Might the newly elected pope, widely seen as an archconservative traditionalist hostile to reform, be open to the possibility of allowing priests to marry?
Carpe Bonum links to an article in which then-Cardinal Ratzinger is quoted (about two-thirds of the way down the page) as saying that priestly celebacy is “not a dogma of the faith, but something that has grown in a human way and clearly contains the dangers for those who undertake it of a headlong fall.”
The quote is devoid of context, and it’s hard to tell exactly what it means. The article’s author says it suggests the new pontiff is “provokingly relaxed in regard to…the question of celibacy.” Carpe Bonum says this places Benedict “perhaps at odds with John Paul’s strong view” on the issue.
The post by Carpe Bonum (which I found via The Moderate Voice’s excellent roundup) re-affirms Benedict’s reputation as a hard-liner on other hot-button issues: abortion and euthanasia, homosexuality, female priests, etc. But the celibacy thing is tantalizing.
Dunno what, if anything, to make of it, though. We link, you decide.
|
Categories: The Pope & Catholicism
|
April 19th, 2005 at 11:58:04 pm
Brendan,
I wouldn’t read too much into what he said. It is true that priestly celebacy is not a dogma of the faith. It is a prudential judgment that has been made over time (and I think a very good one) within the Church. Because of the state we are in right now with a total misunderstanding on the part of most Catholics as to the nature of celibacy, the priesthood, and human sexuality in general, I don’t see it changing any time soon.
Women in the priesthood is a totally different matter. This could never change because of the very nature of Christ and the priestly office.
April 20th, 2005 at 12:17:22 am
I understand the fact that Americans, and to a lesser extent Europeans, find the issues of celibacy and female priests very interesting, but it’s getting kind of lame. We find these issues interesting because they’re easier for us to associate with–our own western values favor these types of initiatives. Moreover, American lay Catholics’ understanding of theology (for the most part) is limited at best, and woefully ignorant at worst. (I know mine is) And so it’s easy for us to have strong opinions on these issues. Sort of like when people play a lot of playstation and then think that they can coach better than the professionals.
But if you ask me, we should be more concerned with Benedict’s ability to address the concerns of the third world. The people of those nations are marginalized by their own governments and largely ignored by the rest of the world–often, their only solace comes from the religious. The Church can, if it wants, be an incredible source of hope for these people. It seems to me that this issue, as opposed to celibacy and female priests, is far more precient. And I pray (and believe) that our Holy Father and church leaders feel the same
April 20th, 2005 at 12:20:05 am
Hey ANL, or anyone who knows, I have a quetion about birth control. I understand no sex till marrige, and also understand discouraging the use of birth control because it makes sex outside of marriage easier to contemplate (excuse my generalizations, I want to get to the point). I still do not understand why a married woman using birth control to prevent having ten kids is not allowed. I know the argument for sex having to always be open to the possibility of life, hence no birth control even for a married couple. But I see an inconsistency, and you can perhaps explain to me why: If the female body naturally has a window of time where conception is not possible, because the body is not ovulating, and the Church (correct me if I am wrong) is ok with the woman planning around this window, measuring her body temperature and all that complicated stuff, and purposefully having sex when it is close to impossible to conceive, then why birth control is any different, except that it is not natural, but a chemical. Basically, if the idea of avoiding sex while ovulating and purposefully having sex when you cannot get pregnant is ok, then how is bc drastically different? The intent of “avoiding life” is there, and the small possibility of conception is also present with bc like the pill. If the issue is that bc is unnatural, that it is a medical advance that is problematic for the Church, then a myriad of medical practices and medicines and therapies would likewise be objectionable. I am sure people have been finding ways to avoid pregnancies since the first humans found out about how babies were made, and bc as we know it is new to us, but the idea of bc is not, so sexual revolution aside, bc is probably as old as people. Anyways, I have always wondered what the logic is behind the Church opposing bc within the context of marriage, so englighten me :)
April 20th, 2005 at 12:22:02 am
I was wondering if anyone would notice that.
Thanks for the link!
April 20th, 2005 at 12:26:14 am
If I might tack on a few additional “inconsistencies” to Bea’s question, the Church is also OK with sex after menopause and sex between infertile married people… which, again, would would seem to have all the same essential elements are married people having sex while on birth control…
Also, this becomes especially problematic when it comes to situations like Becky’s, which she described in some detail a few weeks ago, about how she needs to wean herself off of various medications before she can safely conceive a healthy child, and in the interim she will be most likely taking birth control for the first several years of our marriage. (Forgive me, ALN, if you already answered Becky’s question about that — I forget, and I’m too lazy to go find it right now, as I forget when/where she posted it.)
And, just to complicate things further, what is the Church’s condition on married women getting their “tubes tied” to prevent pregnancy altogether (e.g., if another childbirth could harm the mother, etc.) but continuing to have sex?
April 20th, 2005 at 12:30:08 am
I believe a commenter on Patrick’s blog answered this at length. I can’t say I was entirely satisfied with the answer, but it’s there nonetheless.
April 20th, 2005 at 12:35:14 am
I agree with the poster above me, about the issues American find pressing for the Catholic Church v. what the developing nations find important. Celibacy, women in the priesthood and the treatment of homosexuals are valid issues to ponder, and no doubt some people in the developing countries ponder these, but we have the luxury to talk about equality for women and homosexuals in the Church because we are not, as a society, wondering if we will be alive tomorrow. In places like Colombia (always goes back to my homeland I know :) the poverty of the displaced peasants, of those living in the slums created by urban sprawl, their role in ending the 40 year civil war, in helping those affected by it, is a bigger issue generally than “democratizing” the Church. Over the past several weeks, when Catholicism and the Pope have dominated the debate, I often stop back to reflect on how out of touch with the rest of the world the US (cafeteria) Catholics and non-Catholics alike are. On another post Brian was concerned about Ratzinger being a white European male and how that might be problematic for the communities of the “third world” (that was not exactly what you said but the jist of it I got from the post). I was thinking, well, most Colombians might not really care that he is a white guy, because it was expected, and the equal representation American idea is just not something intrinsic to the cultures of many dveloping nations. I mean, it is another world out there, a very different culture where an white guy is seen as part of tradition, and not like a slap on the face to the “third world” (nobody here has said that, but I think you get my point). I just wish we all bear in mind we are looking at the Church and the Papacy, and Ratzinger himself, through the American eyes tinted by our American culture, our values and our way of life, and extrapolating from that to what other cultures and other communities in other countries we have never even been to (in general, maybe all of you have visited developing nations, but not all Americans discussing this issue have).
April 20th, 2005 at 12:40:20 am
Here is a link to the discussion Brian mentioned: http://patrickdroach.blogspot.com/2005/01/thought-for-day-1-19-04.html
April 20th, 2005 at 12:42:07 am
Well, Brendan, I didn’t ask all those side questions because I was sticking to the basics, hoping someone would tackle my question :) Someone, I forget who or where, responded to Becky’s post that you mention, about the tube tying for risk to the mother, and they said that there was some flexibility in that respect. Somehow, I doubt the flexibility explanation, because if you allow them for one thing..
April 20th, 2005 at 12:43:47 am
Much of my dissatisfaction stems from my non-acceptance of the concept of ’sin’. Also, I like sex. So the explanation doesn’t hold in my world. But if you’re terminally Catholic, I suppose it might answer your questions.
April 20th, 2005 at 12:48:34 am
Yeah, having just followed Patrick’s link and read the commenter’s explanation there, it would seem that sex after menopause or between infertile married couples is fine because “nature itself has made them infertile,” but tube-tying could not possibly be OK, and there would certainly be no flexibility for birth control in Becky’s and my (post-December 30) situation.
Suffice it to say, I do not accept or agree with the logic (”the intention BEHIND contracepting, i.e., not wanting to have children when you can’t afford more, or something equivalent, can actually be morally GOOD, but this CAN NEVER CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE ACT ITSELF, which is ALWAYS evil.”), but I can see how it is internally consistent. Wrong, but internally consistent.
April 20th, 2005 at 12:53:28 am
Well, I had read that response at Patrick’s website before, and I an not satisfied with that explanation, as I do not see why they are moraly different, or I would not have asked again :) The whole “avoiding life” thing is still unclear to me.
The post Brendan is reffering to is a different one.
