I’m
trying to tie together a few Vortex episodes along with a Disney propaganda film
from the ‘60’s to make a point here about the value of the family, and the
desirability of letting God choose family size.
The
August 5 Vortex episode was entitled “Obama- The Great Destroyer of Families”. I’d like to make a few comments on it. See the
script here.
In this
episode, after acknowledging that Obama “holds nothing sacred except that which
is evil”, Michael Voris goes on to say (all emphases mine):
But perhaps the most dangerous
thing he has done – IS doing – is the total economic restructuring of the once most powerful economy in the
history of the world. Not because money matters more than life or sexual
morality, but because when you force, bend, twist, and mutilate economic
realities, they have a “back up the chain” reaction with families, and [with] people’s
abilities to have and provide for their families.
…Economies follow human life cycles, not the other way around. Ah,
but in Obama’s case, he is attempting, with a large measure of success, to affect the human life cycle by screwing up
the economy.
Consider his lie about taxes.
On the campaign trail – each election – he said no one earning under $250,000
will pay any more in taxes. Then on January 1st of this year, the average full
time American worker saw $40 more dollars yanked out his check than the year
before; and last time I checked, the average American worker was not making
above $250,000.
After providing
some statistics, Voris summarizes by saying:
So what is the trend here – a
smaller percentage of people working over all, and of those who are working,
less and less full time jobs available. Something is rotten in the economy. And
when you factor is that even many of the full time jobs that people secured
were steps down from their previous jobs in terms of pay, hours and benefits –
you can begin to see how the way is being paved for a total transformation of the economy.
Less and less people able to
work the jobs they want and NEED. How come you never hear THIS story from the
social justice squawkers in Catholic circles. Isn’t the dignity of man as
worker a foundational concept in the Church?
… The Church upholds the family
– the traditional family. Yet many of the heads of these households aren’t able
to find either work or the necessary work to sustain their families. And as
most people know, financial stressors are the leading cause of fights and arguments
and lack of peace in the home. If you back Obama and call yourself a Catholic –
consider what your vote for him has done to harm, hurt, and break apart the
traditional family. The man supports evil – not only in the obvious forms of
sodomy and child murder and contraception, but also – at the same time – by
using his power over the economy to cripple
families.
The destruction of family life
was the very first goal of both the
communists and the Nazis when they each came to power. If the state can get
control over the family – it’s lights out.
Now
consider this video – a propaganda piece created by Disney in the 1960’s at the
height of the “population bomb” scare. LifeSiteNews
ran it on August 2. I do not have a script for this video, but it is worth
watching in its entirety to get the full effect.
A few
points worth noting in the video is the message that families with few children
means a “better” life for everyone – for the children, the parents, for the
world! Having more children, the film tells us, means that the population is “out
of balance”; there are too many people and not enough resources. The families
with more children won’t have enough to eat, the family ox will starve and not
be able to pull the plow, and mom will be ever so much more tired and cranky
because she has to work so hard. (Eyes rolling.) And it is everyone's duty to do their part so that the world won't be overpopulated, and we will all live a life worth living. Blech. (If you believe any of that, please visit the Population Research Institute's educational video page and watch some of their videos.)
From “LesFemmes” blog:
And then consider the inherent
racism of this video which was made during Paul Ehrlich population bomb
hysteria period. A bunch of white elitists make a film showing a Hispanic
couple labeled as "everyman." Then consider that most Hispanic
countries are majority Catholic countries. This film was shot across the bow to
the Catholic Church which encourages generosity in life giving. The battle has
always been between the culture of death and the Lord of Life and His Church.
To me,
the callous dismissal of potential children is…unbelievable. But then, really,
many people have this attitude when they use birth control; they are not
thinking about the life that didn’t have a chance – only that they will have a
better life for themselves and their “existing” children if they limit the
number of souls who come into their families.
LifeSiteNews
also has made available an excellent paper, “The Inherent Racism of Population
Control”, which you can view here.
A LifeSiteNews
article also notes Robertson’s
comments that:
“That's the big problem,
especially in Appalachia. They don't know about birth control. They just keep
having babies.”
“You see a string of all these
little ragamuffins, and not enough food to eat and so on,” he said, “and it's
desperate poverty.”
“I'd say yes, birth control is absolutely an
important thing for people to use,” he added, saying contraception “is a very
important part of humanity.”
Michael
Voris responded:
Imagine calling children – Reverend
Pro-Life – calling children ragamuffins – those unwanted, can’t-be-afforded
children, disposable, should-never-have-been-born creations of Almighty God.
See, Mr. Robertson isn’t really
pro-LIFE. He’s pro-BIRTH! As is everyone in the prolife movement who wants
conceived children to be born, but allows for conception to be denied and
blocked and hampered. How can you call yourself pro-LIFE? You aren’t.
