2006 at 5:36 pm


Maybe Fuji allowed PP to use the image. Maybe it is a “corporate sponsor” of PP, like some other big corporations I can think of. Anyone know?



report abuse
 

adjuration

posted January 12, 2006 at 6:31 pm


Susan Peterson,
My understanding is that United Way contributions are given to agencies in the local community and that each local UW chooses its own recipients and publishes the list. A small amount of the local contributions go to support the national organization’s overhead, but there are no distributions at the national level. So if your local United Way does not support Planned Parenthood (or other abortion providers) then none of your contributions will. Your friend’s work with them might be just fine.
I think UW is a good outfit and one of the best things about it is the local control. An individual is far more likely to be able to influence the local branch’s choice of beneficiaries than that of any national charity.



report abuse
 

Delance

posted January 12, 2006 at 6:50 pm


It is as if they are trying to make themselves as disgusting as possible on purpose.



report abuse
 

Ken

posted January 12, 2006 at 6:59 pm


It is as if they are trying to make themselves as disgusting as possible on purpose.
It’s called “Shock the Bourgeoisie”.
In SF fandoms, we call it “Freak the Mundanes” and it can run the gamut from mess-with-your-mind practical jokes to really sick “What were they thinking?” shock-for-brains stuff. Very funny to the arrested-development cases that do it, but can get everybody else in trouble with the cops.



report abuse
 

Donald R. McClarey

posted January 12, 2006 at 10:29 pm


I always rejoice when I see Planned Parenthood do this type of tripe. When smarter people were in charge of PP, say four decades ago, they were always concerned to be mainstream and non-controversial. The haters now at the helm of PP can’t help but spill their bile against Catholics in particular and Christians in generals. Totally self-destructive in the long run. As that old heathen Voltaire once said, “I only asked God for one thing, that my enemies might look foolish, and He has answered my prayer.”



report abuse
 

Alan K. Henderson

posted January 12, 2006 at 11:54 pm


So much for “Go forth and multiply.”



report abuse
 

Veronica

posted January 13, 2006 at 2:07 am


“We can interpret it as God taking away Man’s condom.”
ROTFL. That’s a very good (and logical) way to look at it… after all, what does PP know about God, after all?



report abuse
 

greg

posted January 13, 2006 at 7:03 am


These evil people are contracepting and aborting themselves out of existence. They won’t have offspring to pervert with their evil philosophies. So perhaps there is a divine irony there.
Who honestly thinks that the majority of humans contracepted or aborted out of existance would grow up to be better ON AVERAGE than their parents? And if so, why?
I’m not an evolutionist, but I do believe in the principle of natural selection within a species. We are seeing it in practice here.
In the long run God might be doing humankind a favour by allowing widespread abortion and contraception to continue until he is ready to act.



report abuse
 

Larry

posted January 13, 2006 at 8:39 am


Cheryl above had it right: “Aren’t we [PP] the clever ones! Aren’t we edgy? Aren’t we the New? We can mock anything, and nothing will happen to us!”
It’s a form of self love, and it is so empty, so empty.



report abuse
 

Susan Peterson

posted January 13, 2006 at 9:22 am


Conversions occur all the time.
“On average” is not the way God works or thinks, I don’t believe.
Remember the shepherd who left the nine and ninety to seek the one that was lost?
Natural selection has something to do with physical characteristics. From a purely humanistic evolutionary perspective, probably a lot of babies of intelligent college students who would actually have made decent parents,are aborted while a lot of babies of less intelligent and less able and less well situated parents are born, and this isn’t good for the species at all. From God’s point of view, if a child got conceived, it was in His divine plan and He has plans, hopes, intentions, work, and meaning for it, no matter who its parents are and what its situation or natural gifts. And perhaps he had plans for those who would have been conceived, also. C.S Lewis seems to have thought so, see “That Hideous Strength” ; a contracepting woman was told she was supposed to have had a child who would save humanity from some terrible things which now would have to happen, another such will not come for generations.
Moral characteristics are not transmitted by genetics. They are to some degree transmitted by upbringing but this is not so absolute that people don’t grow, change,and make different decisions from their parents.
Susan Peterson



report abuse
 

Maclin Horton

posted January 13, 2006 at 10:07 am


By the way, you really have to read the piece Amy links to, which describes other items in this PP line, to appreciate fully the weirdness of their obsession with condoms.