April 20th, 2005 at 12:59:38 am
Choosing not to act so as to cause a child to come to be is a different choice than…choosing an act known to be the cause of the child’s coming to be, and taking further, contraceptive, steps to prevent that outcome. Thus, the refraining from intercourse which is involved in [Natural Family Planning] does not involve the anti-procreative intention of contracepted intercourse. Neither do the acts of intercourse in which a couple engages during infertile periods have this intention. Nothing is done in any of them to render them infertile, since nature itself has made them infertile. The other goods of marriage (and sex) are quite legitimately pursued in these acts.
April 20th, 2005 at 1:05:10 am
What I meant, Brendan, is the post where Becky mentioned her situation with meds and having to be on bc until she is ready to stop the meds and get pregnant, and where she mentioned her mother’s bad pregnancy and the doctor recomending she have her tubes tied to avoid future pregnancie because it was risky and she already had three children, is a different post than the one linked by Patrick and which we are presently discussing and disagreeing with. However, I do not know which post it was to go back and find it, maybe Becky remembers. A poster then mentioned the flexibility thing which I do not buy.
April 20th, 2005 at 1:11:33 am
Oh, yeah. I didn’t mean to question or contradict that. I was just saying that THIS poster’s comments (the January one on Patrick’s blog, which he linked above and I quoted) would suggest that there is no flexibility. :)
April 20th, 2005 at 1:14:26 am
You did not mean to question or contradict [me]? Let’s keep it that way, I am alwayd right Mr. Loy :) Now, if only I could get Andrew to say those same words..
April 20th, 2005 at 1:18:12 am
LOL, far be it for me to contradict La Voz de la Razon!
As for the Infallibility of the Holy Bea, I think you’ll have a tough time getting your Protestant boy to accept that, but I say the sooner he does, the better. :)
April 20th, 2005 at 1:34:37 am
Hey, he went to Easter service with my whole family, parents, cousins, he even knew the songs the children’s choir was singing, it’s a start :)Then again, that is the weekend Jaime got back from Iraq so there was no way he could have refused a morning at Catholic mass with the crazy Colombians.
April 20th, 2005 at 3:18:42 am
If it is the case that Becky is on birth control for medical reasons, the teaching of the Church is that she should refrain from sex.
April 20th, 2005 at 4:58:04 am
Brendan,
I wouldn’t read too much into what he said. It is true that priestly celebacy is not a dogma of the faith. It is a prudential judgment that has been made over time (and I think a very good one) within the Church. Because of the state we are in right now with a total misunderstanding on the part of most Catholics as to the nature of celibacy, the priesthood, and human sexuality in general, I don’t see it changing any time soon.
Women in the priesthood is a totally different matter. This could never change because of the very nature of Christ and the priestly office.
April 20th, 2005 at 5:17:22 am
I understand the fact that Americans, and to a lesser extent Europeans, find the issues of celibacy and female priests very interesting, but it’s getting kind of lame. We find these issues interesting because they’re easier for us to associate with–our own western values favor these types of initiatives. Moreover, American lay Catholics’ understanding of theology (for the most part) is limited at best, and woefully ignorant at worst. (I know mine is) And so it’s easy for us to have strong opinions on these issues. Sort of like when people play a lot of playstation and then think that they can coach better than the professionals.
But if you ask me, we should be more concerned with Benedict’s ability to address the concerns of the third world. The people of those nations are marginalized by their own governments and largely ignored by the rest of the world–often, their only solace comes from the religious. The Church can, if it wants, be an incredible source of hope for these people. It seems to me that this issue, as opposed to celibacy and female priests, is far more precient. And I pray (and believe) that our Holy Father and church leaders feel the same
April 20th, 2005 at 5:20:05 am
Hey ANL, or anyone who knows, I have a quetion about birth control. I understand no sex till marrige, and also understand discouraging the use of birth control because it makes sex outside of marriage easier to contemplate (excuse my generalizations, I want to get to the point). I still do not understand why a married woman using birth control to prevent having ten kids is not allowed. I know the argument for sex having to always be open to the possibility of life, hence no birth control even for a married couple. But I see an inconsistency, and you can perhaps explain to me why: If the female body naturally has a window of time where conception is not possible, because the body is not ovulating, and the Church (correct me if I am wrong) is ok with the woman planning around this window, measuring her body temperature and all that complicated stuff, and purposefully having sex when it is close to impossible to conceive, then why birth control is any different, except that it is not natural, but a chemical. Basically, if the idea of avoiding sex while ovulating and purposefully having sex when you cannot get pregnant is ok, then how is bc drastically different? The intent of “avoiding life” is there, and the small possibility of conception is also present with bc like the pill. If the issue is that bc is unnatural, that it is a medical advance that is problematic for the Church, then a myriad of medical practices and medicines and therapies would likewise be objectionable. I am sure people have been finding ways to avoid pregnancies since the first humans found out about how babies were made, and bc as we know it is new to us, but the idea of bc is not, so sexual revolution aside, bc is probably as old as people. Anyways, I have always wondered what the logic is behind the Church opposing bc within the context of marriage, so englighten me :)
April 20th, 2005 at 5:22:02 am
I was wondering if anyone would notice that.
Thanks for the link!
April 20th, 2005 at 5:26:14 am
If I might tack on a few additional “inconsistencies” to Bea’s question, the Church is also OK with sex after menopause and sex between infertile married people… which, again, would would seem to have all the same essential elements are married people having sex while on birth control…
Also, this becomes especially problematic when it comes to situations like Becky’s, which she described in some detail a few weeks ago, about how she needs to wean herself off of various medications before she can safely conceive a healthy child, and in the interim she will be most likely taking birth control for the first several years of our marriage. (Forgive me, ALN, if you already answered Becky’s question about that — I forget, and I’m too lazy to go find it right now, as I forget when/where she posted it.)
And, just to complicate things further, what is the Church’s condition on married women getting their “tubes tied” to prevent pregnancy altogether (e.g., if another childbirth could harm the mother, etc.) but continuing to have sex?
April 20th, 2005 at 5:30:08 am
I believe a commenter on Patrick’s blog answered this at length. I can’t say I was entirely satisfied with the answer, but it’s there nonetheless.
April 20th, 2005 at 5:35:14 am
I agree with the poster above me, about the issues American find pressing for the Catholic Church v. what the developing nations find important. Celibacy, women in the priesthood and the treatment of homosexuals are valid issues to ponder, and no doubt some people in the developing countries ponder these, but we have the luxury to talk about equality for women and homosexuals in the Church because we are not, as a society, wondering if we will be alive tomorrow. In places like Colombia (always goes back to my homeland I know :) the poverty of the displaced peasants, of those living in the slums created by urban sprawl, their role in ending the 40 year civil war, in helping those affected by it, is a bigger issue generally than “democratizing” the Church. Over the past several weeks, when Catholicism and the Pope have dominated the debate, I often stop back to reflect on how out of touch with the rest of the world the US (cafeteria) Catholics and non-Catholics alike are. On another post Brian was concerned about Ratzinger being a white European male and how that might be problematic for the communities of the “third world” (that was not exactly what you said but the jist of it I got from the post). I was thinking, well, most Colombians might not really care that he is a white guy, because it was expected, and the equal representation American idea is just not something intrinsic to the cultures of many dveloping nations. I mean, it is another world out there, a very different culture where an white guy is seen as part of tradition, and not like a slap on the face to the “third world” (nobody here has said that, but I think you get my point). I just wish we all bear in mind we are looking at the Church and the Papacy, and Ratzinger himself, through the American eyes tinted by our American culture, our values and our way of life, and extrapolating from that to what other cultures and other communities in other countries we have never even been to (in general, maybe all of you have visited developing nations, but not all Americans discussing this issue have).
April 20th, 2005 at 5:40:20 am
Here is a link to the discussion Brian mentioned: http://patrickdroach.blogspot.com/2005/01/thought-for-day-1-19-04.html
April 20th, 2005 at 5:42:07 am
Well, Brendan, I didn’t ask all those side questions because I was sticking to the basics, hoping someone would tackle my question :) Someone, I forget who or where, responded to Becky’s post that you mention, about the tube tying for risk to the mother, and they said that there was some flexibility in that respect. Somehow, I doubt the flexibility explanation, because if you allow them for one thing..
April 20th, 2005 at 5:43:47 am
Much of my dissatisfaction stems from my non-acceptance of the concept of ’sin’. Also, I like sex. So the explanation doesn’t hold in my world. But if you’re terminally Catholic, I suppose it might answer your questions.
April 20th, 2005 at 5:48:34 am
Yeah, having just followed Patrick’s link and read the commenter’s explanation there, it would seem that sex after menopause or between infertile married couples is fine because “nature itself has made them infertile,” but tube-tying could not possibly be OK, and there would <i>certainly</i> be no flexibility for birth control in Becky’s and my (post-December 30) situation.
