“God made himself small so that we could understand him, welcome him and love him.” [Pope Benedict, Christmas 2006]
The feast day of Sts Felicity and Perpetua was earlier this week; I was reading a translation of their passion – the two young mothers died for the faith in the arena in Carthage in the year 203. The record of their passion and death was written at the time – the first part by St Perpetua herself.
Their example should cause us to question how Catholic commentators should respond to vicious attacks on themselves, on God, and on the Church. One of the reasons I started blogging was that I saw so many Catholics let themselves and their Church down by being equally vicious. Even less edifying than the sight of a Catholic abusing an atheist in a combox is the sight of two Catholics at one another’s throats on points of Church liturgy, doctrine, or practice: The temptation to respond sharply to error, lies, and insults can be overwhelming; many a time I’ve written a stinging reply to a comment, and then deleted it without posting. Sometimes I’ve clicked post before taking time for that second thought – but I’ve never seen any good come from returning evil for evil – in blog posts or in real life.
How we should behave, of course, has been clear since the Crucifixion. We should respond as God responded to humankind on the Cross, and even before that, on that first Christmas – with a bottomless well of love.
Joanne from Egregious Twaddle has posted several times recently on this theme. In her latest post, she quotes St Augustine:
In an earlier time, St. Augustine captured the sense of what is required in civil discourse: “Let us, on both sides, lay aside all arrogance. Let us not, on either side, claim that we have already discovered the truth. Let us seek it together as something which is known to neither of us. For then only may we seek it, lovingly and tranquilly, if there be no bold presumption that it is already discovered and possessed.”
And Dublin Archbishop Diarmuid Martin:
For too long the Church appeared in a role of moralisation and people failed to transmit the real depth of the Christian message which is about Jesus as a person who in his life and teaching reveals to us who God is. God is a God of love with whom we can in Jesus enter into a personal relationship, which then brings richness to the way we live of our lives.
She also links to Lisa Mladininich’s post on loving our fellow Catholics.
All pridefulness, including mine, wounds the Body of Christ, His Church. Us. And I will always, with God’s help, stand against error, endeavoring to write and teach in faithful submission to the Holy Father and to the Magisterium.
But I’m not fit to cast stones or make assumptions about motivation, character, and most especially the state of another person’s soul. I have had it with this conceptual separation from members of my family who also love with zeal, but might not see things the way I do.
I am parched and yearning for the only drink that can satisfy, to follow Jesus deeper into love, with all my inadequacies, depending totally on His grace. I’ve got to keep struggling to love all of my Catholic family. To let their indelibly, authentically Christian souls and the presence of the Great, Triune God who literally dwells in them, outweigh whatever issues threaten to divide us.
Because love is the thing.
In a previous post, Joanne challenged us to think again about the idea that people being against us is proof of our virtue:
Do liberal Democrats hate us because they are morally bankrupt babykillers who care more about buying the votes of the poor with entitlement programs than actually addressing real injustice? Or do they hate us because that is how we see and treat and dismiss them?
Do people who don’t experience themselves as heterosexual hate us because they are moral lepers, unnatural and disordered, who can never participate in committed relationships or family life? Or do they hate us because that is how we see and treat and dismiss them?
Do women hate us because they are second-rate humans who are envious of the male power they will never be able to possess, in the Church or in the world, and because they are essentially incapable of being anything other than an occasion of sexual sin unless they are consecrated virgins or married mothers? Or do they hate us because that is how we see and treat and dismiss them?
Do people of other faith traditions–or of no faith tradition whatsoever–hate us because their beliefs or lack of them are so pitifully inferior to our Truth that they have nothing to say to us? Or do they hate us because that is how we see and treat and dismiss them?
And how’s this for a Lenten challenge:
Maybe that’s what this New Evangelization thing is all about, and why this is all happening now. What difference would it make if our love were as public, as political, as visible and tactile, as headline-making, as undeniable as our principles? What if, instead of tithing mint and rue, we lived God’s infinite providence? What if we lifted burdens instead of laying them? What if new generations were to say, “See how these Christians love us all!”
If God–who is Love–is for us, it will be because we love as he does. And as Paul says, who could be against us then?
Today’s picture is certainly an improvement in cuteness !
“God made himself small so that we could understand him, welcome him and love him.”
Exactly. Cuteness.
Imagine if we were able to see everyone as cute.
To see God dwelling in them.
Sometimes Christians can be soooooooo dualistic.
God Bless
St Augustine’s
Let us not, on either side, claim that we have already discovered the truth.
is probably the key as far as arguments go.
Good advice for the Church too.
One can often learn something useful from different views.
http://thejesuitpost.org/site/2012/03/mandated-reporting/
God Bless
Yes, I saw that one – a superb post. Interesting that many of his commenters thought that they knew his position, even though he had stated that he didn’t have one.
The irony here is that contraception is not, in general, against Church teaching. There are very many cases where it is in line with Catholic teaching: outside marriage, before or after rape, coerced sex in marriage, medical treatments, to limit disease transmission etc.
The Bishops position doesn’t even have a leg to stand on from the Catholic position on contraception !
God Bless
It is a venture into Humpty Dumpty territory to suggest that the Church is in favour of contraception outside of marriage, or in cases of coerced sex (inside or outside marriage). Contraception is not needed in either of those instances if Church teachings are followed. Saying that the Church is in favour of contraception for sexual encounters the Church teaches against is like saying that the Church is in favour of remarriage for divorced gay people, or in favour of abortions for slaves.
The Church does not have a position against contracepting sex outside marriage.
Therefore, all contraceptives obtained under insurance policies for sex outside marriage is not contrary to Catholic teaching.
Of course contraception wouldn’t be needed in cases of coerced sex if there was no coercion. But saying that doesn’t really help all those women who are coerced. Providing them affordable contraception would help them.
The US Catholic Bishops mandated US Catholic hospitals to treat rape victims with contraceptives so the doctrinal position allowing contraception in cases of coercion is well established by the US Bishops themselves.
God Bless
Saying the Church doesn’t have a position on something is not the same as saying that it is not contrary to Catholic teaching, and saying that something is not contrary to Catholic teaching is not the same as saying the Church is in favour of it. And all of that is irrelevant. The HHS is not proposing that the Church should pay for health insurance to cover contraceptive costs only for those who are unmarried and not for those who are married.
If it was against Catholic teaching, we’d have a position against it.
We are rather well known for being a Church with positions against all sorts of things.
