Who Said This About the Evils of Contraception?


Hint: The Catholic Church is not the answer to any of them.

1) Contraception is the one sin for which the penalty is national death; a sin for which there is no atonement.

2) The abandonment of the reproductive function is the common feature of all sexual perversions. We actually describe a sexual activity as perverse if it has given up the aim of reproduction and pursues the attainment of pleasure as an aim independent of it.

3) “Contraceptive methods are like putting a premium on vice. They make men and women reckless. Nature is relentless and will have full revenge for any such violation of her laws…If contraceptive methods become the order of the day nothing but moral degradation can be the result. As it is, man has sufficiently degraded woman for his lust, and contraception, no matter how well-meaning the advocates may be, will still further degrade her.”

4) “By accepting contraception, the world is trying …to form a civilized but non-Christian, mentality. The experiment will fail; but we must be very patient in awaiting its collapse; meanwhile redeeming the time so that the Faith may be preserved alive through the dark ages before us; to renew and rebuild civilization and save the world from suicide.”

Prior to 1930 all of Christendom condemned the use of contraception as an evil. But, then in 1930 the Anglican Church decreed that the use of contraception was permissible when the life of the mother was in danger. What periodical ridiculed that decision? Hint: It is still published today.

5) “Carried to its logical conclusions, (contraceptives)…would sound the death knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality: The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be ‘careful and restrained’ is preposterous.”

Answers:
1) President Theodore Roosevelt
2) Freud
3) Ghandi
4) T.S. Eliot
5) The Washington Post-“Forgetting Religion” 3/22/1931

Advertisements

What does the Holy Father really say about condoms in the new book?


 

Pope Benedict on condoms in “Light of the World

Print E-mail
By Dr. Janet E. Smith

This week, Light of the World, a book-length interview given by Pope Benedict XVI to journalist Peter Seewald, will be released worldwide. Several of the Holy Father’s statements have already started making news, particularly his comments regarding condom usage in the prevention of the spread of HIV.

To the charge that “It is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms,” in the context of an extended answer on the help the Church is giving AIDs victims and the need to fight the banalization of sexuality, Pope Benedict replied:

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants.  But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

What is Pope Benedict saying?

We must note that the example that Pope Benedict gives for the use of a condom is a male prostitute; thus, it is reasonable to assume that he is referring to a male prostitute engaged in homosexual acts. The Holy Father is simply observing that for some homosexual prostitutes the use of a condom may indicate an awakening of a moral sense; an awakening that sexual pleasure is not the highest value, but that we must take care that we harm no one with our choices.  He is not speaking to the morality of the use of a condom, but to something that may be true about the psychological state of those who use them.  If such individuals are using condoms to avoid harming another, they may eventually realize that sexual acts between members of the same sex are inherently harmful since they are not in accord with human nature.  The Holy Father does not in any way think the use of condoms is a part of the solution to reducing the risk of AIDs.  As he explicitly states, the true solution involves “humanizing sexuality.”

Anyone having sex that threatens to transmit HIV needs to grow in moral discernment. This is why Benedict focused on a “first step” in moral growth. The Church is always going to be focused on moving people away from immoral acts towards love of Jesus, virtue, and holiness. We can say that the Holy Father clearly did not want to make a point about condoms, but wants to talk about growth in a moral sense, which should be a growth towards Jesus.

So is the Holy Father saying it is morally good for male prostitutes to use condoms? The Holy Father is not articulating a teaching of the Church about whether or not the use of a condom reduces the amount of evil in a homosexual sexual act that threatens to transmit HIV.  The Church has no formal teaching about how to reduce the evil of intrinsically immoral action.  We must note that what is intrinsically wrong in a homosexual sexual act in which a condom is used is not the moral wrong of contraception but the homosexual act itself.  In the case of homosexual sexual activity, a condom does not act as a contraceptive; it is not possible for homosexuals to contracept since their sexual activity has no procreative power that can be thwarted. But the Holy Father is not making a point about whether the use of a condom is contraceptive or even whether it reduces the evil of a homosexual sexual act; again, he is speaking about the psychological state of some who might use condoms.  The intention behind the use of the condom (the desire not to harm another) may indicate some growth in a sense of moral responsibility.

