The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionWhat About Contraception?
by Michael Sean Winters on Feb. 16, 2012
For there are some who over solicitous for the cause of eugenics, not only give salutary counsel for more certainly procuring the strength and health of the future child - which, indeed, is not contrary to right reason - but put eugenics before aims of a higher order, and by public authority wish to prevent from marrying all those whom, even though naturally fit for marriage, they consider, according to the norms and conjectures of their investigations, would, through hereditary transmission, bring forth defective offspring. And more, they wish to legislate to deprive these of that natural faculty by medical action despite their unwillingness; and this they do not propose as an infliction of grave punishment under the authority of the state for a crime committed, not to prevent future crimes by guilty persons, but against every right and good they wish the civil authority to arrogate to itself a power over a faculty which it never had and can never legitimately possess.
Over the past few weeks, many public commentators, in their zeal to make their case, have grossly mis-characterized the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding contraception, and inadvertantly, pointed to some of the basic problems facing pastors in communicating the teachings of the Church.
Last night, Sean Hannity ranted that the Obama administration was asking Catholic institutions to violate a “core tenet” of their faith. Certainly, the Church’s teaching on contraception is one of the most widely known of its teachings, but is it properly understood as a “core” teaching? We all stand and recite the Creed each Sunday, but I do not see contraception – or any other moral claim – mentioned therein. There is nothing in the Creed about sexual morality and also nothing about social justice. We skip over the life of Jesus in silence, except to note He was born and he died. The “core” teachings of the Catholic Church are doctrinal, then anthropological, and finally ethical and I encourage anyone who attends a lecture of ethics to ask the presenter to start at the beginning, and if they don’t start with the Trinity, ask them what is distinctively Catholic about their views.
Throughout the debate, we have been told that 98% of Catholic women use birth control, that Catholics in the pews do not follow the Church’s teaching, etc. Of course, we do not take polls to determine the truth of things within the Church: Unlike the Cole Porter musical, we know that fifty million Frenchmen can be wrong. We know that Nixon won. Twice. Democracy determines many things, but the truth of something is not among them. And, the fact that fifty percent or ninety-nine percent of Catholics do not follow a certain teaching is also beside the point. Just because there is a spike in the burglary rate does not mean that we legalize burglary.
Of these two mis-characterizations of the Church’s teachings, the Sean Hannity example is the more dangerous for the Church. Christianity is not a rule book but, at a time when people feel their society and their culture has lost its moorings, when the changes in attitudes towards something as basic and profound as human sexuality confuse them, it is easy to want a rulebook. Following on my post yesterday, no one can escape the necessity of cultivating and exercising their own conscience. Fundamentalists treat the Scripture as a rule book: All the answers to all of life’s questions are contained in the Bible if you know where to look. We Catholics do not view the Bible, nor the teachings of the Church, that way.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Indeed, I recall a priest once telling me, “The laws of the Church are the stars to guide you by.” That is different from a speed limit. When driving, you are either going 45 mph in a 35 mph zone, with a radar-generated photo to prove it, or you weren’t. The Church’s notion of law is more organic than that, also more didactic. Our common law tradition is not didactic in its intent or its form.
This is, I believe, especially true when it comes to the Church’s teachings on contraception – and the other hot button sexual issues. I have said before that I think Humanae Vitae reads better every year and, Lord, does that produce a host of nasty comments! But, if you reduce Humanae Vitae to the headline “Pope Bans Pill,” you have not read Humanae Vitae. You may disagree with the conclusion. I will readily submit that, in conscience, in good conscience, you may think the ban on artificial contraception is something you cannot follow and, in that case, follow your conscience!!!! Even a conscience that is objectively wrong must be followed. But, a conscience also must be informed. My worry with Humanae Vitae is that, because we reduce it to “Pope Bans Pill” and find that unreasonable, we throw the baby out with the bath water, and ignore the basic intellectual and moral reasoning that led Pope Paul VI to the conclusion that artificial birth control was illicit. Again, even if you disagree with Paul’s conclusions, you owe it to yourself to consider his arguments.
And, what is that argument? When you get past the difficult and, I believe, stilted natural law reasoning, you find a key moral insight: We humans, so capable of hubris and of that deadliest of the seven deadly sins, pride, have a moral obligation to be respectful of nature because with the best of intentions, we can convince ourselves that something is good and necessary that is, in fact, gravely harmful.