Suffice it to say, I do not accept or agree with the logic (”the intention BEHIND contracepting, i.e., not wanting to have children when you can’t afford more, or something equivalent, can actually be morally GOOD, but this CAN NEVER CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE ACT ITSELF, which is ALWAYS evil.”), but I can see how it is internally consistent. Wrong, but internally consistent.
April 20th, 2005 at 5:53:28 am
Well, I had read that response at Patrick’s website before, and I an not satisfied with that explanation, as I do not see why they are moraly different, or I would not have asked again :) The whole “avoiding life” thing is still unclear to me.
The post Brendan is reffering to is a different one.
April 20th, 2005 at 5:59:38 am
<i>Choosing not to act so as to cause a child to come to be is a different choice than…choosing an act known to be the cause of the child’s coming to be, and taking further, contraceptive, steps to prevent that outcome. Thus, the refraining from intercourse which is involved in [Natural Family Planning] does not involve the anti-procreative intention of contracepted intercourse. Neither do the acts of intercourse in which a couple engages during infertile periods have this intention. Nothing is done in any of them to render them infertile, since nature itself has made them infertile. The other goods of marriage (and sex) are quite legitimately pursued in these acts.</i>
April 20th, 2005 at 6:05:10 am
What I meant, Brendan, is the post where Becky mentioned her situation with meds and having to be on bc until she is ready to stop the meds and get pregnant, and where she mentioned her mother’s bad pregnancy and the doctor recomending she have her tubes tied to avoid future pregnancie because it was risky and she already had three children, is a different post than the one linked by Patrick and which we are presently discussing and disagreeing with. However, I do not know which post it was to go back and find it, maybe Becky remembers. A poster then mentioned the flexibility thing which I do not buy.
April 20th, 2005 at 6:11:33 am
Oh, yeah. I didn’t mean to question or contradict that. I was just saying that THIS poster’s comments (the January one on Patrick’s blog, which he linked above and I quoted) would suggest that there is no flexibility. :)
April 20th, 2005 at 6:14:26 am
You did not mean to question or contradict [me]? Let’s keep it that way, I am alwayd right Mr. Loy :) Now, if only I could get Andrew to say those same words..
April 20th, 2005 at 6:18:12 am
LOL, far be it for me to contradict La Voz de la Razon!
As for the <b>Infallibility of the Holy Bea</b>, I think you’ll have a tough time getting your Protestant boy to accept that, but I say the sooner he does, the better. :)
April 20th, 2005 at 6:34:37 am
Hey, he went to Easter service with my whole family, parents, cousins, he even knew the songs the children’s choir was singing, it’s a start :)Then again, that is the weekend Jaime got back from Iraq so there was no way he could have refused a morning at Catholic mass with the crazy Colombians.
April 20th, 2005 at 8:18:42 am
If it is the case that Becky is on birth control for medical reasons, the teaching of the Church is that she should refrain from sex.
April 20th, 2005 at 8:22:48 am
So married people who are on birth control for non-contraceptive medical reasons are required to have sexless marriages… great.
Becky’s situation is a bit different. She will be on birth control for the foreseeable future (i.e., the first several years of our marriage) because, due to the other medications she is on, any child we would conceive would have an extremely high risk of horrible birth defects. She hopes to eventually come off these medications so that we can have kids, but that will be an extremely delicate thing that can’t happen until we’re in a much more stable situation in our lives. So in the mean time, even once we’re married, the Church’s teaching (correct me if I’m wrong) would be that we must either refrain from sex (see: “sexless marriage,” above) or practice the rhythm method (a.k.a. “the least reliable method of birth control”) and hope for the best.
Sorry, but that’s just not good enough. The notion that I would be sinning by having sex with my wife, or that she would be sinning by using RELIABLE methods of family planning when said planning is essential to prevent us from bringing a child into the world whose life would be a living hell due to horrible birth defects, is ludicrous.
That’s just my opinion, of course, I’m not saying other people aren’t entitled to that belief. But *I* think it’s ludicrous.
April 20th, 2005 at 9:47:26 am
Brendan,
Actually, I’m not so much concerned about the life of a deformed child brought into this world as I am with the potential problems of birth and delivery with an abnormal kid. While we have the advantages of modern medicine on our side, nature still rules the day in the end.
I find the contention that the rhythm method is somehow not a specific strategy to avoid conceiving children quite laughable despite any intelligent circumlocution to the contrary. I know a couple who has successfully used the rhythm method for a few years now, but they use it specifically to prevent the conception of a baby. AND, they did not stop using other methods of protection until they were married.
Anyway, I also find it obscene that anyone would tell me not to have sex with my husband because I take birth control. IMO, God gave me to him and him to me. Why would anyone on birth control even bother to get married if we’re committing some heinous sin by having sex with our spouse? I mean, a lot of Catholics get married just to have sex; look at the Mormons with similar beliefs on the matter and you’ll see exactly what I mean.
Sex serves a greater purpose that just procreation. It is a integral part in a healthy romantic relationship.
To dramatically change the subject, I reiterate my notion that celibacy and the gender of priests will eventually change. However, I think it is misguided to say that because the third world is suffering and poor, the politics of the church hierarchy aren’t as significant as other services provided by the church. Fact is, without some change in the nature of the priesthood, the Catholic church is going to have serious trouble staffing churches throughout the world. Universally, and particularly in Europe, the priesthood is numerically declining. Clearly, without priests, who are akin to grassroots shepherds of the church, everyone will suffer and particularly those in poor countries where an active church is a source of support and guidance.
Aside from the fact that I think Ratzinger (err, uh Benedict the 16th) is a bit scary and quite old, any judgement of his potential action seems premature. I certainly hope that he will be guided by a higher power.
And my parting shot: I think that several people who post on the blog need to give a minute or two of thought to the role of church reformers and revisionists who seek change in the rituals and structures of the church. If I may rather ineptly say, Jesus was a dramatic reformer Himself. Clearly, there should be a place for dissent and discussion and perhaps, if warranted, change.
April 20th, 2005 at 9:51:57 am
Certainly, Brendan, you are entitled to believe and practice as you wish (and knowing you, you will :D ). But here is the flaw in your argument (and that of many in America) in the eyes of Church teaching: You don’t have an inalienable right to have sex. Our sexuality is a gift from God, and a very powerful one, but (at the risk of a bad movie reference here) with great power comes great responsibility.
I can empathize with your position, as does the Church (although you might not believe it) and the Lord, certainly your goals are laudable. You seek to share God’s gift with your wife and you seek to do so in a responsible way. But however well meaning your goal is, it still starts with what is considerd to be a sinful act. I wish I coudl better articulate the Church’s teaching on this, but for that I suggest you read the book i have referenced before, “Good News About Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West.
I hope you understand that I personally am not trying to pass judgement on you or anyone else here (let he who is without sin…), I’m merely trying to explain why the Church is so firm in teaching what it does regarding sex and contraception.
April 20th, 2005 at 9:59:22 am
If I might pre-emptively take issue with one of your points, Becky…
Why would anyone on birth control even bother to get married if we’re committing some heinous sin by having sex with our spouse?
According to Catholic doctrine (as I understand it), being on birth control for contraceptive purposes is a heinous sin the first place. It isn’t like you’re not sinning, and then suddenly you have sex with your spouse and THEN you’re sinning. You’re sinning the whole entire time. The only exception would be if you’re on birth control for non-contraceptive medical purposes; in that case, I would agree with you.
I would also like to point out that “I know a couple who has successfully used the rhythm method for a few years now” is not exactly helpful to my argument that the rhythm method is the “least effective method of birth control.” :) However, the statistics bear me out. Percentage chance of getting pregnant during the course of a year while using a given method, according to the Nemours Foundation:
Consistent Abstinence: 0%
Birth Control Pill: 5-8%
Condom: 15%
Rhythm Method: 25%
Coitus Interruptus: 27%
No Birth Control: 85%
So, if Becky and I have sex while married, and use the Rhythm Method, the chances she will get pregnant are three to five times greater using the Rhythm Method than using The Pill. That’s three to five times the likelihood of a child born with horrible birth defects, a problematic childbirth that would risk Becky’s life, etc. … and all because the Catholic Church has some arbitrary belief that artificial (read: effective) birth control is “OBJECTIVELY EVIL” while natural (read: ineffective) birth control is okay. Sorry, not buying it.