God Bless
So is the Church in favour of the bombing of civilians during an unjust war? Our only teachning about bombing civilians is in the context of whether or not a war is just. So if the war is unjust on other grounds, we don’t have a specific teaching about bombing civilians. In your view, that means we must be in favour, right?
I think this point Michael made is very good:
That’s a helpful warning to Cdl Dolan and the USCCB’s insistence on the correctness of their own position on this issue.
I think that Bishop William E. Lori would have done better to argue more civilly rather than launch a rather intemperate attack on America’s editorial on this
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=4970
One can hardly complain that the flock are acting intemperately and intolerantly when some of the shepherds appear to be herding them in that direction.
And as for the desire of Fr. Roy Bourgeois’s order to expel him, one has to ask is that really love ? Canon Lawyer Fr Thomas Doyle:
Great link to Bishop Lori’s letter Chris. I loved this bit, where he’s talking about what America magazine prefers its bishops to be doing:
The Doyle comment seems odd to me. It treats the US Bishops and the MaryKnoll Fathers as a single entity.
I think that the US government’s position that they need to mandate certain minimum coverage items in health insurance is entirely correct, as is their decision to mandate certain preventative health treatments.
And it’s also correct that in at least some cases, contraception is a preventative health treatment eg the pill for heavy periods, or contraception where pregnancy would pose a serious health risk to mother or child.
One of the things that bothers me about the simplistic stridency of the U.S. Bishops’ position is that it does not seem to really address the complexity of the issues.
And what about the religious freedom of employees to choose contraception ? Why is their employer’s religious freedom automatically considered to be paramount ?
God Bless
As I said, weeks ago, I don’t have a horse in the US HHS race debate, and could, indeed, argue from both sides. From what I’ve read, however, I think your comments poorly categorise the views of the opposition to the HHS proposals (for a start, categorising the opposition as ‘the US Bishops’ position’ is inaccurate). From what I have seen, there are certainly examples on both sides of the debate of commenters failing to address the complexity of the issues.
I agree, most of the opposition is not from the Bishops position but from the Republican position in an election year. Spurred on, no doubt by the tea party effect and the wild perception that Obama is about to establish socialism.
God Bless
And what about the religious freedom of employees to choose contraception ? Why is their employer’s religious freedom automatically considered to be paramount ?
Who’d stop them?? They could go to Walmart. The issue is should the employer be forced to pay for the contraception
That’s a good example where the position of one side (the employer) is seen but the position of the other (the employee) is not seen.
These insurance premiums are a form of wages paid for work done. They are actually what is due to the employee and it is the employee who actually pays them (just as it is the employee who pays PAYE).
The Catholic position of preferential option for the poor argues for the employee rather than the employer.
The assertion that they could all go to Walmart is another distortion of the facts. It is usually advanced to imply that the employee could afford them. There was a recent case where a Catholic university student was prescribed the pill at a cost of about $100 per month to prevent ovarian cysts. She couldn’t afford to pay so had t discontinue the treatment and wound up with ovarian cysts.
The preferential option here is for the poor, not employers or Bishops.
God Bless
Well if the United States had a functioning public health system, it wouldn’t be necessary to put these burdens onto employers. In which case Catholic entities would not have these issues to worry about. — Yet I’ll bet that some of the most angry about the Obama administrations policy are also the type who would argue against public health care. Hoist by their own petard
$100 per month? Why? This is what a US health site says: “The Pill usually costs between $15-$50 a month, depending on the type. Many health and family planning clinics (such as Planned Parenthood) sell birth control pills for less.”
I think that’s a little simplistic. It’s like saying that KiwiSaver employer contributions are a form of wages paid for work done. Which completely misses the element of Government coercion.
At the same time, it is certainly true that the mandatory private healthcare regime will have a downward pressure on wages at the bottom of the labour market, as we have seen in New Zealand with both ACC levies and – more strongly and more recently – KiwiSaver. This may, in itself, be a good reason for opposing mandated privately funded healthcare in favour of a public model.
A number of times I have made a serious effort to understand the US Bishops position.
But they usually loose me pretty early on with some assertion so at obviously at variance with the facts that it seems designed to rally the troops rather than address the facts of the matter.
For example, the assertion that abortion inducing drugs are mandated is very far from the truth. Drugs like RU486, designed to induce abortion, are NOT mandated. What IS mandated are emergency contraceptives. Some of those, such as PlanB are almost certainly not abortifacient (and the Bishops recognise that they are not) and others like Ella are so new that science has yet to establish whether or not they actually might be abortifacient (the dose given is so low that Ella is thought not to be abortifacient).
Unfortunately, one has has become rather used to this kind of blatantly political distortion of the facts from certain sectors of the US anti-abortion movement.
God Bless
Is this the argument that you say lost you, Chris? http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2012/02/six-things-everyone-should-know-about-the-hhs-mandate/
It seems fairly coherent to me.
As to whether or not Ella is an abortifacient, it seems uncontraversial that it acts to prevent ovulation or (if ovulation has already occured) implantation. If you define pregnancy as starting at conception, as the US bishops do, then it can act as an abortifacient. If you define pregnancy as starting after implementation, it can’t. I can’t find any evidence that suggests that the US bishops as a group accept Plan B is not an abortifacient. I know it has been discussed in Catholic health circles, and that the Conneticut Catholic Conference has approved its use in cases of rape, but I was unaware that a conclusion had been reached. Apparently the drug’s warning label says: : “It may also prevent fertilization of a released egg (joining of sperm and egg) and or attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus (implantation).”
As far as I can tell, there is no scientific evidence that Ella prevents implantation (from an article in a US Catholic medical journal). Therefore, there is no evidence that it is abortifacient in the Catholic sense.
Lots of medicines include “may cause…” disclaimers for legal reasons even when the scientific evidence that they actually do cause such and such is lacking.
Catholic hospitals in Texas are also offering PlanB to rape victims.
http://ncronline.org/news/catholic-journal-says-plan-b-does-not-cause-abortions
http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/what-abortifacient-and-what-it-isnt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulipristal_acetate
It is just not scientifically honest to say these are abortifacient when there is no scientific evidence that they actually are. That’s just crying wolf. People tend to stop listening to those who cry wolf all the time.
God Bless
Really? On the basis of one article in one medical journal and the testimony of Wikipedia, you’re prepared to call the manufacturers of the drug and the FDA not scientifically honest? I’m sorry, Chris, but that’s not in the spirit of this post. I’m not feeling the love, here.