It is 2012. How many times have I heard Rachel Maddow say that when discussing contraception the past few weeks, trying to place the Catholic Church’s teachings firmly within the category “obscurantism.” But, I would submit that in 2012, when you look at all the degradation we have wrought upon our environment, do we really have to debate the validity of Pope Paul VI’s moral insight that we humans, when we ignore nature, or see it merely as something to manipulate for our own happiness, can do great evil? I am betting that if you go back and look at the newspaper clips when the nuclear reactors were built at Three Mile Island, or Chernobyl, or Fukushima, most of those articles praised the new constructions as evidence of progress, of humanity harnessing the power of nature. Forget about nuclear power - Go back and read the news accounts that greeted the advent of the atomic bomb! It was a new day, a great day, alas not for the people of Hiroshima, but for us, for the United States of America. We had built this thing and it was ours and, dammit, we were mighty proud to have it and to use it. It is chilling, positively chilling, that at no point in 1945 did anyone seriously consider the possibility that we would not use it.
How often do we read that some new wonder drug has come on the market, only to read six years down the road that this FDA-approved medicine actually causes a different and far more terrible harm to those who use it? Are you not tired of those ads from trial lawyers – “if you used X drug and you were afflicted by difficulties, call Dewey, Cheatham and Howe now on our toll-free number.” But, those ads tell the tale of progress gone awry. That, in large part, was the moral concern I find in the words of Humanae Vitae. Progress can go awry. Because something can be done does not mean that it should be done. There are varieties of poverty that keep us from seeing what a great gift a child is, and the need for a convenient lifestyle in the West is just as surely a form of human poverty as is the abject lack of resources in the less developed countries of the world. This is what I take from Humanae Vitae and I think it is profoundly true. How you or I apply that truth is a different matter. But, I would love to see someone ask Mr. Hannity if his concern about the “core teaching” of the Catholic Church extends to his views on the Keystone Pipeline.
There is one other aspect of this that must be addressed and it brings us back before Humanae Vitae, all the way back to Casti Connubii, issued by Pope Pius XI on the last day of 1930. During a discussion on the HHS mandates with my good friend Sally Steenland, whose views on the HHS mandates were exactly the opposite of my own, I was asked about the Church’s teaching on contraception and I responded as I have above. But, I also pointed out that, in this area of human sexuality, the Church, condemned at the time as old-fashioned and obscurantist, had proudly stood up against eugenics at a time when the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger was championing it. Ms. Steenland said she did not see what the issue of eugenics had to do with contraception, and then we had to break for a commercial. Here, then, is the connection. In the late teens and 1920s, eugenics was specifically cited as one of the reasons for the introduction of birth control. If you go back and read the early issues of the Birth Control Review that Ms. Sanger published, the praise for eugenics is consistent and central to her reasoning. As we know, in their landmark ruling, Buck v. Bell, the Supreme Court upheld a law in Virginia granting the Commonwealth the right to sterilize a young, mentally handicapped woman against her will. All in the name of progress. This is not ancient history and Oliver Wendell Holmes, who justified the ruling with the famous words “three generations of imbeciles is enough” was one of the smartest men ever to sit on the bench.
It is not hard to see why these great champions of progress could dismiss the obscurantist writings of Pope Pius XI. The language is archaic and formal to a degree that makes it difficult to scan. But, here was what Pius wrote:
So, who got it right? Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes or Pope Pius XI? Holmes and Pius were dead before Josef Mengele gave eugenics a bad name. I once researched Sanger’s early life but not her later years, so I do not know if she ever responded to the moral horror perpetrated at Auschwitz by the eugenicist-murderers there.
Obviously, I am not saying that using contraception is the same thing as sterilizing someone against their will. I am saying that there is usually more to the Church’s teaching than just what you read in the headlines. I will have more on how the Church teaches tomorrow. But, it is curious to me that people denounce Humanae Vitae as breezily as people once denounced Casti Connubii. I do not see the moral dangers in the use of contraception that seem so obvious to me in eugenics, but, if very smart people did not see the danger of eugenics, or of nuclear technology, or of any other technological advance that now imperils our planet, we need to ask ourselves why we think we will be smarter now? That is why I encourage everyone to re-read Humanae Vitae, with an open mind, not because I hope to see millions of Catholics abandoning birth control, but because I think it contains great truths.