Robertson
also said that “birth control has always been permitted” by Protestant
ecclesial communities, but this is patently false; only since 1930 have any
Protestant groups condoned the practice. Michael Voris calls this
…the Protestant poison of birth
control that huge numbers of Catholics have unfortunately consumed as well. As
long as the pro-life movement is really nothing more than the pro-birth
movement – you can expect the killing [abortion] to continue.
Further
rebutting Robertson’s comments was the Vortex episode of August 8 entitled “Ragamuffin
Response” (go here
for the video and link to the script). Voris quotes from a comment left on
the CMTV Face Book page:
And her comment is especially
worth listening to – because she was one of those ragamuffin children. Her name
is Ruth:
“Well, as someone from
Appalachia and the tenth of 11 children whose parents' income was below the
poverty line, I have to say most people are clueless when they talk about this.
"Ragamuffins" indeed!
My parents had hoped for 12 children and the final child miscarried. Mom had
ten in her family and Dad had 12 in his. No one starved to death. No one
was cold or even hungry. The only ones who ever had trouble with that has been
the current generation and only those that have cut themselves off from their
Catholic faith and family.
While my family income was
poverty level, we were working poor with 12 hour days and with farming
abilities that we used well. Our work ethic was excellent. All 11 children in my
family are college graduates – most with advanced degrees. Poverty is not an issue about a
large number of children – we worked together for the good of the family.
True poverty is NOT about a
lack of money. It is about a lack of (example of) work ethic, a lack of
education (or lack of valuing education), a lack of family connections – broken
families (no one to catch you when you fall), a lack of charity (charity should
start with the family), a lack of the ability to work due to addictions (drugs
and alcohol.)
Children in a stable, loving
family are a way OUT of poverty for the whole family. I have seen it over and
over here. Families more easily fall into poverty when there are few children.”
Ruth’s
picture is a far cry from the depiction in the Disney propaganda film! And it
is a far cry from some NFP advocates who insist that births must sometimes
(often?) be limited so that the children “already born” can be cared for and
educated properly.
What
have the culture of death forces been doing over the last 50 years? They have
been promoting “family planning” in one form or another. At the end of the
Disney film, the woman asks whether “family planning” is “acceptable”, and
whether others are using it. I suspect this is a veiled reference to Catholic
Church teaching on artificial contraception. At any rate, she is assured by the
narrator that there’s a method that is right for everyone. Ha! This sounds
suspiciously like an ad for birth control that has appeared in our local newspaper:
Manipulation of the economy. Population
control. Family planning. Culture of Death.
Really,
our Church needs to do a better job of educating the faithful on these issues. And frankly, I do NOT think that means teaching NFP (surprise!).
Stay
tuned for Part II, hopefully tomorrow.
The Disney piece is disgusting.
ReplyDelete-Christine Niles
Just this morning I was listening to a Lighthouse Catholic Media CD-of-the-month about a lady who had a "conversion" regarding contraception. She was telling her story of how God convicted her through a parish mission & beginning a daily prayer time with the Mass readings & how much she struggled against this particular teaching.
ReplyDeleteEverything was going along great & I was enjoying the talk, until the point where she shared her new insights with her husband & they discussed what to do. At that point, I expected her to say "It was so wonderful, God opened his heart & he agreed we should not contracept". Instead, she said (paraphrasing) "It was so wonderful, God opened his heart & we agreed to learn how to practice NFP!" They had 3 children at that point (& still do) & appeared to be a financially stable, healthy middle class family. She kept going on about how horrible it would be if she got pregnant & how upset she would be, but how they were just going to "trust God" & abstain every month & live "according to God's plan" (!!)
I was so sad after that, all I could think of was that I hope none of their 3 children ever hears that CD. This lady gives talks all over the country & one bishop was so impresssed he sent the CD to all 24,000 families in his diocese! Another (arch)bishop is quoted on her website, saying "Patty and her husband began practicing faithfully the church’s teaching regarding marital chastity." (my kids were laughing at me when I read that because I pounded my fist on the desk & yelled "ARRRGH...NO!!!")
That video is wrong on so many levels...
ReplyDeleteInara - ha! I was saying "AARRGH" too, before I got to the end of your comment! Sigh.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes Samantha and Christine - the video is awful. I don't remember seeing the video (I would have been 15 when it was made), but I well remember the hype: everyone knew that the world was being overpopulated, and that couples should limit themselves to 2 children. I think the whole idea permeated US society, and getting people to let go of the myth is still a difficult task.
I was born in 1967 & my (various flavors of Protestant) family was permeated with this thinking. My mother had 2 siblings, my father was an only child. I have one younger brother. They divorced when I was 2 ~ she remarried a year later & remarked that she "had done her duty to society" so they had no children. My father often bragged about his vasectomy. When I was pregnant with our 4th baby, my dad said he would "come after (my) husband with scissors" if he got me pregnant again & my paternal grandmother's reaction to the news was "Really. I thought all your eggs would be used up by now."
