Ask a Catholic

[Randy Carson]

Because it is true. 

And your evidence for that assertion is ... ?

More than you realize.

---

Let's talk about cultural imperialism of the inquisition.  Auto da fe anyone?

Yes, let's talk about the Inquisition. Or better yet, let's listen to atheist Tim O'Neill who IS a historian talk about the Inquisition.

In an article entitled, "Why History Isn't Science (and Why it Can Still Tell Us About the Past), O'Neill writes:

Atheists can often make similar, elementary errors in the criticism of sources as well.  There is no shortage of lurid material on the horrors of the Inquisition, with whole books detailing vile tortures and giving accounts of hundreds of thousands of wretched victims being consigned to the flames by the Catholic Church.  In the past, nineteenth century writers took these sources at face value, and until the early twentieth century this was essentially the story of the Inquisition to be found in textbooks, especially in the English-speaking (i.e. substantially Protestant) sphere.

But much of this was based on sources that had severe biases - mainly sixteenth and seventeenth century Protestant polemical material, usually produced in England which, as a political, religious and economic enemy of Spain, was hardly going to produce unbiased accounts of the Spanish church and crown's use of the Inquisition.  Uncritical use of this material gives a warped, enemy's-eye-view of the Inquisition that has been substantially overturned by more careful analysis of the source material and the Inquisition's own records.  The result is that it is now known that in the 160 years of its operation in Spain, the Inquisition resulted in 3,000-5,000 executions, not the hundreds of thousands alleged by uncritical nineteenth century writers like Henry Charles Lea.  Basing an argument on the earlier, uncritical accounts of the Inquisition might suit many atheists' agendas, but it would be bad history nonetheless.

I suspect that applies to uncritical 21st century forum members, also

---

And how many parents were using "protection" that also failed?

Statistics claim less than 1% failure when properly used.
10% failure when improperly used.
I could look it up to give you a proper citation, but I'm sure you know how to use google.

AS for me, 2 failures in 3 years is too much...
Rubber's been working quite well for the past 6 years.

More importantly, I know how to use NFP. The challenge is in saying "no" when you know you should...and that includes when she's saying "yes".

'Nuff said.