In Familiaris Consortio (On the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World), John Paul II spoke of the need for conversion, which often proceeds by gradual steps:

To the injustice originating from sin … we must all set ourselves in opposition through a conversion of mind and heart, following Christ Crucified by denying our own selfishness: such a conversion cannot fail to have a beneficial and renewing influence even on the structures of society.

What is needed is a continuous, permanent conversion which, while requiring an interior detachment from every evil and an adherence to good in its fullness, is brought about concretely in steps which lead us ever forward. Thus a dynamic process develops, one which advances gradually with the progressive integration of the gifts of God and the demands of His definitive and absolute love in the entire personal and social life of man. (9)

Christ himself, of course, called for a turning away from sin.  That is what the Holy Father is advocating here; not a turn towards condoms. Conversion, not condoms!

Would it be proper to conclude that the Holy Father would support the distribution of condoms to male prostitutes? Nothing he says here indicates that he would. Public programs of distribution of condoms run the risk of conveying approval for homosexual sexual acts. The task of the Church is to call individuals to conversion and to moral behavior; it is to help them understand the meaning and purpose of sexuality and to help them come to know Christ, who will provide the healing and graces that enable us to live in accord with the meaning and purpose of sexuality.

Is Pope Benedict indicating that heterosexuals who have HIV could reduce the wrongness of their acts by using condoms?  No.  In his second answer he says that the Church does not find condoms to be a “real or moral solution.” That means the Church does not find condoms either to be moral or an effective way of fighting the transmission of HIV.  As the Holy Father indicates in his fuller answer, the most effective portion of programs designed to reduce the transmission of HIV are calls to abstinence and fidelity.

The Holy Father, again, is saying that the intention to reduce the transmission of any infection is a “first step” in a movement towards a more human way of living sexuality. That more human way would be to do nothing that threatens to harm one’s sexual partner, who should be one’s beloved spouse. For an individual with HIV to have sexual intercourse with or without a condom is to risk transmitting a lethal disease.

An analogy: If someone was going to rob a bank and was determined to use a gun, it would better for that person to use a gun that had no bullets in it.  It would reduce the likelihood of fatal injuries. But it is not the task of the Church to instruct potential bank robbers how to rob banks more safely and certainly not the task of the Church to support programs of providing potential bank robbers with guns that could not use bullets.  Nonetheless, the intent of a bank robber to rob a bank in a way that is safer for the employees and customers of the bank may indicate an element of moral responsibility that could be a step towards eventual understanding of the immorality of bank robbing.

Dr. Janet E. Smith holds the Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit. She speaks nationally and internationally on Catholic teachings on sexuality and on bioethics, and has published numerous articles and several books on sexuality and bioethics. She is serving a third term as a consultor to the Pontifical Council on the Family. She is author of The Right to Privacy, a study of Roe v. Wade and related court cases.

Resources:

Edward C. Green, “The Pope May Be Right” Washington Post (Sunday, March 29, 2009);

Edward C. Green and Allison Herling Ruark, “AIDS and the Churches: Getting the Story Right” First Things (April, 2008);

Edward C. Green, Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning from Successes in Developing Countries (Praeger: 2003);

Matthew Hanley and Jokin de Irala, Affirming Love, Avoiding AIDS: What Africa Can Teach The West (National Catholic Bioethics Center, 2009);

Susan E. Wills, “Condoms and AIDS: Is the Pope Right or Just “Horrifically Ignorant?” The Linacre Quarterly, 77:10 (Feb 2010) 17-29;

Edward C. Green, AIDS, Behavior, and Culture: Understanding Evidence-Based Prevention (Left Coast Press: 2010) forthcoming

The Catholic Church Kills With HIV & Dogmatism



Q. According to the New York Times sexual repression caused by the right wing American churches Catholic and Protestant has stopped, through pressure groups, condom provision to 16 countries and reduced 13 others, including some with the highest rates of AIDS infection.The influence of Christian view of sinfulness of sex outside marriage, the U.S government has required that one-third of it’s AIDS prevention funds allocated to Africa be squandered on teaching abstinence rather than condom use. Millions WILL die due to this religious dogmatism.
How would you answer this question?