Fine, you don't see the harm
Fine, you don't see the harm in contraception. You can pay for it. Some of us see it differently and we don't want to subsidize other peoples recreational sexual habbits. Since when is it the role of the Federal Government to finance recreational sex and in the event of fertilization, your choice of several approved abortion-inducing drugs, stirilization and abortion and even late-term abortion. I is all part of the same narrative.
Andrew K
A blastocyst is not yet an
A blastocyst is not yet an individual. It is under the control of maternal DNA and therefore the maternal soul. That only leaves employers having the right to an opinion on the sexuality of their employees, as you have, which is exceedingly creepy.
Pope Paul himself was not so
Pope Paul himself was not so absolutist in the years after issuance of the Encyclical. It would seem that he regarded it as a theoritical ideal as opposed to detailed operating instructions. In Matthew 25, Christ himself is quite emphatic about helping the poor and less fortunate, which the Church encourages, but does not go into such detail about. There is room for discussion, however, we seem incapable of it.
At our local state mental
At our local state mental hospital in the 1940-1950's time frame abortions were carried-out quietly on the residents under the medical term "growth on the womb".
Sounds like YOU get it but
Sounds like YOU get it but the bishops seem to promote and encourage this boiled down to a bumper sticker interpretation of doctrine. Does not seem like Rachel Maddow is the issue here near as much as the bishops themselves.
Michael, you are on the right
Michael, you are on the right track to the wrong station. Your piece has much to admire but it is complicated by issues not geermane to the current problem.
I have a problem with your avoidance of the Canonical requirement that a teaching be accepted by the sensus fidelium. Please inform us all of you theological and social interpretation of that doctrine. I have a philosophical problem with your and anyone elses use of the term objectively.
Aquinas assures us that all our knowing is through a medium and that the very best we can do is to have a subjective experience. He does not deny the objective he basically makes it irrelevant as being outside the possibility of our knowing capacity. Would you deny Thomas ? So glad you mention anthropology. How I wish we had Fr. Teilhard now, he could teach us a lot.
In Christs time 40 years was a human lifespan. In those days having many children was essential due to the mortality rate in children. Few made it to
adulthood. Understand that was maybe 14 years of age back then, it is also
long recognised as the probable age of Mary when she had Jesus. There have been many changes since then. Despite wars and famines and plagues the population of the earth has exploded exponentially. Today due to betterments
in science and medecine infant mortality is not what it was in earlier times.
Disease is better controlled though still not master of natures ability to
produce new strains. We are now 7 Billion on the planet and due to triple that
in the next 30 years. No matter how you think you have to know that we face very serious problems. Don't worry eugenics will not be any solution nor would any of us want that, at least the sane among us. This brings us to our "obligation to be respectful of nature". I sincerely believe and have no claim to being correct that any respecting nature cannot avoid dealing with
the threat to extinction through overpopulation. Most of use use contraception in respect to the changes time and science and medicine have
made. We have families sized to meet the resources we have. This is an intelligent decision respecting the subjective experience we have of the reality we have to cope with. We are not infused with knowledge of some
objective reality claimed by authority. We have to do what we can in good conscience to cope with the times and the world we actually live in. Please
understand that it is with respect for nature that we use the intelligence God gave us. Please understand too that we are not talking about abortion.
On a personal level I believe Humanae Vitae was a bad mistake. The majority
position was abandoned in favor of the insight from the few. That is history.
Fortunately, Pope Benedict himself as a young theologian wrote a definition of conscience that I have never heard him recant. I hold strictly to that definition.
Yours Subjectively Ordered,
TomC
I once read an answer in the
I once read an answer in the paper that Pope John Paul II gave to a question about the Church's position on birth control when so many Catholics chose to ignore it. The Pope said [and I am paraphrasing here], that the Church has many teachings that hold up an ideal for the faithful regarding morality. He said that the ideal should not change because of the culture.
I found the answer compelling even if I do not agree with the teaching. I think there are times when our "teachings" are not the "ideal." We used to teach that slavery was okay. And we used to teach that women shouldn't approach the altar when they were menstruating.