ReplyDeleteI won't even tell you what she said when she found out we were adopting children from Haiti, let's just say she'd be happy to donate to Bill Gates' funding of GMO seeds that include human sterilizing agents & she would absolutely agree with Pat Robertson's obnoxious "ragamuffin" comment from the other day.
I recently had a discussion with my dad & he is still totally on board with the ZPG mentality. I tried to explain to him that there are plentiful resources in the world for twice its population & that it's a distribution problem. He thought I was completely off my rocker.
If someone used NFP for the motive of population control that would not usually be a "well-grounded" reason, to use the Vatican translation.
ReplyDeleteBut I wonder why Mother Teresa taught the method to the people she worked with. The same one who said "how can there be too many children, that would be like saying there were too many flowers."
What was she thinking?
C.L.S.
CLS, I have asked myself the same question. I think Mother Teresa was mistaken in supporting NFP.
ReplyDeleteWell, certainly if natural family planning is in fact diabolical, non-virtuous (vicious in other words), non-generous, and non reliant on Divine Providence, then at the very least Bl. Teresa of Calcutta (and Bl. John Paul) were sending mixed messages. Kind of like the public school teachers who say 'you know you should wait until marriage, but if you can't, here's what you do.'
ReplyDeleteI mean, they couldn't be supporting the culture of death on the one hand, (playing right along with the devil), and the culture of life on the other.
C.L.S.
CLS: first, I don't believe I said anywhere that NFP is diabolical. I do believe it is lacking in virtue, and that it does usurp some of God's control over procreation.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you that Mother Teresa and JPII were sending mixed messages, just as there are many mixed messages and ambiguities in the Vatican II documents and many of the documents following that council. I think we need to get back to straight-talking popes, bishops, and priests.
CLS - Mrs. Mike, it would be helpful if you would be consistent in the name you use here. Unless CLS is Mr. Mike... Anyway, I might suggest you take up blogging, though. You can put your thoughts out for many more people to see that way.
ReplyDeleteI'll e-mail you privately, though undoubtedly you are busy. I'm not trying to be a nuisance, but I think this is a matter of great importance. If people are to be well catechized, they need to know the actual Church teaching, not distorted Church teaching.
ReplyDeleteAs I've said before, my husband is a Thomist, and is in a good position to regard current Church teaching in light of all that went before.
I am the first born of 12 children. While we knew we had less than other families, we attributed it to income rather than #of children. Plus, we never particularly felt we were deprived in any significant way (the grass is always greener on the other side-that's why the prohibitions against coveting are part of the 10 Commandments). I am proud of my parents' ingenuity and dedication and faith. All of us (12) graduated from college.
ReplyDeleteBeing in a family of 12 children taught me that it can be done. None of us (including my mom) looked like the big family in the Disney production.
The Vortex episode about Obama was polemic and, thus, would not convince any Liberals/Progressives to reconsider. From a historical perspective, the comparison between the Obama administration's position on the family with the communist and Nazis is frighteningly accurate. Not mentioned above is how Obama will try to balance the scales by increasing the # of deaths via the misnamed Affordable Health Care Act (by limiting treatment to the old and sick via rationing services).
And at the end comes the RC Church. Sighhhhh. There is so much to be said.....but where to begin? If pre-WWII Germany and Europe is any example, we cannot look forward to much help from the Church to offset the evil that is growing. But God must have a plan and this must be part of it because he would not let someone like Obama or Benedict or Francis thwart it. Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand.
I love your "large family" story, Fred! Thanks for sharing!
ReplyDeleteMrs. Mike/CLS..."they need to know the actual Church teaching, not distorted Church teaching." Yes, that is why I keep trying to show clearly the teaching on "generous" parenthood.;-) Obviously you are accusing me of presenting "distorted" teaching. I beg to differ. I think TOB is distorted in many instances, and the way NFP is taught and promoted is often distorted as well. I agree that these distortions must be corrected!
I understand that you think your husband's credentials qualify him (and you) to speak authoritatively on this subject, but I assure you there are other Thomists who do not agree with your husband! Most of what I have written has been reviewed by one or more priests who also hold substantial credentials.
I think the problem is that in accusing the bishops of downplaying the "serious/well-grounded reasons" and (wrongly) calling NFP Catholic birth control, you are kind of doing the same thing you accuse them of. You are calling it Catholic birth control but exaggerating the "serious/well-grounded reasons." Virtue is in the mean.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Mike
There is no doubt at all that NFP is birth control. It is using knowledge of the woman's fertile times to determine whether or not to engage in the marital act, with the express intent to regulate, limit, or otherwise control whether or not conception occurs. It IS a method of controlling the number of births. It IS birth control. I understand the objection to calling it contraception. So be it. But NFP IS birth control. There's just no way around that.