I did a search through Google’s Scholar facility, and found a number of papers stating that studies have found an abortifacient effect in animal trials, in that they prevent implantation.
I understand that those animal studies were in a dose substantially lower than that given in Ella.
I’m reminded that we had pretty much the same arguments over PlanB until the state mandated PlanB for rape victims and only THEN did the Catholic Bishops finally climb down from their high moral horses and admit that the actual evidence that planB was abortifacient was lacking.
[History is replete with examples where the state has mandated something which later caused the Church to change her own moral teaching].
And we’ve had the same thing from some prolife people claiming, again against the scientific evidence, that the pill can be abortifacient.
So, having been bitten twice, I’m now much more sceptical about these claims.
God Bless
I have to admit I’m skeptical about claims that the Bishops have decided something, when investigation shows it is a bishop or a small group of bishops.
And I’m skeptical about medical research funded by the drug companies.
I think you are wise not to swallow the rhetoric of the pro-life lobby without checking the facts. I suggest you apply the same standard to the rhetoric you do swallow.
http://www.arhp.org/publications-and-resources/clinical-fact-sheets/mifepristone-ec
As you’ll see from their table, the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals states that “ECPs may inhibit or delay ovulation, inhibit tubal transport of the egg or sperm, interfere with fertilization, or alter the lining of the uterus inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg“. [My emphasis.] They do not define this as an abortion, since they do not regard a pre-implantation zygote as a pregnancy. This is the background to the claim that Ella, among others, is not an abortifacient.
All of which is still irrelevant to the question of whether the State should be able to mandate what an employer spends its money on.
Here’s the case, given before a congressional panel.
The woman concerned paid the insurance premiums out of her own pocket. But the Catholic college would not cover the medically necessary contraception even though the student is gay !
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/mar/06/context-sandra-fluke-contraceptives-and-womens-hea/
It is cases like these which establish the necessity of the state to intervene in favour of womens health and mandate compulsory insuance cover of contraception. Because it’s a serious health issue.
As it is for the very many women who would be at serious medical risk should they become pregnant. And all those who would contract AIDS because they couldn’t afford condoms. People’s lives are at stake here.
God Bless
Thanks, Chris. But several things about that account – not just the contraception cost – strike me as rather odd. She’s told that she either has or is at risk for ovarian cysts. She finds the medication too expensive so she stops taking it but doesn’t look for another source of supply, or (as far as we can see) take any other measures. She ignores symptoms until the cyst is so large it can only be removed by removing the ovary (even though cysts of up to 30cm in size and 20Kg in weight have been removed without removing the ovary). She still has one ovary left, but this is apparently not enough to prevent early menopause – and no suggestion that this might be a temporary measure while the remaining ovary takes up the slack (as she should have been advised by her doctor is often the case). It’s the university’s fault, because they failed to correctly apply their own policy. And this is somehow evidence that the HHS proposals are a good idea. No. It doesn’t convince me.
I understand that the contraceptives commonly prescribed for this kind of treatment cost around $100 per month because they use the newer pills rather than the much cheaper generic available at WallMart. The newer pills are more expensive.
Many of us lead busy lives and don’t always get around to looking at other sources of supply or even following up medical advice (I don’t always).
I’m not sure that there would be symptoms in her case. But again, lot’s of us ignore symptoms when we shouldn’t.
In short, I find this testimony entirely believable.
At least you haven’t descended to Rush Limbaugh’s level to undermine Sandra Fluke’s testimony 🙂
However one is reminded of the sad tendency to blame the victim, especially if she happens to be female.
I think this is a good example of the kinds of injustice which can occur when religions get the right to dictate the terms of medical care.
I have read many position papers of the US Catholic Bishops on this HHS issue and I’ve yet to read one that nuances the Catholic position on contraception to anything other then “we are against contraception. point blank”. Which does lead me to worry that this is heading in a direction which could have some very serious repercussions in people’s lives that are not at all in line with what the Popes actually teach.
God Bless
I found three online services selling named brands of contraceptives that specifically advertise their effectiveness for treatment of endio and cysts. Their products sell for between $40 and $50 for a three-month supply. And I did that on my coffee break. So there you go.
If a doctor prescribes a particular brand drug for your daughter’s potentially serious medical condition, would you happily substitute a cheaper generic ?
And that’s assuming the student had the wherewithall to actually shop around. Many of us are busy and don’t. We get our prescriptions from the chemist next door to the doctor.
God Bless
You have got to be kidding me. Serious medical condition. I can’t afford the expensive medicine so I’ll do without altogether? Really?
More from the above testimony:
I take my hat of to the president of the Association of Jesuit Colleges.
God Bless
Do you actually believe that testimony? That agitprop?
It is deceit and we all know who the author of deceit is don’t we?
And contraception is not health care – indeed it is physically, socially and particularly spiritually harmful.
It depends on context. How is treatment of cysts spiritually harmful?
Treatment of cysts isn’t spiritually harmful. Which is why I said it was irrelevant. The insurance policy allowed use of contraceptives for treatment of cysts, but the policy was improperly applied. But Chris likes the story and I got sucked into debating it, despite the fact that it is meaningless in the context of the HHS debate.
Jerry;
if a drug is used to prevent cysts it isn’t contraception although a side effect maybe the loss of fertility.
If a drug is used to prevent conception it is by definition –contraception.
And that story, even if true, which I strongly doubt does not justify forcing Catholic and other people who understand why contraception is bad from being forced to pay for it.
In the real 21st century USA contraceptives are easily and cheaply, often for free, obtained.
This is not about access to contraception this is about forcing the Church into paying for them, thus implicating it, albeit unwillingly into the great sins of the secular.
It is about taking money from the Church and giving to the drug companies and perhaps family planning as well.
My friend access to contraceptives is far far easier and simpler than access to Sudafed a great drug for those of us who suffer from sinus problems
More on the Republican attempt to deny her testimony and Rush Limbaugh’s vicious ad hominem on Sandra Fluke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Fluke
God Bless
Yes, Limbaugh has been rightly castigated for his nasty behaviour.
This is some of what + Lori said to the Congressional Panel: http://thecatholicvoyager.blogspot.co.nz/2012/03/myths-about-church-teaching-on.html
He reiterates three times that the Church has no objection to the use of contraceptives for medical purposes.
This is not about access to contraception this is about forcing the Church into paying for them, thus implicating it, albeit unwillingly into the great sins of the secular.