report abuse
 

Ken

posted January 13, 2006 at 12:38 pm


I’m not an evolutionist, but I do believe in the principle of natural selection within a species. We are seeing it in practice here.
Example of natural selection setting up:
* Non-Muslim European birth rate: less than 2 per couple.
* Muslim birth rate: over 6 per couple.
Another example:
San Francisco, the West Coast’s home of “non-procreative sexual proclivities”, has such a low birthrate and population skew that they are running around in circles screaming about shutting down schools. Up until modern medicine and sanitation, cities were mortality sinks, replenished only by immigration from the lower-mortality countryside “moving to the big city”. We may be seeing that pattern repeat for different reasons.



report abuse
 

Ken

posted January 13, 2006 at 12:42 pm


By the way, you really have to read the piece Amy links to, which describes other items in this PP line, to appreciate fully the weirdness of their obsession with condoms.
Is that “Obsession” or “Worship”?
Or “Witnessing to the Heathen”?
If you take the premise that the condom (and Total Sexual Freedom) is their God — their Personal Lord And Savior — or their litmus test for the same — all the otherwise-bizarre behavior falls right into place.



report abuse
 

Liz

posted January 13, 2006 at 1:43 pm


Example of natural selection setting up:
* Non-Muslim European birth rate: less than 2 per couple.
* Muslim birth rate: over 6 per couple.
Another example:
San Francisco, the West Coast’s home of “non-procreative sexual proclivities”, has such a low birthrate and population skew that they are running around in circles screaming about shutting down schools. Up until modern medicine and sanitation, cities were mortality sinks, replenished only by immigration from the lower-mortality countryside “moving to the big city”. We may be seeing that pattern repeat for different reasons.
If human ‘intelligence’ sets up natural selection, is it really natural?



report abuse
 

Old Zhou

posted January 13, 2006 at 3:46 pm


This key chain is really clueless.
In the painting, “The Creation of Adam,” there is no Eve. There is not even any evidence of arousal. It is indicative of that blessed state of continence to which we are all called and destined.
Really artistically and theologically ignorant.
(Maybe Adam could put the condom over the serpent’s head, so that when he tempted Eve, he would be mumbling incomprehensably. Eve could then respond to the serpent, “Huh? I can’t hear you!”)
I think a more tasteless choice is the Condoms are Cheaper than Diapers key chain. Yes, and staying home and reading, alone, is cheaper than a date. So?
The Earth & Condoms: We Can’t Live Without Them is also pretty brain dead. Condoms are as essential to life as Earth? I don’t think so.



report abuse
 

Delance

posted January 13, 2006 at 7:10 pm


Maybe a really large condom can protect Earth against asteroids and solar rays.



report abuse
 

Fr. Totton

posted January 14, 2006 at 12:19 am


(Maybe Adam could put the condom over the serpent’s head, so that when he tempted Eve, he would be mumbling incomprehensably. Eve could then respond to the serpent, “Huh? I can’t hear you!”)
Zhou, That has to be the funniest thing I have read in long, long time!
AS far as the earth and condoms bit, I am guessing that the suggestion is we NEED condoms in order to allow us to fornicate like animals without the consequence of those pesky people which are normally the product of conjugal love (and its cheap knock-offs) people who would simply take up space and kill-off our beloved planet earth!