What we need to do is make it clear to the world that all our teachings regarding life are equally important. I am getting sick to death of so much time spent speaking about same sex marriage and contraception when people are living in poverty without hope of relief. How come we don't have some major upheaval, including letters to be read from the pulpit, when someone is put to death by capital punishment? How come we aren't told to email our representatives [and supply the links to make it happen] when the country contemplates a pre-emptive war? Where is the outrage and political activism when social programs are going to be cut? Where is the letter from the Bishop to be read at Mass then?
The reason the Church has no credibility is because they are so inconsistent in the application of their teaching and in their frankly contradictory behavior. It is hard to take an institution seriously when they put so much effort into keeping others in line after they have spent so much time covering up immoral and criminal behavior amongst their own rank and file.
I have read many, many of the Church's encyclicals [my education is in theology], and have found great beauty and truth expressed in them as well. They are the ideal, you might say. It would be nice to find the Church itself living up to them.
"The reason the Church has no
"The reason the Church has no credibility is because they are so inconsistent in the application of their teaching..."
No, it's because of ----what----- they teach that renders them incredulous.
CATHOLICS ARE NOT RABBITS
CATHOLICS ARE NOT RABBITS .......... NCR reported that the pope just said Catholics should have large families. The pope added, in pertinent part, "I hope that adequate social and legislative measures are promoted that safeguard and sustain large families.... ".
The pope is being irresponsible here, not infallible. Neither he nor his brother or sister had children. He has had almost no direct pastoral experience with families as a professor or bishop. He doesn't know what he is talking about. He should show some humility and stop embarrassing and harassing Catholic couples.
Parents know they cannot beget children relying on "social or legislative measures". Children, unlike rabbits, must be nurtured, fed and educated over many years. Presently, 1 in 4 children worldwide suffer from serious malnutrition, including millions in the US. A child dies somewhere in the world every few seconds for want of nurturing. So much for "social and legislative measures"!
Humanae Vitae has some beautiful platitudes about sexual intimacy, but the bottom line is it mandates, in effect, that each sexual encounter of Catholic couples must seek to generate children. This is both unnatural and irrational.
This Rabbit Rule, namely, "BREED, BREED,BREED...", may work well for rabbits, but not for humans. The pope is not speaking as Bugs Bunny! Catholic couples know God has provided them with modern advances for safely regulating pregnancies and they intend to continue doing so for the sake of their children and themselves.
The pope may be out of touch with parents and children, but he is not out of his mind. He has consistently been well focused and very determined in pursuing his goals. Why does he condemn contraception and why now?
The New Testament, the ultimate guide for the pope and all Catholics, is basically silent on contraception. Jesus appears to have loved children and several times warned against harming them. The New Testament is also silent on whether Jesus married and had children, as was almost universal among Jews of his day. The silence on this suggests he was both married and a father.
Of course, subsequent celibate hierarchical ideology argues against this, but we will never know for sure.
Surely, some of the Apostles were married fathers. Jesus certainly did not advocate for large familes in the "hope" they would be sustained by "social and legislative measures". Implicit in his mandate to protect children was an mandate not to become pregnant if the couple could not nurture the offspring. Abstinence, a difficult option for most couples until modern advances added other practical options, was always a possibility.
In 1870 the pope was losing all his temporal power and tried desparately to buttress his spiritual power by ramming his "infallibility" dogma through at Vatican I. Six decades later, Pius XI arrogantly used this dogma to support his prohibition of contraception in Casti Connubii, a year after the Anglicans had approved contraception.
Many European men had died in World War I, barely a decade before Casti Connubii, and the European birth rate was declining significantly as a result. Pius XI was extremely concerned about the rise of Soviet Communism and perceived a strategic need to reverse the European population decline. Hence, he in effect mandated Catholics to have more children by prohibiting contraception.
Barely three decades later, Paul VI faced a related dilemma. Modern advances made pregnancy planning safer and surer. But if Paul VI reversed Pius XI's recent dogma, Paul VI would undercut his weak claim to infallibility by appearing, at least, to contradict a recent pope's "infallible decree".
In 1966, Paul VI's birth control commission of bishops, theologians and lay experts, after years of study and deliberation, overwhelming supported permitting contraception. The pope met with his curial advisors in closed door meetings and opted in Humanae Vitae in 1968 to preserve his "infallible power". He flatly rejected reversing Pius XI and continued the prohibition of contraception.