ReplyDeleteokay, in a certain sense NFP *controls* births. But you would have to show why such control is necessarily wrong, and disordered.
DeletePresupposing a legitimate intention--for the purpose of SPACING births (as opposed to LIMITING kids to only one or two, which indeed requires a serious reason), all that is required is a "well-grounded" reason. That is to use the Vatican website's translation.
This is not to try to find a cover for selfishness. When I say that virtue is in the mean, it is not possible to be too generous. Generosity IS the perfect mean. At a certain point it ceases to be generosity. It requires prudential judgment. What is generous for one family may be inadvisable for another. This is not relativist, except in the sense that it is relative to individual circumstances. H.V. said that responsible parenthood is exercised in either of TWO ways.
Perhaps this is what Gaudium et Spes is getting at when it calls us to be not "passive operators" but "active interpreters" of God's plan. We are being called to an OBLIGATORY discernment.
One providentialist (one of 16 kids; I went to school with the next to youngest) said she thought we were supposed to err on the side of caution. We aren't supposed to err! However it is true that if someone tends to be selfish they may have to aim to be extra generous.
Some couples may have all kinds of serious/well-grounded reasons and still not choose to practice NFP. I'd never tell them they had to. It's none of my business. Maybe one of the spouses would have a hard time remaining continent.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you though what a huge temptation artificial contraception is. Every doctor I go to pressures me in that regard. The midwife even asked the day after my child was born what we would do as far as that. But one thing a doctor said did make an impression on me. She told me I'm not running a marathon; I have to pace myself and can't sprint all the way. I took her words to heart.
Mrs. mike
Mrs. Mike, it's better to just use the regular comment box instead of these reply boxes, if you want your comment to be seen. I can't seem to change the color of these reply boxes, and so things tend to get sort of "lost" in them. Even if I could make them lighter, the comments still are less easily noticed.
DeleteIf you just comment at the end, but say who or which comment your are responding to, that works better, I think.
Jay,
ReplyDeleteThank you for continuing to post on this topic. I do think there is some good in NFP, but the Catholic blogosphere has maybe gone too far in its defense of the practice itself and of the way it is typically taught and promoted in the US. It should be a red flag to everyone that any critique of NFP is generally met scrupulouswith passionate attacks, derision, and red
herring accusations that those who question some of the NFP/TOB rhetoric are either "providentialists" ( a term that is introduced as an unqualified evil, without much discussion of exactly what that might mean, or why we should eschew it), or judgmental of those with smaller sized families. A particularly sad example of the imbalance and irrationality of the discussion is the
continual insistence that it is impossible to have a
contraceptive mentality while practicing NFP. The
arguments are very clever, but certainly not
unassailable, and the refusal to even consider the other
view seems to me somewhat imprudent.
Here is my experience. My husband and I have 8
children, but we have spent the majority of our married
years avoiding conception. Why? I wanted another
baby pretty much as soon as my little ones reached the
age of walking. However, my husband did not feel the
same way, and we both felt an obligation to avoid as the
default just because that is what sensible people do. I
fought tooth and nail for every loosening of the
assumed requirement to avoid, because I wanted more
children so desperately. Fortunately my husband began
to change his view of the irresonsibility and the
hardship of having a large family. But it is a little late in
the game, as we are now 42. If only we had seen the
decision to avoid as the object of discernment, instead
of the decision to conceive! I've read all the arguments
as to how NFP can be used selfishly, but not
contraceptively, and I remain unconvinced. Our
motivation in using NFP was never selfishnes; in fact, I
believed for many years that I was selfish in wanting
and having more children. But our entire view of NFP
was that it must be used to avoid the "mistake" of
conceiving another child. Thanks be to God for the
"accidents"which resulted from our lack of skills and
dedication in this area! I don't need to mention how
many well-meaning priests advised us to cool it over
the years. The contraceptive mentality is much bigger
than the simple issue of artificial birth control. This
culture views children as disruptive and almost
impossibly difficult to put up with as a lifelong
proposition, and NFP practicing Catholics often share
that basic view in many ways. This is not a judgment
on anyone - not myself, my husband,or anyone else. If
anything, I feel so blinded and duped by a hierarchy that
has it only half right. The Church teaches that children
are our life and our joy. To avoid conception is always a
serious privation, and should be understood as such,
even if it can sometimes be a sacrificial good. The
heavy emphasis on not making overly scrupulous people feel bad may be costing many, many others the chance to live a life free of unnecessary restrictions on their marriage and family size.
Anyway, thank you for keeping the debate open. I have been afraid to say my piece up till now, because so many of the folks I love and respect seem to feel vehemently that criticism of NFP should be verboten. More and more, I think that is a huge mistake
I apologize for that horribly formatted and unedited post! Now I remember why I rarely comment anymore.....