report abuse
 

Ken

posted January 16, 2006 at 1:44 pm


Fr Totton:
I don’t know what blog I read it on, but somebody did a wicked filk of the Monty Python and the Meaning of Life anti-Catholic number “Every Sperm is Sacred”.
It was titled “Every Abortion is Sacred” and ended its chorus “Every time you birth a child/Mother Gaia cries”.
Cheryl above had it right: “Aren’t we [PP] the clever ones! Aren’t we edgy? Aren’t we the New? We can mock anything, and nothing will happen to us!”
Usually bragged about with one hand in the pants going “Whumpa! Whumpa! Whumpa!” I’ve seen the pattern among too many drooling fanboys, wanker sub-type.
(Maybe Adam could put the condom over the serpent’s head, so that when he tempted Eve, he would be mumbling incomprehensably. Eve could then respond to the serpent, “Huh? I can’t hear you!”)
Now that’s an image that calls for some flash animation. Especially adding a bit of business where the serpent blows up his head-condom like a balloon. (Whoosh… Whoosh.. Whoosh.. BANG! “Now, where were we?”)



report abuse
 

Lori

posted January 18, 2006 at 11:31 am


>
>
I got curious and decided to email them directly. This is the response I received:
Thank you for contacting Fujifilm, USA. Please allow us to assist you.
Fuji Photo Film does not own the rights to any works by Michelangelo.
We sincerely hope this information has been beneficial to you. If you should have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us in the future. It would be our pleasure to assist you again.
Thank you for your interest in Fujifilm products.
Respectfully,
Website Communication Specialist
Customer Care Department
Technical Services and Support Division
Imaging Group
Fujifilm, USA



report abuse
 

Lori

posted January 18, 2006 at 11:35 am


Chris said: “In 1999, when I visited the Sistene Chapel, I attempted to take a non-flash photograph of this very piece of artwork. I didn’t get very far before a security guard gently yet firmly informed me that this was not allowed, and noticing that my camera had no flash, made it a point to mention that flash photography wasn’t the concern. Apparently, Fuji or some company, having largely paid for the restoration, has all rights to sale of reproductions and such for a period of time.”
And LadyHatton said: “Maybe Fuji allowed PP to use the image. Maybe it is a “corporate sponsor” of PP, like some other big corporations I can think of. Anyone know?”
I got curious and decided to email them directly. This is the response I received:
Thank you for contacting Fujifilm, USA. Please allow us to assist you.
Fuji Photo Film does not own the rights to any works by Michelangelo.
We sincerely hope this information has been beneficial to you. If you should have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us in the future. It would be our pleasure to assist you again.
Thank you for your interest in Fujifilm products.
Respectfully,
Website Communication Specialist
Customer Care Department
Technical Services and Support Division
Imaging Group
Fujifilm, USA



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

There is nothing I shall want
A couple of weeks ago, a memorial Mass for Michael was held here in Birmingham at the Cathedral. The bishop presided and offered a very nice, even charming homily in which he first focused on the Scripture readings of the day, and then turned to Michael, whom he remembered, among other things, as on

posted 9:24:16am Mar. 05, 2009 | read full post »

Revolutionary Road - Is it just me?
Why am I the only person I know..or even "know" in the Internet sense of "knowing"  - who didn't hate it? I didn't love it, either. There was a lot wrong with it. Weak characterization. Miscasting. Anvil-wielding mentally ill prophets.But here's the thing.Whether or not Yates' original novel in

posted 9:45:04pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Books for Lent
No, I'm not going to ask you about your Lenten reading lists...although I might.Not today, though. This post is about giving books to others. For Lent, and a long time after that. You know how it goes during Lent: Prayer, Fasting and Almsgiving, right?Well, here's a worthy recipient for your hard-

posted 9:22:07pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Why Via Media
How about....because I'm lame and hate thinking up titles to things? No?Okay...how about...St. Benedict? Yes, yes, I know the association with Anglicanism. That wasn't invovled in my purpose in naming the joint, but if draws some Googling Episcopalians, all the better.To tell the truth, you can bl

posted 8:54:17pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Brave Heart?
I don't know about you, but one of effects of childbirth on me was a compulsion to spill the details. All of them.The whole thing was fascinating to me, so of course I assumed everyone else should be fascinated as well in the recounting of every minute of labor, describing the intensity of discomfor

posted 10:19:45pm Mar. 03, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.