While the Soviet threat has now dissapated, the current pope has found a new threat. The pope fears the worldwide growth of Islam, which the pope appears to see as a threat to Catholicism, especially in Europe, Africa and parts of Asia. Papal solution, just pump up the Catholic birth rate, of course.
The pope currently has a special problem in the US. Obama's Justice Department is aggressively pursuing child sexual predators, including the pedpophile priest involved in the case of indicted Kansas City's Bishop Finn. Finn, an Opus Dei member, is also, like Timothy Dolan, a protege of the powerful Cardinal Rigali, who himself appears still to be in Philly prosecutors' sights for his alleged massive cover-ups of Philly pedophile priests.
If the pope can replace Obama with a pliable Republican, like Santorum, as US prosecutor-in-chief, he may be able to both buttress his anti-contraception dogma and reduce the possibility of Federal bishop prosecutions for covering-up pedpophile priests' crimes. The pope would also please his 1% "lower taxes on the rich" wealthy donors.
For details on Paul VI's machinations behind his 1968 ban on birth control in Humanae Vitae, please see the NCR article, "New birth control commission papers reveal Vatican's hand", readily accessible by clicking on at:
http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/new-birth-control-commission-papers-re...
For details on the pope's election year ploy to replace Obama with a pliable Republican as US prosecutor-in-chief, please see the comments, "Founding Fathers' Shock", "Obama Dream Comes True" and "No Deal Ever, Obama!", readily accessible by clicking on at:
http://ncronline.org/news/politics/bishops-studying-revised-contraceptio...
For details on the real choice the pope is raising, namely, a choice of conscience or coercion, please see the comment, "Conscience or Coercion?", readily accessible by clicking on at:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/rehabilitating-conscience
Amazing how it's "a core
Amazing how it's "a core tenet" of the faith when it's helpful as a political tool to bash President Obama, but when it's not, Hannity is willing to vociferously defend the value of birth control, especially for non-Catholics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usTWwSbpWRc
I wonder what answer Sean
I wonder what answer Sean Hannity would give if asked if he and his wife practice birth control. I don't know how many children he has, but I'm sure it's not a dozen!!!!
I have never read Humanae
I have never read Humanae Vitae, I have no intention of ever reading Humanae Vitae. Regardless of all its fine words and phrases, it is at core a lie. Theologians, cardinals and at least one mother studied and debated and found no harm in the use of contraception. The fundamental purpose of Humanae Vitae wasn't to instruct us in the evil of contraception but in the authority of the Pope. The Pope could never admit that he or previous popes had made a mistake or even grown in understanding, so the ban on contraception had to be retained.
It really is a shame, because the Church does have much to say on the beauty and sacredness of human life.
"I have never read Humanae
"I have never read Humanae Vitae, I have no intention of ever reading Humanae Vitae. Regardless of all its fine words and phrases, it is at core a lie."
## How can you criticise it, & so severely, if you have no idea what it actually says ?
I read it ... don't bother.
I read it ... don't bother. It's not Paul VI's best work. Some of his other encyclicals are quite fine, however, and I do recommend them. With Humanae Vitae, however, his heart clearly wasn't in it. It reads more like what it truly is; a reluctant, strained but dutiful defense of infallibility ... at the expense of his credibility, unfortunately.
None of your examples make
None of your examples make sense. First of all, you compare using contraception to burglary? Taking your Nicene Creed observation, please note that stealing is up there in the top 10, contraception isn't.
And if you really believe that the take-away from Humanae Vitae is "just because we can doesn't mean we should," and based on your examples, I will assume that you reject all artificial means of extending life for yourself and your loved ones, correct? Just because we CAN do a blood transfusion doesn't mean we SHOULD. Afer all, Nature and nature's God must have meant us to bleed to death, right? Who are we to stop it from happening?
Hi Michael, As a traditional
Hi Michael,
As a traditional conservative Catholic, I don't always agree with you, but I appreciate your thoughtful commentary. I am pro life (and against the use of contraception), anti war/anti imperialism, not a fan of communism or capitalism, and concerned about the environment. As such, I feel like an alien within the GOP much of the time, and enjoy reading dispatches from other political aliens like yourself.
Have you read this link about the "98 percent of all Catholic women use contraception poll"? http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2012/02/how_to_lie_with_statistics...
