What do you think about this article about Catholic women?

That 98% shocked me, so much so that I did my own research into it.

I found that Guttmacher was the source of the study. I went to their website and they say they were a product of Planned Parenthood but are now a separate entity. They are pro-abortion and pro-contraception.

The study says:

Data were gathered using in-person interviews

with 7,356 women aged 15–44 between June 2006

and December 2008. All data used for this analysis were

weighted, and the findings are nationally representative.

So 7356 women, over a 2.5 year period, nationally representative. That is 147 women per state. And works out to be 245 women per month nationally, or 5 women per month per state.

Of those 7356 women, 25% identified themselves as Catholic. That works out to be 1839 women. Of those 1839 Catholic women, 30% said they go to Mass weekly. In order to be a practicing Catholic, you must go to Mass weekly. So that means 551 women in the study are actually practicing Catholics. 551 women, over a 2.5 year period is 11 women per state, works out to be 18 women per month, and .3 women per month, per state.

My point is, that the results are hardly representative of Catholic women, who are actually practicing Catholics. Of the women identified as Catholic, 13 percent said they used "no method" or NFP. So that is 240 Catholic women.

It just goes to show you how a study can be used to support a position even when it really doesn't.

It reveals why we should be skeptical of the 98% statistic the Guttmacher Institute came out with. More people need to know about the agenda behind the news stories that cite this figure. It's being used to discredit Catholic opposition to the HHS contaception and sterilization mandate.

Whatever the article claims, the preponderence of self-admitted evidence of the legitimately married, or of those living together unmarried, and of those "remarrying" and "divorced" and other immoral crimes against God's Good, --that preponderence shows that the world itself is not interested in the Marriage Sacrament, not in holiness, not in self-mortification, not in having the 8 to 12 children that God WANTS-- these weak imitation Catholics were led into disobeying the Laws of the Marriage Sacrament, the Laws of Trent by the clerics of the Catholic Church after Pius XII died with the Cana Conferences on Marriage.

That is the evidence. I no longer know anyone who does not use birth control (NFP is also birth control). The church "authorities" forced this teaching onto the pre-marital instruction beginning openly in the 1960's with the CANA CONFERENCES; clerics and their victims were naive enough to believe it could somehow not be sinful. They were wrong; doctrinal ignorant misfits in Catholicism who brashly bragged of the "holiness" (?) of "planned" pregnancies. No. Sorry. it is against the Laws of Divine procreation. It means to CONTROL GOD. It defeats holiness & obedience.

Catholic traditional mothers and fathers obey Christ's teaching. The "others", call them "whatevers" practice every kind of birth control they can. They are called "non-Catholic" and will lose their souls if not annointed & absolved by Extreme Unction by a genuine traditional priest before the end of life..

Traditional Catholilcs of Trent at traditionalmass.org/ locations

Sos. of Pius V priests in New York, Ft. Lauderdale, Billings.

Soc. of Pius X priests are valid in 1,000's of locations.

poney crud from a poney organisation, read real info not religionist pap

No it's not taken directly from that source it's cherry picked from that source, a rather big difference that always goes over your head

you won't believe anything I say anyway, you are a Catholic drone not interested in any sort of discussion as our previous engagements have proven to me.

Cherry picked info is cherry picked

@Chi girl for a not Catholic you sure go outa your way to continually lick their a$$es

Lol a U "It's my habit to rebut cheap shots" how pray tell do you rebut a cheap shot? if you even know what that word means? Oh I'm sorry it's obvious by the context that you don't know what it means, I have never seen you rebut anything, doing so would be completely above your head, in fact cheap shots is more your fare

I think it's well written.