Woman Bleed

SORRY TO SHOCK YOU


The problem with Bright Line rules as any attorney or Judge will tell you (hopefully) is that there are always exceptions which beg for better Justice than the bright line provides. That is the obvious problem with the mandatory sentencing paradigm.

When the presumption underlying the premise is belied by the outcome, the premise has to be challenged-and in some cases overturned.
For example, a guy gets busted for carrying marijuana- he’s never used the stuff himself but he is on the way to his uncle’s with it who used him as a mule to get it because he has leukemia in a non-medical marijuana State (the kid's clean, the uncle is a stoner)- and the uncle pays for the kid’s tuition. The kid should get how many years in jail under mandatory sentencing guidelines? If there is any medical benefit to marijuana, and if the kid was performing a medical service for his uncle that benefited the health of his uncle, then clearly the presumption that all marijuana use is damaging to health and thus deserving of jail time in every case deserves a second look. The presumption is belied by the outcome. Punishing the kid does nothing for him.

Now look at the church’s position on birth control. It’s premise in opposing it is that in fact birth control hinders or blocks the creation of life that God is trying to bring to earth. The theory is thus, Pro-Life mandates opposition to any birth control or effort by humans to themselves manipulate the pro-creative process. People should not be blocking God’s stated intention that man be fruitful and multiply and open to as many children as they can possibly make. Moreover, the use of it promotes promiscuity in that people think that they are ‘safe’ using so called safe sex methods like condoms which promotes more illicit sexual behavior. That is the multifold premise behind the catholic birth control ban. Fair enough. Makes sense. Sounds like a good "pro-Life" policy-right?

But lets look at outcome. In Africa you have the church official position in denying condoms to people who are engaging in licit married and illicit sex with the obvious unintended but nevertheless entirely foreseeable and indeed statistically calculable consequences of exactly the opposite of what the church’s premise promotes; the policy in fact in Africa promotes death by AIDS, and millions of orphans. Justice is scripturally defined in part as the proper care of “widows and orphans” and the no-condom policy in light of the AIDS epidemic is creating massive numbers of widows and orphans, the exact opposite of biblical justice. The policy causes death not life. Thus, the outcome belies the presumption. The policy must be re-evaluated.

Now look at Priestly celibacy. In some cases, where the Holy Spirit has specifically gifted people to be celibate, it clearly is a calling. Don't assume just because someone wants to be a priest or is called to be one that the Holy Spirit agrees that they should be celibate. When Priestly celibacy is a cover to allow a Priest license to emotionally engage with women as emotionally entirely as if they were married but without sex, and yet without a full church blessing and without promoting children, then the church is in some, certainly not all cases, just promoting their priests to be essentially teases, or triflers with hearts- all deep character flaws and deep sins against the Sacred Heart of Christ, instead of honorable men. In such cases, the church is promoting death- death of the unborn prospective children that could have been born of a real union, and death of the women involved who lose their broken hearts, lose their husband, and lose all their children to the pints of blood they hemorrage in mensus if God in fact intended them to be with a man that is also called to serve the church as a priest (certainly not biblically inconsistent callings). So what is honorably intended as a Life promoting policy for a priest to serve and feed the community, being life to everyone in the church, they are in some cases instead causing death by the policy of celibacy. Again, the outcome in those cases belies the presumption . The policy must be re-evaluated.

Priests don’t bleed like Jesus did unless they are Padre Pio or Saint Francis from the stigmatic wounds. Women Bleed. Pints. Every Month. Every Month that they bleed, they are reminded that they are not giving that blood to create life, they are flushing it away as if it was nothing. Their blood. Down the toilet. Literally.

Women who have born children understand the blood covenant connection; probably intuitively better than Priests because their blood sustained the life within them to create, feed, and sustain human life. Women get blood. Women bleed. They get the blood covenant. They see their own blood every month.

When the church denies a Priest the ability to be a father, or watch the blood that pours from their wife as their child is born, the church is really imposing an under-education of the blood covenant on the priesthood. A fruit of the Spirit is human life born of a blood covenant.
When a Priest falls in love with a woman- and don't lie- they do all the time- and the church forbids them from being fathers- it is a grave moral sin. A GRAVE MORAL SIN.

JESUS, the Lamb of God, who takes away the Sins of the World, is the Sacrifical Blood Covenant Atoning Redemption of mankind. A Priest is his mere Funnel. His Sieve through which he pours himself. The Priest is NOT the blood covenant, he merely serves it as the vessel through which it pours. He is human, not Jesus, not born of a Virgin, not the son of the Creator through whom redemption, resurrection and atonement come- only JESUS is that because JESUS IS LORD.

Thus to make a Priest in every case vow to celibacy is against God because it stifles the creation of Life more than birth control policy ever did.

One third of all Priests in the US have had to leave the sacramental service of the church because they fell in love with a woman and decided to marry. There is no reason they should be forced to leave the church. They are in fact following more purely the biblical model of priesthood fashioned after the Jewish priesthood. They in fact have a much better intuitive understanding of the blood covenant.

Jesus cares deeply that women can procreate. When he healed the woman who bled for 12 years, hemorraged without relief, spending all her money on doctors who could not cure her, he healed her instantaneously. That woman was infertile for 12 years. She could not become pregnant because she bled for 12 years. At the time women only lived into their 40s. This woman was all but done and doomed to die childless. 12 years bleeding.

The church is forcing some women to bleed until they die. The church in enforcing a celibate priesthood, and forcing out any priest who marries is against Jesus, against Scripture and is in Grave Moral Sin in this.

ADDENDUM-
Thank you John Roberts and the gang for this:
http://www.catholicmediareport.org/story.php?story_id=5868