Secondly, I totally agree with your blog post the other day where you questioned Mary Ann Glendon's rationale in supporting Romney. It doesn't make sense to a lot of us.
On another note, my husband, who is a huge St. Thomas More fan, and I were discussing your posts this week where you referenced the saint and how he tried to find a way to sign the oath. You said TM "really tried to find a way" to sign the oath to the State. In our discussion, my husband and I agreed that we didn't think it was so much that TM wanted to find a way to please the State, but that he wanted to obey the Church, but not be martyred, if possible. Plus, he was receiving enormous pressure from his family to sign the oath, which for him, was a temptation. I never got the impression, however, that he ever had any really compelling reason to sign the oath, that he wanted to please the State in any way.
I am glad for you, that you
I am glad for you, that you personally find Humanae Vitae speaks to you. It suits you, it suits and shapes your perception of life and how you want to live it, what you want to do, how you want to live out your marriage, it supports how you will share your gifts, your talents, with the world, how you will live out your faith in the world.
But, we are not made in the same batch of cookie dough, cut with the same cookie cutter, baked in the same oven. We are as different and unique as the billions of stars in the millions of galaxies. We are like complex snowflakes - it is highly unlikely that any two are alike. Humanae Vitae assumes we are all of the same mold, the same mind, the same wants, the same heart. Or, if not exactly the same, sufficiently the same to fit a predetermined mold. We simply don't all fit. Some do. That is wonderful.
What we need to do is NOT make it terrible that some don't fit the assumed mold/mind/want/heart shape of Humanae Vitae. If "Christianity is not a rule book", could we, please, get rid of the idea that, at least regarding Humanae Vitae, it is not a rule? Could the Church at least allow primacy to individual conscience?
Could we at least respect the differing beliefs of the Baptist doctor, the Methodist nurse, and the Muslim accountant who work in our hospitals and allow them to make their own choices? Have you thought about how disresptful it is to the doctor or nurse that you are telling them or their faith?
You know the bishops' argument is distorted. Your religious freedom is their religious slavery and mine. That is not how God or Jesus would have you treat others.
Actually, the spirit of
Actually, the spirit of standing against eugenics is the empowerment of families over their own fertility. Contraception has more in common with resisting eugenics than eugenics itself. Humanae Vitae is absolutely wrong on embryology - and the excuse in Evangelicum Vitae that contraception cannot morally occur if we are uncertain when life begins is simply the Church continuing not to do its homework on when life begins. If the soul in some way guides the entity, then an entity that is only guided by maternal DNA does not have its own soul. Gastrulation must then be considered the start of life and ensoulment and there is no uncertainty about that. As far as the sexuality in Humanae Vitae, it is as flawed as most celibate teaching about sexuality. See Gary Wills article today in the New York Times today. He gives a very good summary of how it is flawed, going back to Aquinas and before.
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/feb/15/contraception-con-men/ is must reading.
This is Garry Wills writing
This is Garry Wills writing on this issue and IT IS very good.
The one aspect of Catholic
The one aspect of Catholic sexual ethics that is acceptable is the belief that family fecundity need not be restricted by economics - but rather society should accomodate fecundity decisions. It does border on Eugenics to say that the poor should restrict their family size based on their income, rather than mandating that employers and government increase these incomes if families can handle the workload of more children.
I find it interesting that no
I find it interesting that no objection is mounted for insurance companies and Catholic Institutions to cover erectile dysfuntion medications. Of course, what does that have to do with giving women some control over their sexual life.
Cardinal Carlo Martini
Cardinal Carlo Martini (Milan),a good friend of Pope Paul, clearly stated the following:
1. Jesus would never have written "Humanae Vitre"
and
2.In his book Cardinal Martini cites the "lies" and "damage" in the encylical
which has caused serious damage by prohibiting artifical contraception.The Cardinal goes on to accuse Pope Paul of deliberately concealing the truth and leaving it to theologians and pastors to fix things by adapting precepts to practice.