Well yes, a fair point. I have sympathy for the argument the Bishops are making
The mandates do not require the Church or any other employer to pay for contraceptives. They are paid for by the employee because the premiums are part of her wages.
God Bless
I replied above to JP on the medical evidence on PlanB and Ella but my comment awaits moderation (too many links?)
God Bless
It is interesting that a whole bunch of Catholic dioceses and institutions have been providing insurance coverage which includes contraception for over a decade. That the various Bishops with jurisidiction in those cases have approved this indicates that those Bishops correctly understand that providing such insurance does NOT violate Catholic conscience, under the standard rules allowing remote cooperation with evil. Including some quite conservative Bishops.
God Bless
This debate sure dredges up things from the depths. Lack of love indeed Such as this cartoon:
http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20163029bcc09970d-popup
And an on-point commentary:
You’ve got the African-American President is a 70’s pimp angle, the Sandra Fluke is a whore angle, the “evil light-skinned brother” angle, the white girl subservient to the black man angle, a complete misrepresentation of Ms. Fluke’s statements to boot and it’s all rolled up into one big insulting awful package of pure hatred for black people, women, and human beings with working souls. It’s actually impressive, in the same way ebola-tipped bullets fired into crowds of baby sloths is impressive: just overwhelmingly, unremittingly awful on multiple levels.
Yes, truly nasty.
Well, Jerry, they do tend to target prophets like Sanda Fluke who are able to rip away all the lies and distortions and get to the simple truth of matters.
Good Friday is still with us.
And yes, Andrei, I do believe her.
God Bless
Gaita would be proud.
Let us, on both sides, lay aside all arrogance. Let us not, on either side, claim that we have already discovered the truth. Let us seek it together as something which is known to neither of us. For then only may we seek it, lovingly and tranquilly, if there be no bold presumption that it is already discovered and possessed.
Which is to say, the massa may well be damnata but they should still be treated with courtesy. 😉 Picking up on Toads point over on CP&S where we’ve been chewing over salvation and putting some bad and negative theology to rest
Nice reminder. Thank you, Jerry.
What the heck the West has turned its face against God – America was a bit behind Western Europe in this regard but Obama is hell bent on dragging it to perdition.
If any of you think that we can murder 25% or more of the new generations and not suffer terrible consequences as a result you are in for a very very nasty shock.
Sometimes you seem more interested in nostalgia for Christendom, which is dead, than Christianity, which never will be.
This sentence: America was a bit behind Western Europe in this regard but Obama is hell bent on dragging it to perdition is the kind of pointless inanity that may give you the pleasing illusion of being a latter day knight fending of the infidel with your keyboard, but in fact sounds rather childish.
No – Christianity is core to me, But I do wish it played a greater role in public life rather than being marginalized as it is today.
This was on my facebook page a few weeks ago – this is where Tsar Nicholas II and his family were secretly buried all those years ago.This was 93rd anniversary of his death.
Maybe if we had Kings and Tsars who ruled beholden to God we would be better off? Maybe not – it was a Evangelical Christian Kaiser and an Catholic Emperor who wrecked that world and plunged it into war after all.
But I’d go for it, it might eliminate the Oprah Winfrey style of political discourse we have today and keep it more cerebral and in line with Christianity and the Church.
Maybe if we had Kings and Tsars who ruled beholden to God we would be better off? Maybe not – it was a Evangelical Christian Kaiser and an Catholic Emperor who wrecked that world and plunged it into war after all.
But I’d go for it, it might eliminate the Oprah Winfrey style of political discourse we have today and keep it more cerebral and in line with Christianity and the Church.
Well that’s a more thoughtful reply than my snippy comment deserved. I disagree, and will write why on monday.
Where’s Toad when ya need him? With his dogs doubtless. A wise man. I’m for a beer.
Chris,
Do you believe that Sandra Fluke is a prophet as you sem to state ?
Looking her up on the internet I came on this rather interesting link
http://mrctv.org/blog/sandra-fluke-gender-reassignment-and-health-insurance
It is a hugely tempting logical fallacy – but a fallacy nonetheless: many ‘a’s show ‘b’ characteristic, and ‘c’ shows ‘b’ characteristic, therefore c is an a. Many people with large noses like ballroom dancing. John likes ballroom dancing. Therefore John has a large nose. (Or John has a large nose, therefore John likes ballroom dancing.) In this case, I think the ‘logic’ goes: Many saints/prophets disagreed with the bishops of their time. Person x disagrees with the bishops. Therefore, person x is a saint/prophet.
On the other hand, while it seems quite clear from the Wiki article Chris linked to that Ms Fluke has an agenda that goes beyond fair treatment for rape victims and those with medical conditions, it also seems clear that Georgetown failed to correctly apply their own policies, and that people who had been raped or who had medical conditions felt that they could not get support. I find Ms Fluke’s testimony on these matters irrelevant to the HHS debate, but highly relevant to a review at Georgetown about why their insurance assessors are giving poor advice about what the policies cover. (Mind you, in my experience, insurance assessors are often eager to seize on an excuse not to pay out, and I’ve seen no evidence that this reluctance at Georgetown was confined to women’s health issues.) Most people have a prophetic word for us if we are careful to listen.
Hitler was largely rejected in Austria. Good thing you pointed out the fallacy…. 😉
Alinsky activism 101.
Unchallenged sob stories to demonize your opponent, No love shown here.
This is just another attack on the Church by the forces of darkness. The Church will either sacrifice its principles or give up running hospitals, schools universities etc. The Church has already been driven out of the adoption business in England and Massachusetts in this manner
There is such a thing as EVIL and it can disguise itself with sweet soothing lies using words “tolerance, compassion” etc but if you listen you can tell where it is coming from by lies and distortions it contains.
For example the lady in question claimed she was being hard done by because she needed $1000 a year for contraception – an outlandish figure not rooted in any reality and of course if it were accurate not sustainable by any insurance scheme without massive increases in premiums.
But nobody in the media will challenge her on this or any of her other testimony because she is playing the victim card and is treated with kid glove sensitivity.
In truth she is not a victim at all, she is privileged to be attending a highly prestigious University on someone else’s dime at an age where the majority of women in the world and her forebears are/were raising children.
Thirty years old an not even embarked on adult life – unbelievable
Stories can help us to understand one another’s point of view, or can reinforce us in our sense of community. This is their proper use, in my view. Their power is such, however, that it is easy to be seduced into making decisions based on one or two extreme cases, rather than looking at the wellbeing of the whole.