April 20th, 2005 at 10:05:38 am
David, you’ve hit the nail on the head, I guess, in the sense that I do, in fact, believe that I have an inalienable right to have sex with my wife, provided of course that she consents.
Is it a God-given right? Sure. Is sexuality a gift from God? Sure. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s ridiculous to say I can’t have sex with my wife.
“With great power comes great responsibility”? Indeed — the power to bring children into the world entails the responsibility to take proactive steps to make sure I’m not conceiving children whose lives will be tarnished by horrible birth defects! According to you/the Church, my options are “natural” birth control (not sufficiently effective) or consistently abstaining from sex with my wife for several years (ludicrous).
I simply don’t believe God intended people to be forced into sexless marriages by medical conditions combined with arbitary doctrines. I think Catholic doctrine is wrong on this one.
April 20th, 2005 at 10:08:50 am
“You don’t have an inalienable right to have sex.”
Yes I do. I am an animal genetically programmed to procreate.
Even outside of that, in America (as you state that many of us in America take this as a flawed premise), we do, in fact, have this right. While not binding as law, certainly as an expression of the American spirit we are entitled to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I think that all three satisfy the requirement here.
If you insist on actual law, the First Amendment does grant us the right to assemble. If that’s not assembling, I don’t know what is. :)
April 20th, 2005 at 10:27:55 am
Dave, I would buy Mr. West’s book, but I’m still waiting for my catechism. ;)
April 20th, 2005 at 1:07:33 pm
What I wonder is what the Church is going to do when it is more widely publicized that the rhythm method is not effective at all. I recently read about a study where they monitored the ovulation of a group of women. In the group, 100% were capable of ovulating at least twice in their cycle. Some were even capable of ovulating more than that. So therefore, there really is no safe time to have sex. If I can find the study again, I’ll post a link up here.
April 20th, 2005 at 1:22:48 pm
So married people who are on birth control for non-contraceptive medical reasons are required to have sexless marriages… great.
Becky’s situation is a bit different. She will be on birth control for the foreseeable future (i.e., the first several years of our marriage) because, due to the other medications she is on, any child we would conceive would have an extremely high risk of horrible birth defects. She hopes to eventually come off these medications so that we can have kids, but that will be an extremely delicate thing that can’t happen until we’re in a much more stable situation in our lives. So in the mean time, even once we’re married, the Church’s teaching (correct me if I’m wrong) would be that we must either refrain from sex (see: “sexless marriage,” above) or practice the rhythm method (a.k.a. “the least reliable method of birth control”) and hope for the best.
Sorry, but that’s just not good enough. The notion that I would be sinning by having sex with my wife, or that she would be sinning by using RELIABLE methods of family planning when said planning is <i>essential</i> to prevent us from bringing a child into the world whose life would be a living hell due to horrible birth defects, is ludicrous.
That’s just my opinion, of course, I’m not saying other people aren’t entitled to that belief. But *I* think it’s ludicrous.
April 20th, 2005 at 1:40:24 pm
Brendan,
I certainly respect your right to your view, but I think if you researched it you’d find that the Catholic teaching on BC isn’t so arbitrary. Granted you might not agree with it any more than you do now.
Brian,
I don’t know why you feel you have to chime in your $0.02 on every religious argument, but in this case (and i think in many others) you are completely missing the point. We aren’t discussing the mundane legality of having sex, we are talking about the God given right to have sex.
Yes I do. I am an animal genetically programmed to procreate.
*sigh* Just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD do it. Not to mention that God calls us to act above those baser instincts anyway.
Listen, we all get that you have a pretty disdainful view of religion, fine, its not your cup of tea. But when we are discussing the RELGIOUS aspects of teachings on sex and marriage it is utterly irrelavent to bring up the MUNDANE and SECULAR views that you have.
Its like going to a Star Trek convention to talk about Star Wars science, no one there cares.
April 20th, 2005 at 1:58:49 pm
I still have the same question about the intent to avoid life. David, anyone? This is from my post above:
I still do not understand why a married woman using birth control to prevent having ten kids or sick kids is not allowed. I know the argument for sex having to always be open to the possibility of life, hence no birth control even for a married couple. But I see an inconsistency, and you can perhaps explain to me why: If the female body naturally has a window of time where conception is not possible, because the body is not ovulating, and the Church is ok with the woman planning around this window and purposefully having sex when it is close to impossible to conceive, then why birth control is any different, except that it is not natural, but a chemical. Basically, if the idea of avoiding sex while ovulating and purposefully having sex when you cannot get pregnant is ok, then how is bc drastically different? The intent of “avoiding life” is there.
April 20th, 2005 at 1:59:11 pm
Oh, I’m sorry, is this not a discussion forum? Would you rather have an echo chamber just to hear your own voice?
In any case, I comment on non-religious stuff as well. But the religious topics grab my attention because of the changing historical role of religion in our society. I find it interesting, that’s all, and as I have a firm position, I speak it.
Just because we all know you’re religious doesn’t make your points any less worth hearing.
April 20th, 2005 at 2:28:56 pm
I think David has a point. Brendan and David are discussing sec within the context of the Catholic Church. David’s comment about the right to have sex etc, is within the contex of the Catholic Church, as Brendan and I are asking questions about birth control and sex in the eyes of the Church and how sex and bc relate to Catholic teachings. So, to that extent, discussing secular sex is, well, not as on topic, if you will. Since I am still looking for an answer on the intent of avoiding life through natural as opposed to articial means, I would encourage us to stay on topic until I get my question answered :) Selfish, sure, but I want an explanation!
April 20th, 2005 at 2:29:45 pm
I could be crass, and say it’s just because they want more Catholics. I’d also also argue that there are probably better ways of accomplishing the goal…
April 20th, 2005 at 2:47:26 pm
Brendan,
Actually, I’m not so much concerned about the life of a deformed child brought into this world as I am with the potential problems of birth and delivery with an abnormal kid. While we have the advantages of modern medicine on our side, nature still rules the day in the end.
I find the contention that the rhythm method is somehow not a specific strategy to avoid conceiving children quite laughable despite any intelligent circumlocution to the contrary. I know a couple who has successfully used the rhythm method for a few years now, but they use it specifically to prevent the conception of a baby. AND, they did not stop using other methods of protection until they were married.
Anyway, I also find it obscene that anyone would tell me not to have sex with my husband because I take birth control. IMO, God gave me to him and him to me. Why would anyone on birth control even bother to get married if we’re committing some heinous sin by having sex with our spouse? I mean, a lot of Catholics get married just to have sex; look at the Mormons with similar beliefs on the matter and you’ll see exactly what I mean.
Sex serves a greater purpose that just procreation. It is a integral part in a healthy romantic relationship.
To dramatically change the subject, I reiterate my notion that celibacy and the gender of priests will eventually change. However, I think it is misguided to say that because the third world is suffering and poor, the politics of the church hierarchy aren’t as significant as other services provided by the church. Fact is, without some change in the nature of the priesthood, the Catholic church is going to have serious trouble staffing churches throughout the world. Universally, and particularly in Europe, the priesthood is numerically declining. Clearly, without priests, who are akin to grassroots shepherds of the church, everyone will suffer and particularly those in poor countries where an active church is a source of support and guidance.
Aside from the fact that I think Ratzinger (err, uh Benedict the 16th) is a bit scary and quite old, any judgement of his potential action seems premature. I certainly hope that he will be guided by a higher power.
And my parting shot: I think that several people who post on the blog need to give a minute or two of thought to the role of church reformers and revisionists who seek change in the rituals and structures of the church. If I may rather ineptly say, Jesus was a dramatic reformer Himself. Clearly, there should be a place for dissent and discussion and perhaps, if warranted, change.
April 20th, 2005 at 2:51:57 pm
Certainly, Brendan, you are entitled to believe and practice as you wish (and knowing you, you will :D ). But here is the flaw in your argument (and that of many in America) in the eyes of Church teaching: <b>You don’t have an inalienable right to have sex.</b> Our sexuality is a gift from God, and a very powerful one, but (at the risk of a bad movie reference here) with great power comes great responsibility.
I can empathize with your position, as does the Church (although you might not believe it) and the Lord, certainly your goals are laudable. You seek to share God’s gift with your wife and you seek to do so in a responsible way. But however well meaning your goal is, it still starts with what is considerd to be a sinful act. I wish I coudl better articulate the Church’s teaching on this, but for that I suggest you read the book i have referenced before, <a href=”http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0867166193/qid=1114004663/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/104-9627856-0825562″>”Good News About Sex and Marriage”</a> by Christopher West.