3. Cardinal Carlo Martini could of been named Pope and all this mess would be resolved.
peace
It seems to me after reading
It seems to me after reading all the comments concerning the issue of contraception and the HHC ruling, I haven't seen anything mentioned (maybe I missed it) about the importance of sexual intercourse in a committed loving relationship. Depending on ones age, sexual intercourse may be a frequent activity that a couple may engage in as part of a loving relationship. Human sexuality and healthy expression of that sexuality is at the foundation of who we are as human beings. Without the use of contraception, a tremendous strain would be placed on a loving relationship since that expression would be hampered by the desire not to become pregnant. If we value our sexuality as a God given gift we should be in a position to freely express that love. In the comments, some seem to think that contraception is used only by those who want to fool around. That reflects a poor understanding of our human sexuality. Unfortunately, limits have been placed on our sexuality by Church teachings which minimally recognize the profound importance of sexual intercourse in marriage or any other committed and loving relationship. It seems we have to be given permission by the clergy (imagine that).
If the Church wishes to protect religious liberty and the importance of them not having to violate their conscience, then I think we should be permitted to use our consciences to decide on how and when to use contraception. However I do agree with Sean Winters that our use of contraception should not be out of hubris, but out of love for another.
All of this may not change the discussion on the HHC ruling and the Bishops’ campaign against the compromise, but I believe that what I expressed above should be part of the dialogue.
Dear Mister Winters: Found
Dear Mister Winters:
Found your participation in the on-going discussions about the birth control legislations, and would like to try to turn your attention to the research which has been done in the last three decades in the field of the deadly barrier contraception and the resulting breast cancer epidemic in the country and worldwide. I believe that, from the suppressed background, this research partakes in the current discussions. In addition, I do believe that, ultimately, the conclusions from the on-going discussions would lead to a common awareness, greater respect of evidence, and a wider access to information (rather than legislation) of the root cause(s) of the primary (non-chemical, not-for-profit) prevention of breast cancer as an epidemic disease along the other, widespread, specific sex- (gender-) diseases in women and girls.
For your information and record, enclosed are references of the recent editions on subject matters:
♦ “Breast Cancer Hypothesis 1978: Shift of the Conceptual Framework.” Contributions (‘Prilozi’) Soc Biol Med Sci MASA, Dec 2011; XXXII, 2, 299-306. (Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts), Web: http://e20.manu.edu.mk/prilozi/22g.pdf
♦ "AIDS Changed America with the Twin Breast Cancer Epidemic: Exploring the Consequences of Condomization." Editor: Nancy Dumais, InTech, Vienna, Austria, Oct. 2011. Web:
http://www.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/aids-changed-america-with-...
♦ “Reproductive Health of Women: An Attempt to Define Breast Cancer Prevention.” Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences, 2010, June 15; 3(2): 169-179. Web:
http://www.mjms.ukim.edu.mk/Online/MJMS_2010_3_2/MJMS.1857-5773.2010-010...
♦ “Breast cancer risk assessment to barrier contraception exposure. A New Approach.” Contributions Soc Biol Med Sci MASA, 2009; XXX, 1, 217-233. (Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts), Web: http://e20.manu.edu.mk/prilozi/16ag.pdf
♦ “Anorexia and Bulimia Nervosa in Young Female Patients and Barrier Contraception Practice.” Asklepios, International Annual of History and Philosophy of Medicine (Sofia) 2009; Vol. III New series (Vol. XXII, Old series): pp. 97-108. (A digital pre-print could be available from the author.)
♦ “Breast Cancer: Rationale for an Etiologic Hypothesis. A Reappraisal of the Clinical, Experimental, and Theoretical Aspects of Neoplastic Processes, Pseudopregnancy Complex, and the Possible Role of the Seminal Prostaglandins.” University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, 1980, and Matica Mak. Publ., Skopje, 1996. (Submitted to Library of the U.S. Congress, 1996).
Arne N. Gjorgov, M.D., Ph.D. (UNC-SPH, Epidemiology, Chapel Hill, NC)
Author of ♦ “Barrier Contraception and Breast Cancer,” 1980: x+164
Karol Wojtyla, the future
Karol Wojtyla, the future pope, played a significant role in influencing Pope Paul VI to condemn artificial birth control, against the advice of the experts and the married with children.
That we are still having this debate with Catholic bishops is about as silly
as it gets. One might begin to think they have an agenda against both women and children, these bishops, who seem to spend entirely too much time thinking about who is doing what to whom and under what circumstance and not enough time getting their pedophile colleagues off the altars.
AW
Post new comment