DeleteRobin - thank you! That is a wonderful testimony, with many good points.
ReplyDeleteCLS,
ReplyDelete"okay, in a certain sense NFP *controls* births. But you would have to show why such control is necessarily wrong, and disordered."
Almost always when someone says "in a certain sense" they will proceed to deny the plain and obvious meaning of the words. NFP is control of births. Spin it any way you like, call it whatever you like, but NFP as commonly taught, understood and practiced, is a means of controlling when births occur., a.k.a. birth control. If you act on a plan to have sexual relations with your spouse and do all that you can to ensure that procreation doesn't occur, no matter the reason, it is birth control. You seek to prevent the natural biological consequences of the sexual act at a given point in time. That is birth control. Even if it's only "in a certain sense" birth control, it's birth control. A thorn by any other name..
Moving on to "why such control is necessarily wrong and disorderd." Conscious and intentionally sterile sex is an abuse of the sexual act, because the sexual act itself has no other purpose than procreation. You seem to think that having sex while seeking to avoid procreation is somehow compatible with its purpose. Would you say that using a screwdriver as a fork changes the purpose of the screwdriver, or does the screwdriver retain its inherent purpose throughout various alternative uses? You might laugh at the affirmation that the sexual ACT has only one purpose, but I challenge you to articulate any other purpose for the act that is always and everywhere true in its performance. Rape and prostitution both involve sexual intercourse, one as an act of violence and the other as an objectification of the partners, yet both participate in the potency of the sexual act for procreation. If you suggest some other purpose, it must be able, by the very performance of the sexual act itself, to effect its purpose. I can't think of any other "end" that satisfies this requirement except procreation. To choose to engage in sexual relations after planning in advance to avoid its natural fruitfulness is wrong and disordered. NFP is a dispensation from the requirements of married sexuality.
Therefore, to engage in a sexual act which consciously and intentionally seeks to frustrate its purpose (whether naturally or artificially) is an abuse of the purpose of the sexual act. It is disordered because it seeks some end other than procreation, e.g. pleasure, or "union," or relaxation.
For me, the resolution of all these contentious issues is to forget about "family planning" altogether and just be married, doing what married people have always done and caring for whatever children they receive. If the phrase "family planning" is to be retained, let's change its narcissistic contemporary meaning to "planning to have a family and to care for all the children that God sends." "Family planning" today ALWAYS means choosing to continue normal sexual relations while avoiding its natural consequences. "Spacing" is still saying "no" to the possibility of procreation. Couples who choose to space their children every two years and, as part of acting out that plan, choose NFP as a means of resuming sexual relations sooner rather than later, have chosen to bar the procreation of SOMEONE who might have been conceived during that time when mucus was being charted to avoid conception. Read the transcript or listen to the sermon that inspired Dr. Boyd's launch into the contentious waters of "family planning" and NFP (and TOB).
CLS,
ReplyDelete"okay, in a certain sense NFP *controls* births. But you would have to show why such control is necessarily wrong, and disordered."
Almost always when someone says "in a certain sense" they will proceed to deny the plain and obvious meaning of the words. NFP is control of births. Spin it any way you like, call it whatever you like, but NFP as commonly taught, understood and practiced, is a means of controlling when births occur., a.k.a. birth control. If you act on a plan to have sexual relations with your spouse and do all that you can to ensure that procreation doesn't occur, no matter the reason, it is birth control. You seek to prevent the natural biological consequences of the sexual act at a given point in time. That is birth control. Even if it's only "in a certain sense" birth control, it's birth control. A thorn by any other name..
Moving on to "why such control is necessarily wrong and disorderd." Conscious and intentionally sterile sex is an abuse of the sexual act, because the sexual act itself has no other purpose than procreation. You seem to think that having sex while seeking to avoid procreation is somehow compatible with its purpose. Would you say that using a screwdriver as a fork changes the purpose of the screwdriver, or does the screwdriver retain its inherent purpose throughout various alternative uses? You might laugh at the affirmation that the sexual ACT has only one purpose, but I challenge you to articulate any other purpose for the act that is always and everywhere true in its performance. Rape and prostitution both involve sexual intercourse, one as an act of violence and the other as an objectification of the partners, yet both participate in the potency of the sexual act for procreation. If you suggest some other purpose, it must be able, by the very performance of the sexual act itself, to effect its purpose. I can't think of any other "end" that satisfies this requirement except procreation. To choose to engage in sexual relations after planning in advance to avoid its natural fruitfulness is wrong and disordered. NFP is a dispensation from the requirements of married sexuality.