I hope you understand that I personally am not trying to pass judgement on you or anyone else here (let he who is without sin…), I’m merely trying to explain why the Church is so firm in teaching what it does regarding sex and contraception.
April 20th, 2005 at 2:59:22 pm
If I might pre-emptively take issue with one of your points, Becky…
<i>Why would anyone on birth control even bother to get married if we’re committing some heinous sin by having sex with our spouse?</i>
According to Catholic doctrine (as I understand it), being on birth control for contraceptive purposes is a heinous sin the first place. It isn’t like you’re not sinning, and then suddenly you have sex with your spouse and THEN you’re sinning. You’re sinning the whole entire time. The only exception would be if you’re on birth control for <i>non-contraceptive</i> medical purposes; in that case, I would agree with you.
I would also like to point out that “I know a couple who has successfully used the rhythm method for a few years now” is not exactly helpful to my argument that the rhythm method is the “least effective method of birth control.” :) However, the statistics bear me out. <a href=”http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/bc_chart.html”>Percentage chance</a> of getting pregnant during the course of a year while using a given method, according to the Nemours Foundation:
Consistent Abstinence: <b>0%</b>
Birth Control Pill: <b>5-8%</b>
Condom: <b>15%</b>
Rhythm Method: <b>25%</b>
<i>Coitus Interruptus</i>: <b>27%</b>
No Birth Control: <b>85%</b>
So, if Becky and I have sex while married, and use the Rhythm Method, the chances she will get pregnant are three to five times greater using the Rhythm Method than using The Pill. That’s three to five times the likelihood of a child born with horrible birth defects, a problematic childbirth that would risk Becky’s life, etc. … and all because the Catholic Church has some arbitrary belief that artificial (read: effective) birth control is “OBJECTIVELY EVIL” while natural (read: ineffective) birth control is okay. Sorry, not buying it.
April 20th, 2005 at 3:05:38 pm
David, you’ve hit the nail on the head, I guess, in the sense that <i>I do, in fact, believe that I have an inalienable right to have sex with <b>my wife</b></i>, provided of course that she consents.
Is it a God-given right? Sure. Is sexuality a gift from God? Sure. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s ridiculous to say I can’t have sex with my wife.
“With great power comes great responsibility”? Indeed — the power to bring children into the world entails the responsibility to take proactive steps to make sure I’m not conceiving children whose lives will be tarnished by horrible birth defects! According to you/the Church, my options are “natural” birth control (not sufficiently effective) or consistently abstaining from sex with my wife for several years (ludicrous).
I simply don’t believe God intended people to be forced into sexless marriages by medical conditions combined with arbitary doctrines. I think Catholic doctrine is wrong on this one.
April 20th, 2005 at 3:08:50 pm
“<i>You don’t have an inalienable right to have sex.</i>”
Yes I do. I am an animal genetically programmed to procreate.
Even outside of that, in America (as you state that many of us in America take this as a flawed premise), we do, in fact, have this right. While not binding as law, certainly as an expression of the American spirit we are entitled to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I think that all three satisfy the requirement here.
If you insist on actual law, the First Amendment does grant us the right to assemble. If that’s not assembling, I don’t know what is. :)
April 20th, 2005 at 3:08:50 pm
Bea, I have some thoughts but have to go meet my mom for lunch, so I’ll answer when I get back.
April 20th, 2005 at 3:27:55 pm
Dave, I would buy Mr. West’s book, but I’m still waiting for my catechism. ;)
April 20th, 2005 at 4:30:33 pm
David, you are always running off to work/sleep/lunch when I need answers! :) Moms come first no doubt, you are excused :)
April 20th, 2005 at 6:01:01 pm
Bea, here’s your answer, in as far as I know it.
The difference in the eyes the Church, is that birth control is taking active measures to work against God’s natural procreative gifts. By taking birth control you are causing yourself not to get pregnant when you normally could, or in some cases causing the pregnancy to abort at a very early stage. When you plan around the fertile time each month you are not taking action to STOP the procreative process. You aren’t stopping the natural fertilization act. I know that is not as clear an answer as I would like to give, seriously Bea I think you would really enjoy the book i have mentioned, its like $8 and not very long of a read at all. I think it would answer alot of your questions, and maybe Andrew’s too, about Catholic teaching. It might not change your mind, but atleast you’d understand where the Church is coming from.
I also think that one of the posts over at Patrick’s blog is relevant. The poster commented how two acts whose end goal is one thing don’t necessarilly have the same morality attached to them. For example say I want a new computer. I can get a job and work to earn the money or I can rob someones house to get the money. Obviously the latter example is immoral and the former isn’t, even though they have the same end goal.
April 20th, 2005 at 6:04:13 pm
Brian, I’m not looking for an echo chamber at all, but as has been pointed out you wandered into a topic and started discussing something irrelavent to the topic at hand, in what I see, as another attempt to try and attack organized religion. But even if thats not the case, saying I’m not open to discussion just doesn’t make sense.
If we are having a discussion about football and you come in in the middle to say “I like golf!” I don’t think we would be out of line for telling you what you can do with your golf clubs :D
April 20th, 2005 at 6:07:33 pm
What I wonder is what the Church is going to do when it is more widely publicized that the rhythm method is not effective at all. I recently read about a study where they monitored the ovulation of a group of women. In the group, 100% were capable of ovulating at least twice in their cycle. Some were even capable of ovulating more than that. So therefore, there really is no safe time to have sex. If I can find the study again, I’ll post a link up here.
April 20th, 2005 at 6:36:50 pm
Thank you for responding David.
I have read the different morality behind the same goal argument you speak of, but I am speaking of intent. The end of goal of avoiding pregnancy is the same, but the intent is also to avoid pregnancy, what is different, to me, is the method, and not the intent, which is to avoid life. It so happens that the natural way ir moral and the medical/bc way is not moral. So intent and outcome and goal are the same, method is different, and the morality lies in the method. So, this is why I feel the job/theft for a computer analogy is not fully accurate. The natural fertilization act is stopped by bc but, many natural acts are stopped and changed by meds. So, I see an inconsistency in calling the an act moral, while calling the same act with the same intent and same outcome not moral, based on the method, unless we can also discount all other artificial methods of doing stuff. Sorry if I am too tedious, I like to break down arguments, the philosopher in me :)
April 20th, 2005 at 6:40:24 pm
Brendan,
I certainly respect your right to your view, but I think if you researched it you’d find that the Catholic teaching on BC isn’t so arbitrary. Granted you might not agree with it any more than you do now.
Brian,
I don’t know why you feel you have to chime in your $0.02 on every religious argument, but in this case (and i think in many others) you are completely missing the point. We aren’t discussing the mundane legality of having sex, we are talking about the God given right to have sex.
<i>Yes I do. I am an animal genetically programmed to procreate. </i>
*sigh* Just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD do it. Not to mention that God calls us to act above those baser instincts anyway.
Listen, we all get that you have a pretty disdainful view of religion, fine, its not your cup of tea. But when we are discussing the RELGIOUS aspects of teachings on sex and marriage it is utterly irrelavent to bring up the MUNDANE and SECULAR views that you have.
Its like going to a Star Trek convention to talk about Star Wars science, no one there cares.
April 20th, 2005 at 6:55:46 pm
One small correction . . . natural family planning does not equal the rhythm method. Natural family planning has an effectiveness rate upward of 90%.
And, Brendan, it seems that the fundamental difference of belief is that within the Catholic sacrament of marriage you are not to take steps that will make conception impossible. In every single sex act (even those undertaken during infertile periods) must be undertaken with an attitude of openness to conception. For Catholics, while it may desirable or convenient to avoid conception, it is *never* “absolutely essential.”
April 20th, 2005 at 6:58:23 pm
PS — I wrote a whole bunch last night about this but posting was disabled. Suffice it to say that natural methods of birth control do require self-control and abstention during fertile periods of the woman’s cycle.
And if you read Catholic sexual ethics closely, there are many ways that even non-contraceptive sex with your wife can be sinful. Theology of the Body will really knock you on your ass on that point.
April 20th, 2005 at 6:58:49 pm
I still have the same question about the intent to avoid life. David, anyone? This is from my post above:
I still do not understand why a married woman using birth control to prevent having ten kids or sick kids is not allowed. I know the argument for sex having to always be open to the possibility of life, hence no birth control even for a married couple. But I see an inconsistency, and you can perhaps explain to me why: If the female body naturally has a window of time where conception is not possible, because the body is not ovulating, and the Church is ok with the woman planning around this window and purposefully having sex when it is close to impossible to conceive, then why birth control is any different, except that it is not natural, but a chemical. Basically, if the idea of avoiding sex while ovulating and purposefully having sex when you cannot get pregnant is ok, then how is bc drastically different? The intent of “avoiding life” is there.