This is a much needed post! I stopped reading one of the most popular blogs, by a priest, because of the problem described above. At first, I was turned off by him calling people idiots (which is forbidden by Jesus in the Gospels), and without giving his reasons (which is a big failure in critical thinking). Also, he disrespectfully calls women “readerettes.” (See Dorothy Sayers’s book, Gaudy Night, for an apt comment on that sort of thing; in her case, calling women “graduettes” of Oxford University). Lately, he’s taken to referring to liberal nuns as a “coven,” and has used the word “familiar” to describe certain people. (As in the type of familiar used by witches, often a black cat). Good grief! I don’t know why that site is so popular; its zeitgeist seems to be a combination of Rush Limbaugh’s tactics and Chicken Little. Your site is totally refreshing!
Thank you, Susan, and welcome to the blog. We occasionally fall into bad habits (the anonymity of the Internet lends itself to uncharitable behaviour), but we try to be respectful of one another.
I think that Sandra Fluke’s testimony is a very prophetic warning of the dangers for womens health in allowing religious employers to control their employees insurance cover for contraception.
Regardless of the actual Catholic position, rather nuanced as it is, some uptight Catholics do have a poor track record of correctly applying it with compassion.
The Catholic tradition has been very comfortable with the notion of someone being a prophetic witness is one area but not necessarily elsewhere.
God Bless
Pregnancy is NOT A DISEASE Chris Sullivan. It is a natural and essential biological function.
Avoiding pregnancy while remaining sexually active is not> health care!
Self centered women who are still at school at age thirty are not entitled to have someone else pay for their contraception. If they cannot afford contraception and they do not want to become pregnant there is an easy answer. A very easy answer.
My mother had five children by the time she was this woman’s age.
This is sheer foolishness
Chris,
By telling someone that something is wrong, at times very wrong, is alright is not showing compassion ..
You state that ( in your opinion ) the Catholic Church oks contraception for sex out side of marriage … where has it said that ? Since when do two wrongs make a right? Is this the advice that you would give to young co-habiting people who come to you for advice after you ordiation later this year?
Shalom
Bamac,
If you read the papal teachings on contraception, they are all framed in terms of marriage, of conjugal acts. That’s because marriage is a total sexual gift to the spouse including fertility, but sex outside marriage is not.
There simply isn’t a teaching against contracepting acts outside marriage. This is quite clearly taught by the NZ Catholic Bishops in their last statement on marriage and marriage problems and by Bp Peter Cullinane in his NZ Catholic guest editorial, which I have linked to many times.
The Holy Father was quite positive recently in an interview seeing moral merit in a prostitute using condoms to limit HIV infection. Even as conservative a Cardinal as Cdl Ottviani, when he was head of the Holy Office, officially approved nuns in the Congo to take the pill. These are two high level Church statements seeing merit in contracepting various acts outside marriage even though the acts themselves are immoral.
It simply isn’t a good idea for the unmarried to be having sex, risking pregnancy and disease. The Church has always counciled damage control where she has been unable to persuade people not to sin at all. We’re not in favour of spreading AIDS or conceiving children outside marriage.
God Bless
interesting, we both posted on a similar theme at the same time 🙂
Are you seriously suggesting, Chris Sullivan, that the Church teaches that the sin of fornication is in some way ameliorated by compounding it by adding another sin in using contraception?
Unbelievable!
The apocryphal Congo Nuns on the pill story is a typical example of how Church teaching is undermined by her enemies
Well Andrei, at least the Catholic Church does have an official teaching against contracepting conjugal acts (acts in marriage). From what I can tell, we are pretty much alone amongst the various Christian denominations in having such an official position. From what I can tell, the Orthodox Church does not have an official doctrinal position against contraception in the same sense that Catholics have with the papal encyclicals Casti Connubi and Humanae Vitae.
God Bless
A reminder that the culpable failure of the east to submit to the Petrine supremacy was what began the rot of Christendom anyway
You state that ( in your opinion ) the Catholic Church oks contraception for sex out side of marriage … where has it said that ? Since when do two wrongs make a right? Is this the advice that you would give to young co-habiting people who come to you for advice after you ordiation later this year?
Well two wrongs don’t make a right. And the church doesn’t “ok” sex outside marriage, or contraception. But remembering those obvious facts, inherently wrong acts may be ‘lesser evils’ in some contexts. Which is the point that the Pope made in his interview with Peter Seewald, despite the daft interpretations his comments were subjected to.
Jerry,
The official mandates issued by the US and Australian catholic Bishops to their Catholic hospitals explicitly allow contraception to prevent conception in rape victims. Ditto to treat medical conditions as Bp Lori apparently explained (above). So, yes, we do have an official position OKing contraception in some cases. It’s not inherently wrong to contracept after rape, because rape is not a conjugal act.
God Bless
CHRISTOPHER!! (As Dei Verbum would say) 😉 The essential moral point is that the Catholic Church never condones artificial contraception as an acceptable means of regulating fertility outside of extreme extenuating circumstances.
NFP is of course just as artificial as a latex condom. (Both are the application of human intellect to devising a method of having sex without causing pregnancy.) And the couples who have sex while following NFP hope to achieve a goal which is identical (sex but no babies) to that of couples using latex.
To be precise; “artificial”, meaning an artifice, a conscious creation, is a weasel word.
Regulating fertility is not, in itself, forbidden; indeed, it is often prudent. Those who think that NFP and medications and/or barriers are identical miss this point, rather. They think that the Church is against regulating fertility in order to space one’s children. This is nonsense, as I’m sure you know.
While the goal may be identical in many cases, the Church has always taught that the end does not justify the means. Using medications and/or barriers to have sex without consequences seems to me to be rather a weasel action.
Jerry,
The papal documents do not mention “artificial” anything.
They speak of physically modifying the act of making love, intending to prevent conception.
NFP works in a completely different way, by allowing the couple to choose when to make love. Choosing when to make love is of the essence of being fully human in marriage.
God Bless
Well said, Chris
Well Chris, I agree with you, and even the position, sadly, NFP is perfectly described in your words: physically modifying the act of making love, intending to prevent conception. — Temporal mofication is just as physical as any other kind of course, and the net result is still the intention to have sexual intercourse while still trying to avoid its procreative consequences.
Jerry,
Is there a written report of the interview you mentioned?