A. The NYT is a left wing propaganda machine and a news organization barely at all.Many of the men in Africa who have AIDS think that if they have sex with a virgin they will be cured. So will they use a condom? Will rapists use a condom? Many who spread the AIDS Virus do so primarily because they have the contraceptive mentality that permeates Western culture which approves and encourages the goal of sexual pleasure stripped of its procreative meaning of total self-giving love. So pleasure seekers are reluctant to use condoms b/c they reduce the pleasure.

JPII’s Theology of the Body portrays the sexual union of a husband, wife and child as an image of the HOLY TRINITY! Putting a barrier between lovers destroys the beauty of love. Can you imagine one of the persons of the Holy Trinity rejecting the creative power of one of the other persons???? That is precisely what happens with contracepted sex–rejection of the fertility of the beloved. That is NOT Total Self-Giving Love it is total self-getting love & pleasure.

Abstinence works. Uganda promotes this and has for some time and they have reduced their AIDS problem. Don’t have the stats on hand but click HERE for the story. Abstinence does work.

To hand out condoms as a preventative for AIDS is absolutely IRRESPONSIBLE. Your give people a false sense of security that may very well lead to their death and the death of those they infect and on, ad infinitum. Condoms break and slip. Condoms have very small pores or holes that are 50-500 times larger than the HIV virus but much, much smaller than sperm. Click HERE. Due to the layers of latex these pores are not aligned all the time, so the openings to HIV are reduced BUT THEY ARE THERE.

Would you jump out of an airplane with a parachute that had a 15 % chance of not opening? Condom protection against AIDS has an 15% failure rate for vaginal sex and only of 50% chance of protecting against AIDS with anal sex. A room full of sex experts were at a conference and were asked if they would use a condom in order to have sex with someone they knew had AIDS. NONE were willing to risk their lives for the momentary pleasure of sex with someone who had a deadly disease. Would you? I wouldn’t.

So, responsible, caring and truly loving people will only promote abstinence to protect against AIDS and STI’s . It is the only moral choice. I don’t want blood on my head. Do you?

Other Links about Condom Failure: Here or Here

You can do your own research. Just remember that this is a topic rife with political correctness. So, try to ascertain any bias and make up your own mind about what is really SAFE.

Contraception


Q. I just don’t get what is wrong with Contraception. What if parents can’t afford 10 children?

A. Yes, parents must be responsible. If they cannot afford more children or want to space their children, they must abstain from sex during the fertile time. Natural Family Planning is 95% effective. It has no side effects and does not put harmful drugs in the body of the woman. And this form of birth control is perfectly moral. Because there is no rule that says that one must have sex everytime one is fertile if married. That would be ridiculous. What if the woman is sick, or just had a baby, or just had surgery, or her husband is sick, etc.

I am sure it is hard to accept the Catholic view of these passages but did you know that all Christians condemned all contraception until 1930 when the Anglican Church approved it ONLY in the case of a threat to the mother’s life? Even secular people condemned it as immoral and leading to disorder and degradation of women. See my post Here and HERE

But God created us and sex. He has decreed that it be used only in marriage and it is meant to be a concrete and beautiful image of the love and total selfgiving of the Holy Trinity–Man, woman, child. Contraception is not total self-giving and accepting of the other. The use of contraception entails REJECTION. One or both of the partners are rejecting the fertility of the beloved. Therefore, their loving union is not TOTAL SELF GIVING. It is partial and actively rejects something that is intrinsic to the other.

As in the case of Onan, sexual pleasure/union and openness to procreation are not to be stripped away from each other in order to just have pleasure without procreation or procreation without sexual union of husband and wife. (In Vitro, etc)

Contraception in order to obtain pleasure without babies is intrusive and disfigures the meaning of sexual union. Homosexual sex, masturbation, pedophilia, beastiality, adultery, pre-marital sex prostitution, etc all seek only pleasure and so does contracepted sex. All of these sexual acts are aimed only at obtaining sexual pleasure stripped of any openess to or possibility of, procreation. None of these image the Holy Trinity.