April 20th, 2005 at 6:59:11 pm
Oh, I’m sorry, is this not a discussion forum? Would you rather have an echo chamber just to hear your own voice?
In any case, I comment on non-religious stuff as well. But the religious topics grab my attention because of the changing historical role of religion in our society. I find it interesting, that’s all, and as I have a firm position, I speak it.
Just because we all know you’re religious doesn’t make your points any less worth hearing.
April 20th, 2005 at 7:28:56 pm
I think David has a point. Brendan and David are discussing sec within the context of the Catholic Church. David’s comment about the right to have sex etc, is within the contex of the Catholic Church, as Brendan and I are asking questions about birth control and sex in the eyes of the Church and how sex and bc relate to Catholic teachings. So, to that extent, discussing secular sex is, well, not as on topic, if you will. Since I am still looking for an answer on the intent of avoiding life through natural as opposed to articial means, I would encourage us to stay on topic until I get my question answered :) Selfish, sure, but I want an explanation!
April 20th, 2005 at 7:29:45 pm
I could be crass, and say it’s just because they want more Catholics. I’d also also argue that there are probably better ways of accomplishing the goal…
April 20th, 2005 at 8:08:50 pm
Bea, I have some thoughts but have to go meet my mom for lunch, so I’ll answer when I get back.
April 20th, 2005 at 9:16:22 pm
I will never agree with the Catholic teaching on birth control. I am not going to even bother to read about non bc sex being sinful because I just diagree with the whole openess to life argument, and abstaining from sex while married is unacceptable for me, so I will skip the book.
That said, I want to learn about the specific aspect of bc I am asking about. Two questions: What is the difference between natural family planning and the rythym method? I am not familiar with this difference. Also, back to my intent to avoid life question, Kate says within the Catholic sacrament of marriage you are not to take steps that will make conception impossible… every single sex act (even those undertaken during infertile periods) must be undertaken with an attitude of openness to conception. Well, clearly, people who plan to have sex while infertile have the intent to avoid a pregnancy. So, accoridng to what kate just said, they just violated Catholic teaching. So, they are open to the idea of getting pregnant on accident and being happy with the baby? Well, many married couples would not be devastated by an “accident” while on bc, and would happily welcome the baby. See, I fail to see the difference that makes it clear to some of you, bewteen the intent behind bc and behind natural planning. I will never understand the reasoning behind bc being sinful in the contect of marriage until what I perceive to be an inconsistency is clarified to me. I might not agree with the argument then, but I will understand it. As I see it now, it is inconsistent. I am done with this topic, nobody has an answer for me, which leads me to believe there just is no answer.
April 20th, 2005 at 9:30:33 pm
David, you are always running off to work/sleep/lunch when I need answers! :) Moms come first no doubt, you are excused :)
April 20th, 2005 at 10:05:02 pm
I will never agree with the Catholic teaching on birth control. I am not going to even bother to read about non bc sex being sinful because I just diagree with the whole openess to life argument, and abstaining from sex while married is unacceptable for me, so I will skip the book.
I have no problem with people who disagree with something, but I think its absolutely ludicrous to flat out say, I don’t agree with it and I’m not even going to look into what the teaching is into the first place. Thats like me saying I disagree with Mike about biology without having studied biology.
Catholocism isn’t a pick and choose faith, but even if it was the very LEAST you could do is actually learn why the Church teaches what it does before you say you disagree with it. Anything else is blind fanaticism.
April 20th, 2005 at 10:33:02 pm
So, they are open to the idea of getting pregnant on accident and being happy with the baby?
Yep! You’ve got it. In fact, openness to conception in each sex act is essential to the sacramental validity of a Catholic marriage.
And on the abstinence thing . . . my favorite college professor started the first day of our sexual ethics class by saying “Okay . . . so, how many times a month do you think you’ll have sex when you’re married? I guess . . . *maybe* twice. If you’re lucky.” He went on to talk about his next door neighbors who are both lawyers who leave the house before dawn and return well after dark. “With that schedule,” he said, “how much energy do you think you would have when you got home?” Part of the reason the Church encourages married couples to observe regulra periods of abstinence from sex is for the *benefit* of the marriage. And other reasons, of course.
But what’s more troublesome to me is your rejection of the idea that a married sex act could ever be immoral. Spouses objectify one another all the time and coerce each other to have sex even when the other doesn’t want to. Then again, it doesn’t even have to go that far . . . when he was Karol Cardinal Wojtyla, JP the G wrote a book called Love and Responsibility where he suggested that a sex act in which the partners do not attempt to achieve simultaneous climax is immoral. Chew on *that*.
April 20th, 2005 at 10:41:57 pm
Perhaps I should clarify.
If someone is going to consider themself Catholic and then going to dismiss out of hand a fundemental teaching of the Church without even a willingness to consider the reasons for that teaching, I think thats dead wrong. If after researching the issue and examining your conscience you still disagree then I could atleast respect that, but to not even consider it?
April 20th, 2005 at 11:01:01 pm
Bea, here’s your answer, in as far as I know it.
The difference in the eyes the Church, is that birth control is taking active measures to work against God’s natural procreative gifts. By taking birth control you are causing yourself not to get pregnant when you normally could, or in some cases causing the pregnancy to abort at a very early stage. When you plan around the fertile time each month you are not taking action to STOP the procreative process. You aren’t stopping the natural fertilization act. I know that is not as clear an answer as I would like to give, seriously Bea I think you would really enjoy the book i have mentioned, its like $8 and not very long of a read at all. I think it would answer alot of your questions, and maybe Andrew’s too, about Catholic teaching. It might not change your mind, but atleast you’d understand where the Church is coming from.
I also think that one of the posts over at Patrick’s blog is relevant. The poster commented how two acts whose end goal is one thing don’t necessarilly have the same morality attached to them. For example say I want a new computer. I can get a job and work to earn the money or I can rob someones house to get the money. Obviously the latter example is immoral and the former isn’t, even though they have the same end goal.
April 20th, 2005 at 11:04:13 pm
Brian, I’m not looking for an echo chamber at all, but as has been pointed out you wandered into a topic and started discussing something irrelavent to the topic at hand, in what I see, as another attempt to try and attack organized religion. But even if thats not the case, saying I’m not open to discussion just doesn’t make sense.
If we are having a discussion about football and you come in in the middle to say “I like golf!” I don’t think we would be out of line for telling you what you can do with your golf clubs :D
April 20th, 2005 at 11:04:14 pm
No David you misunderstood me, so let me make myself more clear. I can take a look at your book, which has the promise to being good news about sex and marriage, because I truly want to learn about these things. As for Kate’s comment, ..And if you read Catholic sexual ethics closely, there are many ways that even non-contraceptive sex with your wife can be sinful. Theology of the Body will really knock you on your ass on that point, well I have no desire to read about sinful sex while married, to be knocked on my ass, because no matter what I read I will never think sex is sinful inside a beautiful marriage, and I can spare myself the guilt trip (the way Kate describes the book, sounds to me like I’d be walking into a guilt trip anyways). I have a rusty recollection of the teachings of the Church, so it is not like I never learned these teachings, but that I have been away from the Church for so long, and was so young at the time, that I never learned much about sexual ethics in particular, except I knew sex before marriage was a big no no, and I have no issue with that teaching of the Church. Besides, I am asking questions because I know what the argument for bc is, I don’t buy it because I see an inconsistency, so, to repeat myself, unless what I perceive to be an inconsistency can be explained to me, I will not understand the argument. Call me lazy, it is easier to ask the abundant Catholic readership on the blog for help, that to read the book until a later time when I have time.