Yes Bamac; it is a book length interview of great importance. You might just be the only Catholic in the world who missed it. 😉 google peter sewald light of the world
Bamac, this is what Bp Cullinane said:
The middle paragraph is the one that is probably most relevant for this discussion – Bp Cullinane is saying that the question is whether availability of artificial contraception makes intercourse outside of marriage, infection, and other social evils more likely. Most contraception under the HHS healthcare plan would fall into either into this category or into the category he doesn’t discuss here (contraception inside of marriage, which the church teaches is an evil). So what evidence do we have that promiscuity and infection (and, incidentally, abortion) are commonly increased where artificial contraception is freely available? Heaps, I would have thought.
Do we have heaps of such evidence jp? Crontraception and easily available abortion have gone hand in hand in the last half century; but that is a contingent not necessary fact. Logically contraception may reduce abortions in a society that rejects abortion but accepts contraception. Channelling Ghandi; its never been tried
Holland has very wide spread and affordable access to effective contraception. They have quite a low rate of abortion.
As for those who contracept with the intent of aborting, every prevented conception would be a prevented abortion.
The effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV infection, while far from absolute, is well established.
And anyway, prudential judgements of the net social effect of widespread contraception have little to do with the morality of contracepting in individual cases, which is a matter of moral object chosen, intent, and circumstances.
God Bless
The number of abortions in the Netherlands has doubled in the last forty years, though the overall number of pregnancies has dropped by around 20%.
In the US figures, around 3 million babies per year are conceived despite the use of contraception, and around half of those are aborted.
This is a chilling little article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3709011
The Netherlands has a 25% sterilisation rate; one of the highest in the world.
As for those who contracept with the intent of aborting, every prevented conception would be a prevented abortion.
A fact so morally relevant; and obvious, it is amazing how little it is mentioned
What of those who trust contraception and abort because it didn’t work? This applies in around 50% of all US abortions, apparently. Cause and effect are always hard to prove in social sciences, but the so called sexual revolution touted widespread availability of artificial contraception as its enabler – and it seems to me deeply suspect to now say that they were wrong, just because the results have been – to say the least – unfortunate.
A nice summary: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/07/002-the-vindication-of-ihumanae-vitaei-28
Maybe. But the fact that it’s author also penned “Why I Turned Right: Leading Baby Boom Conservatives Chronicle Their Political Journeys” is unlikely to recommend her views to those outside Conservative Right political circles, is it ?
God Bless
Chris, I’m sure the readers of this blog are capable of judging her arguments on their merits (or lack of merit as the case may be), rather than on US categories of left/right that are incoherent outside of the US situation.
While the goal may be identical in many cases, the Church has always taught that the end does not justify the means. Using medications and/or barriers to have sex without consequences seems to me to be rather a weasel action..
Let’s be clear JP. Suppose we are talking about a married couple who do not want to have another child in the next year. They do want to continue to sleep together. — Whether they use a piece of rubber, or put a lot of effort into NFP, they are still artifically attempting to seperate sex from procreation. —- Artificial, from artifice, referring to products of human action and creation. Why is the bit of rubber wrong, and the NFP programme not. Without resorting to the “natural” “artificial” red herring
Adding a bit of rubber to the act of making love changes it into something different. One has done something to change it.
Choosing to make love on day X but not on day Y does nothing to change the act of making love on day X.
Although some object that being required to abstain from lots of days Y when the woman is most interested because of ovulation is unfair on the wife. But that’s another issue.
God Bless
The bit of rubber is physically trivial. Making love your socks on changes it. The point is that if it is ok to attempt to seperate sex from procreation by using a calendar, why not with a bit of rubber. Where’s the actual argument?
The consideration here is the moral choice to do something to change a natural act of love making into something different in kind.
If one could put on a piece of rubber to prevent orgasm, that would obviously be a modification of love making to remove something instrinsic to lovemaking.
Similarly if one does something to remove the natural potential to conception in lovemaking. One has modified the act of making love to remove something intrinsic to it, and something rather importantly intrinsic to it.
The days one chooses to make love on does nothing to change the act of making love on those days. It’s a different argument – one about temporal openness to conception which is valid for a just reason.
God Bless
Jerry, a couple abstaining from sex is not attempting to separate sex from procreation. They are choosing to separate themselves from sex at certain times – to not to have sex when conception is likely. They are choosing to have sex when conception is unlikely. For from separating sex from procreation, they are recognising and honouring the procreative purpose of sex even in the timing of their coitus. Couples who use medication or barriers to prevent conception are also recognising – but not honouring (instead they are attempting to circumvent and defeat) – the procreative purpose of sex.
You suggest above that ‘physically modifying the act of love’ describes not having sex. This is like suggesting that ‘physically modifying the act of lifting’ (as suggested by ACC, for example) describes doing no lifting on Mondays and Fridays, and ‘using your back like a crane’ for the rest of the week.
Quite apart from the semantics, we can look at the consequences:
With NFP, couples use the natural rhythms of the human body, combined with self-control and mutual respect, to space their children. Some people are really bad at it – and finish up with more children that they intended. Many people use it with great success, and report that it strengthens their relationship.
With medications and barriers to conception, couples are sexually available whenever they both consent. Some people (around one in five according to some research) find that they conceive anyway – and around half of these figure that they’ve been cheated and go for an abortion.
I can understand your confusion. Many people who support NFP seem to think that the Church is in favour of large families and against family planning – and most of those who oppose the Church’s position take this distortion of it for granted.
So there are two married couples. Neither couple want to have children this year. Both want to continue having sex. One couple pores over a calendar and then chooses the day when conception is least likely. — Then make love hoping very much that they don’t get pregnant. (But knowing they might). The other couple use a condom instead of a calendar then make love hoping very much that they won’t get pregnant. (But knowing they might)
What is the enormous moral difference here? —
Jerry,
Have the calendar couple done anything to modify the act of lovemaking on the days they choose to do it ?
The condom couple certainly have.
And that’s the key to the moral calculus here.
It would be like modifying love making to remove the possibility of orgasm.
I readily grant that for most people it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to grasp the moral distinction here.
Just think of Catholic sexual ethics as act based.
God Bless
I readily grant that for most people it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to grasp the moral distinction here.
Don’t put the difficulty onto me, I’m not the one floundering while trying to find a genuine moral distinction.
For the sake of argument the NFP couple did modify the act of love making by doing it on a water-bed.
But does doing it on a water bed modify anything intrinsic and important to love making ?
I’m not putting the difficulty onto you – this is an area which most people genuinely find very confusing and difficult to grasp. That’s partly because so few have an understanding of how to identify the moral object chosen when discussing aspects of moral theology.