This is disordered. The natural purpose and end of sex is UNION and Procreation– or Babies and Bonding. Anytime you actively exclude one or the other it is sinful.

This is very brief. I would recommend that you read a post here called Contraception: Why Not by Dr. Janet Smith –Click Here

EMBRACE A CULTURE OF LIFE!



Babies: we need more like you

This ad was put out in Germany to create a culture of life. Due to disdain for children, zero population propaganda, and contraception Germany’s population was beginning to decline . It was not even at replacement level and Germans would disappear in the mists of history if they did not embrace the sacrificial love of CHILDREN.

Is Abortion Allowed in Order to Save the Life of the Mother?



Q. Isn’t abortion allowed in order to save the life of the mother?

A. Never. We never do evil that good may come. However, either your or your teachers may have misunderstood the following sort of circumstances.

There are instances in which it is legitimate for an expectant mother to undergo certain medical or surgical procedures that will save her life, even if these procedures inevitably involve the death of her unborn child. In these cases it is not a question of intentionally aborting the child. They involve, rather, accepting the loss of the child as an unavoidable consequence of caring for the mother´s health.

The clearest and surest example is the ectopic pregnancy. As everyone knows, should the fetus become lodged in the oviduct or fallopian tube, its continued growth will result in the death of both child and mother. A normal and proper procedure in this case is the removal of the fallopian tube, from which the death of the unborn child inevitably follows. In this case the death of the child is not sought, nor is the mother´s life saved by the child´s dying.

This is not an abortion. Quite simply, the mother´s life is saved by the surgical removal of the oviduct, not by the death of her child. If this reasoning is too subtle for some American minds to follow, well, the available evidence suggests that just about any coherent thinking these days is too subtle for some American minds to follow.

A similar dilemma would arise in the case of an expectant mother diagnosed with uterine cancer. The death of the child obviously would result from the removal of the cancerous organ, but it is not the death of the child that is deliberately sought, nor is the mother´s life saved as a result of the child´s death. This is not an abortion in the sense used by moral theology; it is just a standard application of the ethical principle known as “double effect,” which is undoubtedly what the magazine in question, an Orthodox journal that takes its theology seriously, intended to say.

Unfortunately, however, given a chance to correct its earlier slip, the magazine compounded the difficulty by asserting that “the Church teaches that the mother must be saved.” No, strictly speaking, this is not true either; such a very tough medical decision is normally a matter of the mother´s choice, and I am familiar with no teaching of the Orthodox Church that would oblige a mother´s conscience to value her own life over her child´s. The mother´s life is not intrinsically of greater value than the child´s, and every mother known to me, if the choice were ineluctable, would value her child´s life above her own.

It is interesting to observe that the Roman Catholic Church recently honored with canonical beatification a woman who died in 1962 in consequence of choosing not to undergo the surgical procedure just mentioned. Even though she knew that it would result in her death, Gianna Molla carried her baby to term and then died a week later.
Her little girl grew up and was on hand in St. Peter´s Square to see her mother raised to the dignity of the altar. From CatholicNet

At her mother's canonization.

At her mother's canonization.

Contraception



Q. Why is Natural Family Planning OK but contraception is a grave sin? What is the difference?

A. The difference is that one is indulgence in pleasure and the other practices self control. Both methods have the same effect, limiting family size, but that does not make them equal morally. For instance, if Grandma is terminally ill you could kill her or allow her to die naturally. The end result is the same but the moral difference could not be greater. Never do evil so that good may come.

The couple who practices NFP abstains from pleasure in order to limit family size while the contracepting couple indulges in pleasure stripped from its meaning and purpose.

The NFP couple practices total self giving love in their union but the contracepting couple rejects the fertility of their mate and so the union is incomplete.

God designed sex and eating to be pleasurable so that we would not forget to procreate and nourish our bodies. Stripping the pleasure of sex away from its God-given purpose is disordered just like attempting to get the pleasure out of eating but avoiding the natural purpose by throwing up after every meal.

God created the marital union to be a tri-unity of pleasure, bonding and openess to children. The attempt to extract pleasure and bypass the purpose of sex and eating is called lust and bulimia.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,