As for the pick and choosing, I agree that Catholicism cannot be a pick and choose faith, that Catholics have to work hard at living by the teachings of the Church (and I am also fine with those educated enough in Catholic teaching and scripture who dissent and want to effectuate change). Because I knew I did not agree with some of the teachings and practices of the Church, I chose not to go through confirmation. It was hypocritical, in my view, for me to confirm my commitment to the Church knowing all along I did not agree with some of it. So, I do take my faith seriously, and I enjoy having a relationship with God and I enjoy going to mass on Sundays and I enjoy learning about the history and teachings of the Church. I am totally a cafeteria Catholic, and most likely always will be, but I rather be that than leave forget about Catholicism and how some of the teachings of the Church strenghten my faith, or be a hypocrite Catholic, both of which are worse in my mind. As for learning what the Church says before disagreeing in what amounts to blind fanatism, maybe you were being general and not speaking of me, because I am actively trying to learn about the Church, or I would not be posting questions on this blog, and I am not a secular fanatic who spends her days attacking Catholicism. I hate the child molestation fiasco and I am vocal about it, but that is not the same as attacking the Church for being an organized religion or being strick and conservative, etc. I do no expect the Church to conform to my views, I do not expect it to be ran like a political party or a social servcies agency. I also do not expect to ever really abide by all its teachings, and I can live with that, since what I do on Earth is untimately between God and me, and I am not a cafeteria Catholic out of lazyness of convenience, but because after giving it much thought, I disagree with some of the basic teachings, yet have no desire to join a protestant church.
April 20th, 2005 at 11:36:50 pm
Thank you for responding David.
I have read the different morality behind the same goal argument you speak of, but I am speaking of intent. The end of goal of avoiding pregnancy is the same, but the intent is also to avoid pregnancy, what is different, to me, is the method, and not the intent, which is to avoid life. It so happens that the natural way ir moral and the medical/bc way is not moral. So intent and outcome and goal are the same, method is different, and the morality lies in the method. So, this is why I feel the job/theft for a computer analogy is not fully accurate. The natural fertilization act is stopped by bc but, many natural acts are stopped and changed by meds. So, I see an inconsistency in calling the an act moral, while calling the same act with the same intent and same outcome not moral, based on the method, unless we can also discount all other artificial methods of doing stuff. Sorry if I am too tedious, I like to break down arguments, the philosopher in me :)
April 20th, 2005 at 11:42:57 pm
Kate, people can get pregnant on bc, be it the pill, the shot, condoms, the rythym method, whatever. So, if a couple is open to having a baby in case of an accident with their bc, be it the moral rythym method or the immoral pill, then I still do not see hwo the intent is different for once case. See, if I got pregnant while married and while on bc, I would still be thrilled about my baby! I would be on bc to prevent getting pregnant, but if I did, my baby would be a wonderful addition to the family, and how this is any different, in intent and in welcoming life, than the rythym method couple who gets pregnant is just not clear to me. Granted, my reaction would not be the reaction many couples on bc would have, be it artificial or natural bc, but it would most certainly be my reaction. This intent to avoid life, while embracing the accidental creation of life can be present in the couple on natural and artifical bc alike. Does that at least clarify my point and why I see an inconsistency? I do not expect you to agree with me, but I want to convey to you why I think there is an inconsistency in the argument agaisnt artifical bc.
I do not reject that sex in marriage could ever be immoral. I reject that consensual sex bewteen two people who love each other, have a beautiful marriage, and care for one another’s needs while making love could be immoral. Once Becky and Brendan get married, what I just described will apply to them. If a husband forces his wife to have sex with him, that is fully unaceptable to me, and it is immoral. But from what I have learned from all these sexual ethics discussions is that there are many instances where consenting adults who love each other can find themselves in sinful sex inside marriaga, and no, I do not agree with that idea. I have “chewed” on JPII’s comment about trying to climax at the same time, because I knew about them before you mentioned it, and I can understand the logic behind his argument. If sex can lead to objectifying the other, then making sure that does not happen would be helped by requiring that both partners try to please each other, and reach and orgasm, preffereably at the same time. As wonderful as that sounds, and as great as it is to be able to orgasm at the same time, it is also very unlikely. I am not going to get into a technical discussion about sex, but I am sure you are aware of the difficulties with having both partners having an orgasm at the same time. Many men and women cannot have an orgasm that easily, and many not without the help of their partners or themselves. Also, a person needs to be relaxed in order to have an orgasm, and that might be more difficult if they are at the same time trying to help the other have an orgasm. It basically takes a lot of practice and luck to be able to orgasm at the same time. If the intent is all that is needed for the act to be moral, then most people would qualify, since most happily married couples do want to please each other and not just objectify each other.
The abstinence issue was not brought up by me, but I will say that happy couples should be having sex more than twice a month. The marriage benefits from periods without sex as much as it does from some good ol’ love making. The Church can guide us even in our sexual life, I can agree with that, but there is a limit to everything, and calling for abstinence while married because we do not have a right to sex and to using our bodies to show our husbands and wives we love them is just a little more than I am confortable with. Then again, I am not a good Catholic like most of the Catholics in this blog :) I am sorry to make you cringe David, by calling my self Catholic and cafeteria Catholic interchangeably. I do not mean any offense to the Church my calling myself Catholic, but cafeteria Catholic is long to write out every time, plus the negative connotation immediately attributed to CCs I canlive without. It takes a while to explain my reasons for not qualifying as a good Catholic while still being fairly religious. Should I say struggling Catholic, or Catholic leaning? :)
April 20th, 2005 at 11:55:46 pm
One small correction . . . natural family planning does not equal the rhythm method. Natural family planning has an effectiveness rate upward of 90%.
And, Brendan, it seems that the fundamental difference of belief is that within the Catholic sacrament of marriage you are not to take steps that will make conception impossible. In every single sex act (even those undertaken during infertile periods) must be undertaken with an attitude of openness to conception. For Catholics, while it may desirable or convenient to avoid conception, it is *never* “absolutely essential.”
April 20th, 2005 at 11:58:23 pm
PS — I wrote a whole bunch last night about this but posting was disabled. Suffice it to say that natural methods of birth control do require self-control and abstention during fertile periods of the woman’s cycle.
And if you read Catholic sexual ethics closely, there are many ways that even non-contraceptive sex with your wife can be sinful. <i>Theology of the Body</i> will really knock you on your ass on that point.
April 21st, 2005 at 12:40:31 am
This is a sufficiently excellent discussion that it has drawn me out of moratorium to chime in for a moment. :)
I think Bea hit the nail on the head with her comment above, particularly the first paragraph. I agree that the inconsistency has yet to be explained to my satisfaction. Let me outline the elements of the situation where I absolutely cannot see why there would be a morally significant difference between a married couple having sex while using artificial birth control and a married couple having sex while using natural family planning:
1. Both couples hope to avoid getting pregnant; they have a “non-procreative intent.”
3. Both couples are specifically, purposefully gearing their actions toward accomplishing their shared goal of having sex without getting pregnant. In other words, their actions match their intent.
3. Both couples are aware, however, that pregnancy is possible; they are “open to the possibility of life,” even though they hope to avoid it.
4. If they inadvertantly conceive, both couples would welcome their child into the world with open arms.
According to Kate/David/Patrick/Benedict/etc., the couple using artificial BC is sinning, while couple using “natural” BC is not. Since we’ve eliminated both intent and action (mens rea and actus reus, as it were) as the possible difference between them (see #1 and #2, above), and we’ve also eliminated “openness to life” as the difference (see #3 and #4, above), we are left with a limited number of remaining possible explanations (that I can think of) for why one scenario would be sinful the other wouldn’t:
* Artificial birth control is bad because it’s artificial. Natural birth control is okay because it’s natural. (I believe Mike would call this the “naturalist fallacy.” I don’t think it has any moral relevance; at any rate, its moral relevance is certainly not self-evident.)
* Taking artificial birth control is a positive act, whereas refraining from sex during fertile periods is a mere omission to act. The intent is the same, and both choices of behavior are geared to achieve that intent (and have a good chance of doing so)… but perhaps the Church believes that the latter is okay simply because of the technical fact that it’s an omission rather than a positive act? (But didn’t CrimLaw teach us that omissions can be acts? So WHY should this be a morally important distinction? Again, the answer to this question is not self-evident; if this is the reason, the “why” requires further explanation.)
* Last but not least, the old fallback… artificial birth control is “AN OBJECTIVE EVIL” because… well, because Church doctrine says it is. (To me, given that all the above arguments seem to fall apart upon close scrutiny, this one alone simply isn’t good enough. “Because I said so” is not a sufficiently justification for anything, in my book.)
So, tell me, what am I missing? Is some portion of my premise faulty? Am I leaving something out?
April 21st, 2005 at 12:46:26 am
Well, it’s not up to me or anyone else what you call yourself . . . but the heart of the teaching on artificial birth control doesn’t have to do with the relative chance that you’ll get pregnant. And if you are serious about avoiding perhaps the best book on the Church’s sexual ethics because you think it will make you feel guilty, then, well, I guess you don’t really care to actually know what your church teaches. Unfortunately, part of that teaching is that when you use contraceptives you make an object out of the other because you are not willing to enter into complete communion with them — you have rejected their fertility, an important part of who they are. You are using them for sexual pleasure — which is never licit even if it is mutual and consensual.