The fact is that the possibility of conception just is something very importantly intrinsic to love making.
God Bless
The fact is that the possibility of conception just is something very importantly intrinsic to love making.
quite right. And condoms don’t remove that possibility. And practicing NFP is another way of attempting to minimise that possibility. The goal being the experience of sex, but with active steps taken to reduce the chance of conception.
Condoms (in the context of a marriage which is open to children) and NFP are in the same moral basket. Something some very conservative Catholics recognise. Your talk of “modifying the act etc” is an attempt to find a moral distinction when one is lacking.
And, Jerry, some highly conservative Protestants, Jews, and Mormons, too. But I think they’re wrong. Contraception is, as you suggest, about having sex, but taking active steps to reduce the chance of conception. But it is about preventing conception in the context of a particular sex act – rendering infertile that which is fertile. I repeat again, it is a linguistic nonsense to call abstaining from sex ‘contraception’. The ‘active step’ taken is to not have sex. So in the context of your own definition, you’ve highlighted the difference.
but with active steps taken to reduce the chance of conception I mean
Fixed
Artificial contraception has been defined by the Church as an act before, during, or after intercourse that renders infertile an otherwise potentially fertile act of sex. The NFP-using couple have not rendered any of their acts of sex infertile; they’ve just chosen to enjoy naturally infertile acts of sex and avoid naturally fertile ones.
The Church teaches (and the last 40 years have tended to support) that medications and devices that allow sex while inhibiting conception damage the couple, their family, and society as a whole. Such damage occurs because separating sex from procreation changes the way that couples relate to one another and to even the idea of children.
I find it impossible to comment on the moral difference between your example couples
As Chris has repeatedly said, the intentions of individual couples may change their moral culpability in both cases. The couple pouring over the calendar may have the mindset that preventing conception is a moral good, and that conception-free sex is their right; the couple using the condom may be sincerely trying to do the best for one another and the rest of their family.
Artificial contraception has been defined by the Church as an act before, during, or after intercourse that renders infertile an otherwise potentially fertile act of sex
Unfortunately, that kind of language, while well meant and correct if correctly interpreted, is a good example of the kind of imprecise use of language which is likely to confuse people who cannot see the distinction here.
1. Whether or not it “renders infertile” is irrelevant. The key point is whether or not one does something with the INTENT of “rendering infertile”.
2. Some of kinds of things done to prevent conception are morally OK if done for a just reason. Like periodic abstinence by mutual consent.
3. Other kinds of things done so modify the act of love making that it really isn’t love making anymore but something different in kind to love making, something more like mutual masturbation in which the act has been modified to try to prevent the possibility of conception.
If one put on a rubber which had the effect of preventing orgasm, then most people would probably be persuaded that one had done something wrong to modify the act of lovemaking. Similarly using a condom or pill or douche etc to modify love making in an attempt to prevent the possibility of conception.
Hope this helps.
God Bless
Chris, I agree with you about the language used in official Church pronouncements. However, I think I’m right in assuming that my readers are intelligent and well-meaning, so I make no apology about reproducing it here.
That said, I think one of your objections is nonsensical. If you abstain in order to prevent conception, you are not rendering the act of sex infertile. You are just not having an act of sex.
I think it is more of a linguistic confusion than a moral one.
Contra (against) ception (conception) – against conception. The deliberate use of technology, medication, or other techniques to prevent pregnancy resulting from an act of sexual intercourse.
An act. Not a month full of acts. If you are not having sex, you’re not using contraception.
JP,
NFP is a way to try and get the sex but avoid the babies. In this sense the diligent use of a calendar is indeed a means of seperating (or trying to) sex and procreation. Presumably in the short term.
So, with NFP, the wedge, between sex and procreation, is already in. — I’ve seen comments from a member of the Pius X society making this very point. He wanted to scrap NFP, I would rather recognise a place for condoms —– but either way the current position is intellectually unstable
You’re not convincing me, Jerry – and neither has the stuff I’ve seen from the conservatives you mention. You say that NFP is a way to get the sex and avoid the babies; it is a mis-statement of the Church’s position to say that the only purpose of sex is babies. It is perfectly valid for couples, in some circumstances, to seek to ‘get the sex and avoid the babies’. What is not valid is to turn a fertile act of sex into an infertile one.
Here’s a medical definition: “Contraception (birth control) prevents pregnancy by interfering with the normal process of ovulation, fertilization, and implantation. There are different kinds of birth control that act at different points in the process.” Try rolling up to the nearest Carmelite convent and telling them that not having sex is contraception!
“Their example should cause us to question how Catholic commentators should respond to vicious attacks on themselves, on God, and on the Church.”
## The main reason I came here and stayed was that this weblog has a nice, unaggressive, atmosphere.
## The main reason I came here and stayed was that this weblog has a nice, unaggressive, atmosphere.
True, but maybe “charity free wednesdays” would be a good idea, everyone let their hair down and berate each other savagely 😉
In a previous post, Joanne challenged us to think again about the idea that people being against us is proof of our virtue:
## It’s very good to see that ridiculous illogic being challenged – that silliness is what comes of reading (?) only one text on a topic.
Two things:
Yes, condoms render a particular act less likely to be fertile. NFP does not have this effect on any single act.
I’m not convinced following NFP is simply morally neutrally “not doing something”. — It may or may not be morally licit study an elaborate schedule so you can avoid bumping into your estranged son who lives in the same town. But it isn’t simply “not happening to see them” it is pro-active, not passive
I’m not arguing that NFP is morally neutral – as I noted elsewhere, it may or may not be. I happen to think it is more likely to be morally beneficial (in the sense of encouraging mutual respect and self discipline) than morally harmful. But it all depends on the intentions of the couple.
What I’m arguing is that NFP is not – by very definition – contraceptive: it does not render a fertile act infertile.
It may not be contraceptive, but, A traditionalist might argue that merely avoiding strictly contraceptive acts is insufficient. And that abstinence, which is acceptable per se, is different from periodic abstinence entered into for the express purpose of enjoying sex but not procreating. They would argue that any conscious stratagem which seperates, at least partially, sex and procreation, breaks down the unity that makes conjugal marriage licit in the first place. —- The liberal argument would go in the opposite direction starting from the same premise.
Unsurprisingly, the Catholic teaching doesn’t go overboard in either direction.
