Posted on 08/27/2010 6:52:49 AM PDT by markomalley
Having seen an inordinate number of eloquent commentaries delineating the moral evils of the recent United States District Court decision nullifying the will of California voters on Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage, I am nonetheless left wondering why none of the commentators was able to connect the dots.
Obviously, same-sex “marriage” or even same-sex “civil unions” are a bad idea, particularly if legitimized by a court system that previously put its stamp of approval on contraception and abortion. But why isn’t anyone pointing out the obvious root cause of this latest moral and legal debacle? Why isn’t anyone hammering on contraception?
In April of this year, months before this decision, Jenn Giroux, executive director of HLI America, explained to readers that the public acceptance of contraception has led to (among other things) “[s]maller and more broken families, rampant homosexuality, pornography, and China’s coercive one-child policy.”
Earlier, wise teachers such as Professor Janet Smith emphatically linked a rejection of Pope Paul VI’s profoundly wise encyclical Humanae Vitae to a wide acceptance of homosexuality. In her 2003 comments, she pointed out what I believe is the real problem—one that very few will admit: “Rather than holding to the Christian and common sense view that sex belongs within marriage between a male and a female committed to each other for life and open to children, our culture thinks that sex is quite simply for pleasure—and that almost any combination of consenting individuals may morally seek that pleasure without any commitment, without an openness to children.”
In 1998, Father John Hardon, SJ, who is sorely missed by many of us who were his students, pointed out in “Contraception: Fatal to the Faith and to Eternal Life,” “The spectacle of broken families, broken homes, divorce and annulments, abortion and the mania of homosexuality—all of this has its roots in the acceptance of contraception on a wide scale in what only two generations ago was a professed Catholic population.”
Clearly, many wise people have understood—and warned us about —the cost of contraception. But not everyone is on this page.
For example, rather than setting forth facts regarding the nature of sexual sin and its tragic consequences, many members of the Catholic clergy have either been totally silent or have said things that not only confuse fact with fiction but further marginalize Catholic teaching. This, in turn, makes Church doctrine less palatable to a sexually saturated culture, even though Catholic teaching is now and always will be worthy of belief and obedience—because it contains the fullness of truth.
During their November 2006 meeting, for example, the U.S. Catholic bishops “acknowledged that most married Catholics—96 percent, according to their own estimate—use birth control, and the bishops said they recognize that the [C]hurch’s teachings on homosexuality are contested in American society.”
Excuse me, but those percentages do not change truth. In fact, they should drive more bishops back to boldly teaching their people instead of gauging the content of their message on public acceptance of what they have to say. It’s the type of posturing that perhaps led to Cardinal Francis George, current U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops president, saying (in response to the judge’s decision allowing same-sex marriage), “Marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of any society. The misuse of law to change the nature of marriage undermines the common good.”
He did not say nor did he make reference to the obvious fact that this very sad state of affairs would not exist in the first place if contraception had been rejected long ago. He was simply silent on the point.
This is why I recommend that rather than dialoguing, as a whole, every Catholic bishop and every Catholic priest should be teaching, preaching and exhorting. Nobody really knows what America or its court decisions would look like today if the Catholics of this nation had been properly catechized for the past 42 years on matters pertaining to human sexuality.
What we do know is that today America and, most importantly, Catholics, are sliding toward a moral hell.
It’s high time many more Catholic leaders in the U.S. stood up and clarified the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, sinfulness and sinlessness. Why? Because the only treatment for the deadly bacteria raging through the veins of this society is a very strong dose of the same message Christ gave to His disciples a very long time ago: “Try your hardest to enter by the narrow door, because, I tell you, many will try to enter and will not succeed” (Luke 13: 24).
The narrow door is always open, and frankly, anything less than fighting tooth and nail to get there will not heal this ailing body politic we know as America.
If it’s morally right now, what made it morally wrong then?
There are some situations in which contraception is necessary. As for being moral or immoral, that is a matter of opinion.
Right on.
My wife and I decided that 3 kids was enough, and then I got a vasectomy. How is that wrong?
Our priest gave a great homily on the use of artificial b.c. some time ago. I think I felt some people squirming in their pews ;) It was one of those times when I wanted to jump up and shout ‘AMEN’!