So, call yourself what you want . . . but we’d be lying to you if we didn’t tell you that this is a central teaching of Catholicism, not just a preference.
April 21st, 2005 at 12:53:58 am
part of that teaching is that when you use contraceptives you make an object out of the other because you are not willing to enter into complete communion with them — you have rejected their fertility, an important part of who they are. You are using them for sexual pleasure — which is never licit even if it is mutual and consensual.
Again… how is this not also true of natural family planning? Especially if you are correct that NFP is highly effective? Am I not rejecting my spouse’s fertility by deliberately engaging in behavior that is designed to allow us to have sexual pleasure without producing a pregnancy? Is there not just as great a risk that I am “using them for sexual pleasure” in the NFP situation as in the BC situation? All the essential elements are there in both cases: a non-procreative intent, a course of action geared specifically to achieve that intent, but an openness to the possibility of life (since both methods are imperfect)… the only differences appear to be highly technical and, in my view, morally irrelevant.
The logic just does not hold up.
Or, if it does hold up, I’m not seeing how… and I feel like I would have seen it by now, because I’m debating with very intelligent people who know their stuff. Yet despite all your arguments, I still do not see ANY morally significant difference.
April 21st, 2005 at 1:03:31 am
P.S. At the risk of distracting from the still-open question about the difference between BC and NFP, I have to add this side note… the idea that one can say categorically, as an across-the-board generalization, that people who have sex in a certain disfavored way are, by definition, “using” each other for sexual pleasure is, in my view, grossly offensive — the Church is just WRONG about this, and I will go to my grave believing that (and guess what, I will not go to Hell for it — you want to talk about “faith”? well, that’s an article of faith for me — I WILL NOT be condemned to eternal torture for refusing to believe that I am engaging in a selfish act when I make love with the woman to whom I have given my heart and soul).
It’s fine if you think that certain types of behaviors tend as a general rule to lend themselves more easily to “using” someone else for your own sexual pleasure… but to say that by definition I’m using my partner/spouse if I behave in a way the Church does not like… that’s patently wrong, because you are presuming to know the nature of my subjective intent based on your own external criteria of what is right and wrong.
(I’m just using myself as an example, obviously no one was attacking me.)
If you want to say that a certain mode of behavior is inherently wrong, fine. But don’t include an assumption that I am “using” someone as part of your reasons for believing that it’s wrong. If I engage in a sexual act with the intent of forging a spiritual connection, deepening a loving bond, and engaging in an act of mutual pleasure and love, I am not “using” anyone, even if the Church deeply disapproves of my actions. I might be sinning — I don’t think I am, but even if I am, I’m DEFINITELY not “using” anyone. It’s a vile distortion of language and logic to claim otherwise.
(By “you” and “your,” I mean Church doctrine and its adherants generally, not you personally, Kate. :)
April 21st, 2005 at 1:16:15 am
Okay, back to the moratorium now. :)
April 21st, 2005 at 1:17:31 am
Kate, spare me the self-righteous crap. Your tone is not conducive to discussion, when you tell me to chew on this, rid something so I can fall on my ass, etc. I am not offended, I just do not care for the self-righteous tone that implies I should know better, when I am clearly asking for answers and explanations from those who know more about the subject than me. Thank you nonetheless for addressing my questions :)
I will not feel guilty for reading the book, but I have an idea it will be a guilt trip from the way you describe it, I simply doubt I will agree, so it is a low priority for me to read it. The sex and bc discussions here make it clear that I will not agree with the arguments on the book, and with the teachings of the Church on sexual ethics, so I will have to save it for another time in my life when I have more spare time.
“Artifical bc actively objectifies the other” is perhaps the closest I am going to get as an answer to why aritifical and natural bc are any different. This is not satisfactory to me, but I guess is the best I can get without myself reading books on the subject. I will have to disagree with you that there is any way in which a couple is not using each other for sexual pleasure. This claim borders the metaphysical, so I am not going to say you are wrong in asseting that sex without bc is the only way to not objectify the other, I will simply say I disagree. Sex is all about pleasure, it is about pleasing yourself and pleasing the person you love, and about showing the other how much you love them through your body. You use you body to show your love. But your statement sums it up very succinctly: Catholic sex is not about pleasure, because pleasure requires objectification. Catholic sex is about pro-creation. I respect that view, though I do not share it now, and doubt I ever will. I wonder how many Catholics are able to stick to the strick sexual ethics of the Church, having sex two or three times a month, always trying to orgasm at the same time, never ever having too much pleasure lest they objectify the other..
I know bc is a central teaching of Catholicism, and that is why I am asking probing questions about the logical structure of the argument, which I find lacking.
My comment about callimg myself calfeteria Catholic was made jokingly because of David’s comment, hence the :)
April 21st, 2005 at 2:08:36 am
The idea that artificial BC is evil while NFP is not is a uniquely Catholic proposition; Orthodox Jews and 99% of Protestant sects see no difference and do not have a problem with BC unless it specifically induces abortion (i.e. causes a fertilized egg to be discharged instead of implanting in the uterus). Orthodox Jews, who have been debating sexual ethics for twice the amount of time as Catholics using the exact same Scriptures, basically believe that as long you don’t “impede the seed”, you’re fine, so the pill is okay but the condom is not. I happen to agree with neither the Jewish nor the Catholic position, and I largely stand by Bea and Brendan’s reasoning above. I would also add that many Christian churches, including the Catholic Church, justify sex as a unifying act between couples separately from its procreative side effect. Thus, there is plenty of wiggle room even within existing Catholic doctrine to accept many forms of BC, and I fully expect the Catholic Church to come around to Bea/Brendan/my position within the next 50 years. The Catholic doctrine in this instance is simply too much based on natural law and Aristotlean philosophy rather than what the Bible and modern science actually say to hold up much longer.
While it is true that sex within marriage can be sinful (for instance, marital rape), it is equally true that witholding sex from one’s spouse without a just or moral cause is also sinful. One sin does not justify the other of course, but it’s important to keep in mind. It kind of reminds me of the “Honor thy mother and father” bit, which is often rehashed to children, but how often do churches relay the complementary portion of that teaching, which is “Parents, do not unnecessarily exasperate thy children”? Not often enough, in most cases. But while the honoring parents is more well known and the more important commandment, both ultimately must be obeyed for a healthy relationship. Same with marital sex.
By the way, while it is well known that I am a Protestant, one shouldn’t dismiss my remarks about Catholicism so quickly. I have done more reading on Catholicism than most Catholics, was originally a Religion major (ultimately made it a minor), and while I disagree with the Church on numerous doctrinal and non-doctrinal issues, the sole thing that keeps me from ever identifying myself as a Catholic are the centrality/primacy of Rome and infallibility of the Pope/Church doctrines. The fragmentation of the Protestant churches disgusts me, but at least they recognize that there is significant room for theological disagreement while still retaining the essential elements of salvatory Christianity.
April 21st, 2005 at 2:16:22 am
I will never agree with the Catholic teaching on birth control. I am not going to even bother to read about non bc sex being sinful because I just diagree with the whole openess to life argument, and abstaining from sex while married is unacceptable for me, so I will skip the book.
That said, I want to learn about the specific aspect of bc I am asking about. Two questions: What is the difference between natural family planning and the rythym method? I am not familiar with this difference. Also, back to my intent to avoid life question, Kate says within the Catholic sacrament of marriage you are not to take steps that will make conception impossible… every single sex act (even those undertaken during infertile periods) must be undertaken with an attitude of openness to conception. Well, clearly, people who plan to have sex while infertile have the intent to avoid a pregnancy. So, accoridng to what kate just said, they just violated Catholic teaching. So, they are open to the idea of getting pregnant on accident and being happy with the baby? Well, many married couples would not be devastated by an “accident” while on bc, and would happily welcome the baby. See, I fail to see the difference that makes it clear to some of you, bewteen the intent behind bc and behind natural planning. I will never understand the reasoning behind bc being sinful in the contect of marriage until what I perceive to be an inconsistency is clarified to me. I might not agree with the argument then, but I will understand it. As I see it now, it is inconsistent. I am done with this topic, nobody has an answer for me, which leads me to believe there just is no answer.
April 21st, 2005 at 3:05:02 am
<i>I will never agree with the Catholic teaching on birth control. I am not going to even bother to read about non bc sex being sinful because I just diagree with the whol