Therefore, to engage in a sexual act which consciously and intentionally seeks to frustrate its purpose (whether naturally or artificially) is an abuse of the purpose of the sexual act. It is disordered because it seeks some end other than procreation, e.g. pleasure, or "union," or relaxation.
For me, the resolution of all these contentious issues is to forget about "family planning" altogether and just be married, doing what married people have always done and caring for whatever children they receive. If the phrase "family planning" is to be retained, let's change its narcissistic contemporary meaning to "planning to have a family and to care for all the children that God sends." "Family planning" today ALWAYS means choosing to continue normal sexual relations while avoiding its natural consequences. "Spacing" is still saying "no" to the possibility of procreation. Couples who choose to space their children every two years and, as part of acting out that plan, choose NFP as a means of resuming sexual relations sooner rather than later, have chosen to bar the procreation of SOMEONE who might have been conceived during that time when mucus was being charted to avoid conception. Read the transcript or listen to the sermon that inspired Dr. Boyd's launch into the contentious waters of "family planning" and NFP (and TOB).
"Conscious and intentionally sterile sex is an abuse of the sexual act, because the sexual act itself has no other purpose than procreation."
ReplyDeleteMr. Carroll, when you start with a faulty first principle, you will come to the wrong conclusion.
Marriage relations are also intended for the mutual help of spouses.
Therefore, if they are ordered to another end apart from procreation, for the good of the family or the spouses, out of love, and provided the integrity of the act itself is preserved, then they are in fact in accord with right reason.
If this were not the case, then periodic continence could never be morally acceptable. However, from the time when she first considered the question, she has held that periodic continence can sometimes be morally acceptable.
Mrs. Mike, "when you start with a faulty first principle, you will come to the wrong conclusion." Your faulty principle is this: "Marriage relations are also intended for the mutual help of spouses."
ReplyDeleteRe-read Terry's comment. He is saying that the marital ACT, the sex ACT, has only one purpose. Marriage as an institution does have the secondary purpose of the mutual help of spouses. But the sex act itself has only one true end. The sex act itself is not, in and of itself, for "mutual help" - that is not its purpose. People who are in love often feel sexual desire for each other; people who feel sexual desire for each other are not always "in love". See also Terry's examples of rape and prostitution.
"Mutual help" is NOT a purpose that is inherent in the sex act.
"Mrs. Mike, 'when you start with a faulty first principle, you will come to the wrong conclusion." Your faulty principle is this: "Marriage relations are also intended for the mutual help of spouses.'" Boyd
Delete"For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved." Casti Connubii
Mrs. Mike
Yes, yes, but you are still not "getting it". Terry and I are saying that "mutual help" is not INHERENT in the sexual act. The sexual act can serve the end of "mutual help", but Terry's point is that the sexual act IN AND OF ITSELF has but one identifiable purpose.
DeleteI suppose then that that is why (I'm told) St. Augustine thought it was better for a man to procreate with a woman who was not his wife, rather than have non-procreative relations with his wife.
DeleteI'm not so much interested in what Terry says as what the Church says. Something isn't true simply because the Church says it is; rather the Church says it because it IS true--grounded in reality and the natural law, and divine positive law.
To be clear- we are not referring by NFP to morally reprehensible acts such as coitus interruptus, marital sodomy or fellatio (all non-chemical/non artificial, though they're anything but natural since they go against the natural outcome of the act.)
The two things that God joined in the fertile part of the cycle--bonding and babies--He separated in the latter half of the cycle; it is part of His design. Fertility is not random, but ordered and must be ordered to the proper end: procreation.
However, the act must also be in accord with right reason, as I keep saying. I don't think reason goes out the window when we leave the wedding chapel. Many people seem to think that when they vowed to be open to life, any action taken to undermine that would be de facto closed to life. If that were the case, then the Church would not have permitted or given its whole-hearted support (as JP II does) to systematic abstinence. Then we would be breaking a vow. And we couldn't even confess sorrow for something that we really don't regret and would do again, given the circumstances.
Thus, "It is clear that if there is a just cause, it is perfectly lawful to give up the pursuit of primary ends of human functions and center attention solely on legitimate secondary ends. One can stop at these secondary ends for the goodness which is proper to them, for motives which are proportionate to the end being avoided." Griese
I'm not making this up. For one thing, the quotes are from a pre-Vatican II rigorist moral theologian who held the minority view.
Since that time the Church has only expounded and made even more clear this authoritative teaching. If only a small fraction of the teachings are non-infallibly pronounced, should we throw out 75% of what the Church proclaims if we have a different personal judgment? Why bother to be Catholic in that case? The Protestants have a quiver-full movement. They even agree with the Church fathers. But they lack the wisdom of the popes.
That's the best I can do for an NFP "apology."
If you want to talk about *control*, we've had to learn that it isn't easy to control one's passions and appetites in marriage. But I have been very grateful to feel (simultaneously with God) *in control* as opposed to God being in control and me being out of control.
