Mel Brooks’s Eleventh Commandment

I know that the Ten Commandments, etched by fire on two stone tablets that Charlton Heston (Ten Commandments) carried down from Mount Sinai had no injunctions on using contraception during sexual intercourse. But, given that the Roman Catholic Church is so vehemently opposed to birth control, I conjecture that the third tablet, brought down from the same Mount Sinai that slipped down from Mel Brooks’s hand (History of the World, Part I) and shattered, to be lost forever, contained this crucial prohibition: Thou shalt not use contraception, even while raping (that was the Ur instance of nano-scale disclaimers). And, I suspect that this commandment would have headlined the third tablet.

As speculative as the above may appear to be, I assert that it is the truth, on the strength of what Rev. Roger J. Landry has been strongly preaching through “fiery sermons” [1]. Indeed, the sermon was so fiery that “several people” applauded.“ And, note that one “does not applaud in Mass.”

Landry believes in the official Catholic teaching about contraception. Throughout the article I have searched for the phrase or something akin to, “Biblical teaching on contraception.” No dice. There is, besides the above mentioned phrase “official Catholic teaching”, we have “church teaching [twice]/teaches”, “the church hierarchy”, “Catholic sexual ethic”. And take this, never “Biblical teaching / message / injunction / ethics” on matters pertaining to sex, procreation, including abortion (some forms of contraception, presumably the morning-after pill, are equated to abortion, as the article clarifies helpfully). No mention anywhere that the church merely anchors the Bible for Christians. Ironically, while a Christian should turn to the Bible for guidance, it has been ignored by Landry. A good Christian he is, ain’t he?

Landry shows it as a mark of pride that he is conflict-loving, as he says with a measure of smugness: ”[L]ot of priests who are conflict-averse,” do not like to, “lose their [the parishioners’] budget envelopes.” These conflict-averse priests also run the risk of getting, “some nasty e-mails and face-to-face conversations.” That is, Landry does not keep his brethren at the pulpit in high esteem! It is a different matter that these down-in-the-dumps priests know that “their parishioners have embraced [artificial] birth control”. They are realistic. But, Landry is different, riding the high horse of the Roman Catholic Church!

How did he come to this position? You have his words: “I just had the little insight as a 4-year-old that the priest must be the luckiest man ever, to be holding God in his hand and giving him (sic; Him) to others.”

Insight and 4-year-old? Hmm… This is when the force of Richard Dawkins’s position that religion is child abuse came to me with full force. Within four years, through religion he had been thoroughly brainwashed by his parents, the church and others in the society! With this context unfolding in the words of the abused, is there anyone who can now stand up for religion as non-corrupting? Never mind, don’t answer.

Landry is proud that he engages engaged couples as a counselor in a conversation “about their plans for a family”. The clincher in this supposed dialogue is his last question: “Are you planning to have children? Are you planning to start right away after you’re married?” These questions, had they come from anyone other than a supposed religious authority would have been considered scandalous, prying into people’s private lives. The state has no such authority. Why should religion be allowed such freedom? I would like someone to respond.

If sex, and therefore procreation, out of marriage is prohibited, why else should people marry? I have said this once before and I will repeat: the single, indisputable justification of marriage is that it confers legitimacy on the product of the union of a male and a female. I dare anyone to argue with me on this. Then, the questions that Landry is proud of carry no heft, none at all. He is wasting the couple’s time with each other!

Now, did you know that if you do contracept (the verb form, as used in the article; is this a trend or what, to make verbs so fast and so easy? I do not like it.), you are not totally giving yourselves to your mate, to someone else in love (assuming you are not in love with yourself!). Do not drop your jaw - did you know that “contraception can be the gateway to exploitation?” and, you “reject that paternal and maternal leaning?” Now, how would this sound to someone who had contracepted, planned the addition to the family, added a member, and then started contracepting again? Is this why Landry counsels only the betrothed and not the married?

Here the following from a couple, Landry’s parishioners: “[H]ad they benefited from Father Landry’s teachings years ago, they would have had more children. ‘We definitely would not have used contraception.” A pair of adults falling for the undiluted nonsense – the effect of childhood brainwashing.

One does not have to go to the Big Brother to hear doublespeak. “[I]t’s women who intuitively get how divorcing sex from procreation allows men to use them.” Blame women (for unsafe sex), of course, while sounding so sympathetic to them! A simple message, keep them in the kitchen and pregnant!

But, the article does have one redeeming sentence: “An older woman with white hair, sitting near the doughnuts being sold for $1, appeared to disagree. ‘’Don’t get me started on him,’” in a tone of disapproval.

That is enough for me to cling on to my hope that the world would change, after all.

But, then not acknowledging that the Roman Catholic Church has been beset with all kinds of sins that are highlighted in the Bible, much focus on the derriere of people of both sexes, the good priest lets loose this last gem: being proud that he has shot photographs of the rear end of many men whose back pockets were bulging with pornographic material and some on sex and contraception, and mark this, one on “In Vitro Fertilization”. Landry does not like in vitro fertilization, because the paternal and maternal leanings will be lost in the test tube!

I have changed my mind about the hope for the world. Religion is so powerful, even when the third stone tablet has been lost to the world!

Had it not been lost? I dare not imagine.

Raghuram Ekambaram

P.S A couple of more relevant references have come to my notice since I posted this piece. They are given as 2 and 3 under References.

References

1. The Message on Contraception, Without Apology, Mark Oppenheimer, The New York Times, February 18, 2012l
2. Catholic Hospitals Expand, Religious Strings Attached, Reed Abelson, The New York Times, February 20, 2012
3. http://matheikal.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/religion-of-contraception/