Posted on 05/18/2008 5:30:41 PM PDT by markomalley
This speaks for itself.
Excellent article!
It seems to me that our society has established “scr#wing around” as the norm, and that every other choice - religious celibacy, single lay celibacy, marital chastity - is an exception. There’s a long way to go back to some kind of functional reality.
Our parochial vicar, in his homily today, linked the use of contraception to a denial of the Trinity: a lack of utter giving of oneself to the other, thus bringing forth life.
And I won't do his homily justice, so I won't try, but it went along those same lines.
Great job from your vicar! Our deacon just talked about the Trinity (in Spanish), hurrying so we could wrap up in time for the First Communion Mass following :-).
Back in Oklahoma, our pastor once mentioned on Father’s Day that being sterilized wasn’t an act of courageous fatherhood. People were flabbergasted.
Taken literally, this would suggest that it is also immoral to practice natural birth control by only having sex when you know you can't get pregnant, or even abstaining from sex in marriage to avoid getting pregnant.
As I doubt many of us believe that, we are back to asking what steps to prevent procreation are acceptable, and which are sinful. As a non-Catholic, I don't feel compelled by edicts, but I can still look at the issue from a religious and theological perspective.
I appreciate the conservative viewpoints of our Catholic brethren, so I don't get upset when I am occasionally confronted with their belief that I'm a practicing sinner and worthy of condemnation. Everybody has their religion, and they aren't generally kind to each other.
I use contraception, and I most certainly do not deny the trinity.
“... being sterilized wasn’t an act of courageous fatherhood”
WOW!!! I haven’t heard even a whisper about birth control in a Catholic Church that I can remember. You’d think that something so widely abused would garner a little more attention. It’s a shame, really. It took a few years for dh and I to figure that out. We almost didn’t make it. God’s plan for us is so much better than we ever could have imagined!
Father Gaalaas didn’t let anything keep him from telling the truth. He looked like an ethereal little elf, but then people would realize they’d been smacked down. He’s a Monsignor now, and I still hope he’ll be the next Bishop of Tulsa; Bishop Slattery, a good man, has been in place a long time.
My current pastor has never mentioned contraception, that I recall. At least he’s rock-solid in condemning abortion.
However to summarize, the Church distinguishes between the natural law (i.e. the natural cycle of fertility with its inherent infertile periods) and artificial means of preventing contraception. It also emphasizes the virtue of self-discipline implicit in the practice of periodic continence.
A quote from the above encyclical:
"If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)
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."
I Think The Popes Vision dropped the scales from some of The Social Justice Crowd of Priests!
Thank you. I am somewhat understanding of the Catholic view. I have read some, and watched a presentation on the local Catholic channel.
However, and I don’t mean to be disrespectful, in my opinion if I accept the premise on which the prohibition of birth control is based, the exception for the use of natural rythms is inconsistent with that premise.
I see it as an understandable “line of demarcation” which allows the teaching to have effect, by giving an easy way out so people can obey the rule. If the rule was too hard, everybody would break it.
There is no deliberate frustration of the sex act with a natural form of birth control. And therein lies the difference. Contraception alters the nature of the sex act. Not having sex at a certan time does nothing to the sex act.
A husband and wife who practice natural forms of birth control engage in the identical practices when a child is conceived and when one is not. That can’t be the same for the contracepting couple.
Depends on the end you have in view, doesn’t it? If you never intend to have child, you aren’t really married. If you have only one child or two for less than honorable reasons, such as unwillingness so give up luxury. But if you can’t afford more than a few children, or simply are not strong enough, then that is another matter. I pass no judgements. However, remember this: the condom was developed for use by whores, to keep them from becoming pregnant. When you use a rubber, it diminishes the sexual act. But of course I am assuming that you value the traditional ideals of Christian marriage. Hard to live up to, requiring in the end, God’s grace. Mostly we all far short of that end, on many different counts.
There are those who actually share that viewpoint. They are called the Full Quiver movement. God Bless 'em, but a theological understanding of Humanae Vitae shows that this idea misses the point of the doctrine.
As I doubt many of us believe that, we are back to asking what steps to prevent procreation are acceptable, and which are sinful. As a non-Catholic, I don't feel compelled by edicts, but I can still look at the issue from a religious and theological perspective.
Again, the mere issue of birth control is not the point, it is the effect.
I appreciate the conservative viewpoints of our Catholic brethren, so I don't get upset when I am occasionally confronted with their belief that I'm a practicing sinner and worthy of condemnation. Everybody has their religion, and they aren't generally kind to each other.
And I appreciate the mature attitude that you have. Whether or not one is in communion with Rome, we are all part of the Body of Christ. St. Paul disparaged divisions in that Body (reference multiple points throughout his writings, particularly in his first letter to the Church in Corinth). We ALL (of whatever confession -- and I include myself in this reproof) should keep that context uppermost in our minds.
I use contraception, and I most certainly do not deny the trinity.
Ah, context. There was one thing that I didn't put down here as well as I should have (considering to whom I was posting, I didn't feel it necessary...forgot that others read my posts, as well). Sorry about that. Again, I find myself without adequate time to really explain this properly, but in short:
The Church teaches that marriage is an icon of the Trinity. In the Trinity, the Father and the Son are inseparable and of the same substance. Their very nature as Love send forth the Spirit throughout creation. Nothing separates them: they are one. They are all-giving without reservation.
In marriage, the two become one flesh. Contraception prevents this from happening. There is a block that prevents the natural, God ordained outcome from happening. There is a limit placed on the giving of yourself to your spouse (That's why abstinence for a period is not seen in the same light as artificial birth control). God the Father did not place any limits or restrictions on His giving. God the Son likewise gave His all. There are no limits as to the extent of God the Spirit.
If there are limits placed on the degree of giving in the marriage relationship, it is seen as a denial, in practice, of the two becoming one flesh (one flesh, except...). Thus it is seen as a denial of that marriage truly being an icon of the Trinity (and perhaps that is how I should have said it).
I realize that you see it differently...
Life begins at the moment of contraception. ;)
Now that you mention the “full quiver” movement, I believe I watched a 1-2 hour presentation from a member of that group. That may have shaped my opinion on the matter.
Most churches until the 1930’s viewed contraception as very immoral. It wasn't until the late 40’s or so that it became accepted, and longer than that in some areas. My LCMS church back home had an average family size of four to five.
Most of the problems that the article talks about are true. We are also heading into a demographic winter like the world has never seen. At least in the US, we have the Hispanics who still have large families. In Europe, it is the muslims.
{off topic}
I have always loved that tagline
{/off topic}
The first one to jump ship was the Lambeth Conference that was held back in the 30s (forget the exact date right now).
And it’s all gone downhill from there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.