To be sure many people feel called to relinquish control of their fertility to God. They may discern that. I don't believe that's the only form heroism takes. I think having a sacramental marriage and following the precepts of the Church is a very valuable witness in and of itself these days, as we struggle to deal with the fallout from the previous generation's decisions. The man I married is one in a million; showed so much care and respect for both of our dignity and honor.
Alot of our cohorts postpone marriage-- many because of student loans, others to live out a state of perpetual adolescence. Mike married me when he was almost 22 years old and we proceeded virtually immediately to have children in quick succession-- grad school notwithstanding, and he never pressured me to bring in money though goodness knows we could use some. I think that postponing marriage until one's financially secure poses quite a risk of incontinence.
The name natural family planning always seemed like a joke to me, a misnomer when one is at all attracted to their spouse. And certainly all one's spouse has to do is request/demand their marriage rights, and it's forget about NFP since withholding that right would be a mortal sin.
Mrs. Mike
If only a small fraction of the teachings are non-infallibly pronounced,
DeleteShould say if a small fraction...*are*
"I'm not so much interested in what Terry says as what the Church says." Of course. But you were arguing against what he said without getting his point straight.
DeleteAre there any Church documents or moral theologians, who argue as Terry does that I could consider? I am not aware of any. I have not read much of Augustine and Aristotle, but I can't see how the Church would contradict itself. If she did, then she wouldn't be what she says she is.
DeleteMy big point of contention is in the repeated characterization of NFP (if you're including it among natural methods of birth control)(and if I am understanding correctly) as "mutually masturbatory"--I suppose because you presume that the act is sought primarily for pleasure, while the end of the act as intended by God is disregarded. A good intention can't make an immoral act moral.
However, if this assessment were the case then spouses who are sterile or past child-bearing years would not be able to engage in marriage relations, as no new life could be brought forth.
Fr. Gardner answered that "miracles can happen." Well they can happen with NFP too. The door is always at least "ajar." With contraception it is slammed tight, although there are plenty of conceptions with that regardless. What matters is the act of the will, and whether an action is in accord with the natural law.
People who use NFP must be open to the possibility of new life.
Mrs. Mike
Correction: Oops.I think it is more appropriate to see "mutual help" as a purpose of the marriage *vocation*, rather than the institution of marriage. The institution of marriage still has procreation of children as its primary end.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the various perspectives on the purpose of marital coitus are due to the diminished awareness of the sacrament of marriage. I believe that the RC Church shoulders a huge responsibility in neglecting to educate couples and society of the sacramental aspect of marriage; instead, the church has gravitated toward emphasizing the secular aspects of marriage. As a result of trying to be hip (modern?), the result has been an increase in the use of artificial BC, smaller families, increased divorce, acceptance (tolerance) of gay marriage and other sexual deviancies as well as flight from organized religion.
ReplyDeleteCCC 1643: "Conjugal love involves a totality...It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul."
This kind of unity is foreign to the modern concept of commodity (i.e., What can you do for me TODAY? Right now?). Modern marriage has become a means of being pleasured. It is judged as valued only as long as each individual partner derives the benefit of pleasure. Thus, when one partner no longer feels satisfied, they are allowed (and encourage) to dismiss their underproducing partner/employee and move on to someone else who will do a "better" job of making them happy. Thus we have "no-fault" divorce.
One flesh. How many married couples envision their relationship as One Flesh? (CCC 2364).
How can people understand Christ and the Church (Eph 5:21-32) when they don't even understand what marriage (-The Sacrament of Marriage-) is about?
Finally, note CCC 2363: The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
I believe it is a mistake to say that the sexual act itself has no other purpose than procreation. The CCC (2360-2367) does not support that view. Emphasizing the SOLE purpose of sex as procreation exploits and oppresses the female and reinforces the (negative) stereotype of baby factories. Emphasizing ONLY procreation also distracts from the sacramental characteristics and benefits of marriage.
God is the 3rd partner in marriage. That needs to be emphasized more.
Christians are called to be a light to the world; to demonstrate that God abides with us and in us. Being aware of God's role in marriage can be a rich benefit is proclaiming the Good News.
Wow -- that video on family planning is both hilarious and disturbing. 1968 is the year that the Population Bomb was published.
ReplyDeleteWonderful story here.
ReplyDeletehttp://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ODD_TWELVE_SONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
CKev
Dr. Boyd/ Terry: My understanding is that in a sacramental marriage, the marital act is at one and the same time procreative and unitive. It cannot be detached from either of these meanings/purposes. That is why IVF and contraception alike are morally wrong, because each separates the procreative from the unitive, even though the former has a good end.
ReplyDeleteThis is why couples are allowed to contract marriage even should they have a very grave reason that precludes them from realizing the procreative end, or if they are past child-bearing age. It is because the marriage act is ALSO unitive.