In terms of whether contraception and/or NFP attack the unitive aspect of love, the correlation with divorce statistics is interesting. Since the introduction of widespread contraception, we’ve seen spiralling STDs, divorce rates, and abortions. On the other hand, studies of ten-year divorce rates for NFP users are 1-3%, compared to 30-40% in the population as a whole. And anecdotal evidence from couples who have used NFP then stopped, of used contraception then stopped, suggests that the unitive aspect of sex is definitely impaired by contraception and enhanced by abstinence during fertile periods.
Humanae Vitae says: Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.
In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the lat[t]er they obstruct the natural development of the generative process.
True enough, but then he moves on to his next thought just where an argument was needed!! Is such obstruction (pre-conception), necessarily always illicit, are there not contexts where it may not be?
He’s already dealt with that point earlier in the letter, Jerry.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
Since the introduction of widespread contraception, we’ve seen spiralling STDs, divorce rates, and abortions. On the other hand, studies of ten-year divorce rates for NFP users are 1-3%, compared to 30-40% in the population as a whole.
Sure, but those numbers carry an inbuilt bias. The couples using NFP are overwhelmingly likely to be professing and practicing Christians. It is plausible that it is general Christian values, not the practice of NFP which is most important in keeping them together.
Liberalisation of contraception happened as part of a whole set of changes. I don’t know if there is evidence that it is a cause of increased divorce.
there.
I agree that correlation is not the same as cause and effect. But if the NFP divorce rates are simply the result of Christian values, then we’d expect the rate to be the same as for committed and faithful Christians. That doesn’t appear to be the case. The research-based statistics I’ve found range between 21% and 38%, with attendance at church weekly being associated with the lower rate. There is still a big gap between 21% and 3%.
Neither is it valid to argue.., as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,” it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.
The section in bold, understanding him to mean temporary and ad hoc use of contraception in the context of a marriage which is open to children, dismisses a very good suggestion to my mind. — Obstructing the natural course of things, heart by-pass for example, is something humans do. It’s validity depends on context. — He alludes to a sensible context for contraception, then just kicks the idea away for an absolute never.
It would certainly not be morally licit to do a heart bypass on a healthy heart, Jerry.
I think you make a cogent and clearly correct point when you say NFP isn’t contraceptive. But it still strikes me that Pope Paul VI, was very quick to dismiss the possibility that contraception may play a role at certain times in the span of a marriage which is inherently ordered to the Churches ideal.
Set in a broader context, the absolute rejection of contraception because it interferes with the nature of the sexual act, seems possibly insufficient. The Church does not (in doctrinal terms) reject the death penalty for example, yet it is hard to understand (a weasel phrase, I mean it isn’t the case), how killing prisoners is not a disordered application of human justice. It is annoying that the Church is emphatic that it is a great evil for Mr and Mrs X to use condoms for a few months, but is a little vague about judicial killings. If you see my point?
I think we need a bit of context around your examples, Jerry.
The Church certainly rejects the death penalty applied by individual couples. And the circumstances in which judicial killings are permissable are so narrow that I don’t see how they can be licitly applied in the Western world. The first three are possible, but the last one unlikely – a proper investigation, a fair and just process that finds the person guilty of a sufficiently serious crime, sufficient reason to believe that the person found guilty is a risk to individuals and public order, and a lack of a reasonable alternative.
Similarly – but the theology will take time to develop – the Church is slowly developing a teaching on the circumstances in which it is licit to use contraception. For therepeutic purposes, obviously. When a celibate person is in danger of rape or – more recently – has been raped. However, we are never going to have a similar situation to the licit circumstances for the death penalty – no investigation or due process by people who aren’t emotionally involved.
I think you make – or at least imply – a great point about the feeding frenzy that arises in some circles whenever anything to do with sex is debated. People who will cheerful pirate movies and cheat on their income tax – and never for a moment think that they are in breach of one of the great commandments yet feel entitled to sit in judgement on others because they are heterosexual and past menopause. It is out of proportion.
Another point: I’d draw a distinction between the social evil caused by widespread adoption of a practice, and the degree of culpability of each individual adopter. I do believe that contraception is a great evil, just as I believe that income tax fraud is a great evil. Both strike at the foundations of community – one inside the household and one in the public sphere. I don’t believe that people who are contracepting and cheating are necessarily guilty of evil at all – that depends on their knowledge, their intent, their reasons and so on.
Those who support the inclusion of contraception and sterilisation in the US healthcare plans quote special cases to show that the Church is being unfair to individuals; but the Church isn’t addressing individuals. It is addressing the broader picture – it says it cannot be an accomplice to the social evil of contraception.
I think that the point about the Sandra Fluke example is that if one gives religious employers the right to control their employees insurance coverage for contraception then women are at the mercy of the (presumably religious) people controlling the access. And history shows that some religious people in charge of such decisions can make very poor decisions, therefore the state is obliged to step in to maintain the Common Good.
There just isn’t a conscience right to impose one’s own religious beliefs on one’s employees. That, in fact, violates their conscience.
The slogan “get your rosaries off my ovaries” might be excessive, but there is a small degree of truth to it.
God Bless
the possibility that contraception may play a role at certain times in the span of a marriage which is inherently ordered to the Churches ideal.
I think there is room for some movement there. The Bishops do allow condoms in marriage to limit disease transmission ie to help correct a medical condition.
Some moral theologians have suggested using contraceptives because of periods so erratic and hard to discern that fertile times cannot be adequately assessed, merely in order to establish normal infertile times. The idea being to contracept on the infertile days and abstain on the fertile. To help correct a medical condition which NFP can sometimes require couples to abstain completely for periods up to 1 year – the kind of thing which can, and has, destroyed marriages.
What needs to be factored in is that the ends of marriage are not merely procreation (the pre Vatican II teaching) but also unity (taught by the Council).
The battle was lost in 1968 when the Pope’s own Birth Control Comission almost unanimously voted in favour of the pill and Humanae Vitae was rejected by very many Bishops, most priests, and almost all the laity. This is a teaching which has not found much support among the faithful, which may indicate that the laity are hopelessly confused and sinful or that the teaching itself (it’s not infallible) may be in need of some development.
God Bless
True, and I think development will continue over time. However, having lived through the years you talk about, I think a large part of the confusion of the laity occured because Bishops and priests either rejected Humanae Vitae entirely and publicly, or put it into a mental too hard basket and refused to talk about it. ‘Confused and sinful’ may be an appropriate description – but of the shepherds, not the sheep.
A wise caution on application of Natural Law thinking to this
http://vox-nova.com/2012/03/12/from-natural-purpose-to-gods-will-a-fallacious-move/
God Bless