2 August 2016

S Alfonso and the Coprocracy

Our prayers and enthusiastically best wishes must on this feast be with the Papa Stronsay Redemptorists, and their brethren in New Zealand, who keep alive in our own time the charism of that great Doctor of the Church. I hope that today the Fathers and Brethren may be allowed some festive relaxation of their labours! Ad multos annos!!

Descending from the sublime to the depressing, I wonder how S Alfonso, a magnificent exponent of Moral Theology, would be ... well, is ... responding to something some woman said on the Home Service this morning. Arguing that a very expensive drug which prevents Aids/HIV should be made available on the NHS to promiscuous homosexuals who might not bother with Safe Sex, she said that this would would be of value to the whole community because we are all at risk of contracting Aids.

Really? A husband and wife neither of whom has ever had intercourse with anybody else? A homosexual couple neither of whom has ever had sexual contact with anybody else? Who have never injected drugs? Well, I suppose that anybody can catch Aids if they have a rogue GP who reuses dirty needles or if something goes wrong in the Blood Transfusion service, but what percentage of Aids sufferers falls into those categories?

It reminds me of hearing, not long ago, one of the advocates of the Libidinous Society saying that Sexually Transmitted Diseases are a risk for "everybody who is sexually active".

How is that true for a couple neither of whom has ever had another sexual partner?

So, according to fashionable linguistic usage, when a married couple neither of whom has ever had intercourse with anybody else get into bed together and make love, they do not qualify for the lofty modern status of being "sexually active". This is not even new. I recall an American series we had decades ago on TV called Cagney and Lacey in which we were once told that one of the pair was "married" while the other was "sexually active".

I think there should be a Dedicated Title for the elite and dominant Filthy Classes, I mean, for those who operate on the assumption, and are permitted relentlessly to promote in the Media the idea, that  everybody is automatically promiscuous.

Taking my lead from Pope Benedict XVI's use of the term "the filth", I suggest "the Coprocracy".


Luke said...

Father, this reminds me of the public relations cant that we heard in the United States in the 1980s- government funding of AIDS research needs to be vastly increased because "we're all at risk," but no one need fear being in proximity to someone with AIDS because it is difficult to contract.

Jacobi said...

Do remember Father that there is always the "we must spend more money regardless" lot. Usually they work for the major drug company interests.

In practise, as society gets older and is maintained ticking over, technically alive but not in good health, we will be spending less, simply because there will be less to spend from our increasingly non-wealth producing society. So they have to maintain the pressure to spend as much as possible!

Exsollertan said...

I was incandescent this morning when I learned this, particularly as it meant that the NHS could be asked to provide something like £4800 p.a. to enable each homosexual to enjoy his sexual frolics without worries. How many £Ms will that add to the NHS bill and how many operations will be postponed and how many hospital beds will be reduced.

But when I reflect that it costs the tax payer of the order of £18,000 p.a. to provide anti-retroviral drugs for each HIV sufferer, there is I suppose a utilitarian logic here.

And it shouldn't be forgotten that the tax payer forks out over £200M p.a. to fund abortions.

Unknown said...

All part of a larger monster which the late Fr. John Hardon, S.J. called Sexual Suicide :

". . . The physical and psychological consequences caused by this sexual freedom is seen as a health issue where treatment is expected from the healthcare and scientific community.

As a...solution we seek a break between sexual intercourse and reproduction. And our nation is dominated by this...demonic error. Our nation spends, and I am not exagerating, billions a year to break the relationship between sexual intercourse and reproduction.

. . . Once you practice sexual pleasure for its own purpose what happens? You break down, you tear apart, not only procreation --you break down the very concept of the family. "

I can't say I minded having to research the meaning of Copocracy (lol) . . . particularly where there is a smile to be had in the discovery process . . . mustn't let such a vibrant talent for appellation stagnate - right Padre - particularly one which produces such gems as "Knockwurst Theologians" (still my all time favourite). Rather, we follow that time-tested adage , "Waste not want not."

And has there ever been a more effective way to get everyone on board, than with that intimidating slogan, "Everyone is at risk ?"

Do you think it might help if we were to take a page out of their own book and start our own campaign in an effort to let them know the truth ? What if we were to start our own campaign ? Perhaps something along the lines of:

Hell : Everyone is at risk.

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

There seem to be parts of that coprocracy among the people who think I am a kind of child not qualified to marry as long as I refuse to become depraved instead of marrying!