I made sure to thank Father Greg for the great homily after Mass. I hope that countered any ‘hate mail’ he received on the matter.
Separating sex from lifelong married commitment is really a detriment to a society, because it diminishes the basic building block institutions of marriage and family.
So, contraception, in and of itself, is amoral, but how it is used certainly a moral question.
Such is the nature of human progress.
Civil union is an inevitable. We can differentiate CU from ‘marriage’ because of the religious connotations.
Religions emphasize that marriage is a sacred oath. Civil unions are legal partnerships.
If civil unions are ‘permitted’, then the gay community should not be the only beneficiaries.
Two orphaned sisters who find themselves single, by divorce, choice, widowhood, etc., should be able to join in civil unions for the same advantages: property inheritance, job benefits, pensions, insurance and so forth.
Any combination...elderly father and son living together, Mother and daughter, two middle aged ‘friends’ of any sex, etc., who find a civil union would provide legal and financial advantages should have the same access to this legal provision.
The key word is "decided". The ability to decide is what separates man from beast. The ability to actually implement one's decisions effectively is what separates advanced societies from primitive ones.
No.
Not long ago, people were sick, and hungry, and overworked. They didn't bathe. They didn't go around in sexy outfits. Yes, they had sex -- but not like Cameron Diaz has sex.
Our culture shows us Henry VIII and says "See? It's always been about sex!" But not everyone is King of England.
Contraception changed everything. Now we are free to be tremendously irresponsible. Before, there were consequences. We have been lessened by our rampant sexual behavior -- but we try to convince ourselves that it's always been this way and that nothing has really changed.
It has to be taken on a case by case basis. Having sex out of wed lock is amoral, from a Christian point of view, regardless of contraception. I don't see where contraception is amoral, it is a tool, like a gun, that accomplishes a function. Tools are not amoral but how they are used can be.
No, it is not. It is a matter of moral judgment, as to whether something is right or wrong, just as the morality or immorality of (for example) abortion, racial discrimination, theft, adultery, and drunk driving are matters of moral judgment.
If you wish to say that there are no genuine judgments of right or wrong, that in itself is a judgment that you have made, and it's one that requires a defense, rather than simply an assertion.
This post (if I may extrapolate) demonstrates the author's point about the uselessness of "dialogue." If dialogue is only, "This is your opinion; that is my opinion," with the assumption that there is no right or wrong, it's a waste of time. Useful dialogue would start with the premise that there is a right and wrong, which we can determine using our reason, and that all the parties involved are interested in finding the truth and living according to it.
In the absence of that bedrock principle - which is the ambient state of our society - exhortation is what is needed, especially from our clergy.
People need to seriously think through the question of whether they’re cut out to be parents — and, if the answer is “no”, to take appropriate precautions.
I’ve done the same when our pastors have spoken out.
Our priest gave a great homily on the use of artificial b.c. some time ago. I think I felt some people squirming in their pews ;) It was one of those times when I wanted to jump up and shout ‘AMEN’!Plaudits to Fr Greg. Fr John gave a similar homily at our church, and it was just weeks after his very descriptive partial birth abortion homily. After the BC one, there were literally people waiting for him after Mass. Ugly scene. They transferred him within weeks.
I agree. If there is a need for the legal provisions of "domestic partnership," on top of what current contract law already provides, then whether the couple or group is engaging in some kind of sexual activity should be irrelevant.
As a practical point, I question whether this legal provision is necessary, unless it forcibly (so to speak) tidies up the current stew of contract, power-of-attorney, estates-and-trusts, real estate, and other relevant law.
Slight clarification of terms:
amoral - having no moral component, no right or wrong attribute.
immoral - morally wrong
Now, I’m sure you meant that sex outside of marriage is IMmoral from a Christian point of view. Contraception is Amoral - it’s a tool or a concept. Tools are Amoral.
With that clarification, you and I agree.
Contraception use in marriage is the choice of the couple involved.
Catholics are of the opinion all contraception is amoral, most of us are not Catholic.
It's a whole thought system.
IF suddenly another child was shoved into your life (pregnancy, adoption, space aliens cloned/doubled one of your children) would you love another child just because he was 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.