In systematic abstinence neither of those meanings is diminished in any way, but the end of procreation/education is subordinated to a different end, for a JUST cause, (justa causa) in which case the practice is perfectly *reasonable* (in accord with right REASON.) Anyone can reproduce. Catholic parents are required to both procreate and EDUCATE their children, which is a very high calling.
When fertility awareness is used to ACHIEVE pregnancy a couple is trying to realize the procreative aspect of their marriage relations.
The popes have spelled this all out, explaining very clearly the parameters of birth regulation that are acceptable by the Church. It may be that in the 1930s the Church exhorted couples to generosity, then a few years later focused more on prudential judgment, which is not at all opposed to generosity in principle. Somewhere the Church said that choosing to have a large family should be "courageously" undertaken. (I don't have the reference.) Courageous is opposed to foolhardiness. It could potentially be foolhardy to have more children then we have the means to support. Are you saying that we may not exercise prudential judgment because that is code for *control*; that would be un-Christian somehow?
I frankly can't understand why Familiaris Consortio has been dismissed out of hand. It is the wisdom of the Church!!
St. Thomas Aquinas said this: "whenever the meaning of the Faith is in dispute, I think that all our brothers and fellow bishops should turn to none other than Peter, i.e. to the authority of his name. Neither Jerome nor Augustine nor any of the sacred doctors defended his own opinion in opposition to the authority of Peter. Hence Jerome says "'If anything herein has been asserted with insufficient skill or with too little caution, then we want to be corrected by you, who hold the chair of Peter.'" S-T 2-2, 10, 12
When it comes to applying NFP use to concrete cases, we can't make sweeping generalizations. Each couple needs to look at their own circumstances and intention and be honest in their *obligatory* mutual discernment of God's will for their family. That is not something anyone can do for them!
Mrs. Mike
Mrs Mike- I am glad you are here. A little spice. I'm not sure I agree with you but you raise issues that need to be addressed.
ReplyDeleteI never heard of "Familiaris Consortio" before you brought it up (above). When I looked it up, I was very surprised because it came out (Nov 1981) while I was involved with the Newman Center at college. Perhaps it was too long/big (46 pages) to digest for unmarried college students. I also don't recall it being mentioned during my marriage preparation 10 years later.
I found a good copy via the Internet (the Vatican version is unnecessarily unpleasantly formatted) and am wading through it. Although I am only a few pages into it at this point, it is clear from 30+ years later that the RC Church FAILED MASSIVELY regarding marriage and family. This reinforces my decision to leave the RC Church. How could the Holy Spirit be present in an institution that so significantly screwed up a task that they knew was fundamental to salvation,society, evangelism? Based on what Dr. Jay is reporting in her blog, things have not improved much.
I can hear the call already: Come back, Come back. But my response is: to what? where?
fREd,
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like your parents were the heroic type this blog extols. And they passed on to you the greatest treasure they had: the Faith!
It would be tragic to abandon it!
I think the thing we need to remember as regards the fellow members of our Church, as Chesterton said "it's not that the Church has been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried."
Also St. Augustine said:
Bad times, hard times - this is what people keep saying; but let us live well, and times shall be good. We are the times: Such as we are, such are the times."
I think that following Humanae Vitae is very very difficult, regardless of whether one generously has a large family, or for well-grounded reasons, limits it. Raising a family in this day and age is very challenging, and Pope John Paul was like a voice in the darkness of our age. Those who disregard his words miss out on much wisdom, and it is the wisdom and teaching authority of the Church herself.
The thing to remember is that 'where sin abounds, grace abounds more.' The Church has ALWAYS been in crisis! That's why we are called the Church Militant. I think the Everlasting Man by Chesterton addresses this point.
The Church has been fighting against evils since day one! Even in the time of St. Catherine of Siena bishops were addressing the problem of homosexual clergy. And I think a letter went out telling priests they shouldn't mix paint pots on the altar during Mass. I also heard that at times priests have smoked cigarettes during the Tridentine rite Mass!
Please don't lose hope. Keep up the good fight!! It helps to keep our eyes fixed on the Lord, and His bride the Church. Listen to them, not the chatter. It has been very discouraging to me to see the Church's teachings not presented in their fullness. However, we are all searching for the truth! And it is all grace, that reveals it to us.
Something you said in a different post reminded me of that saying "when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?" Come Lord Jesus!
Mrs. Mike
Mrs. Mike-
ReplyDeleteI think I am done with all this RC stuff for a while. I really don't have time to read and study a 46 page document that the RC Church has obviously ignored for decades. This is one of the big flaws of the RC Church that I have observed for a long time: does not walk the talk.
All kinds of nice sounding documents from popes and councils and bishops. Centuries worth of documents. We can parse these papers to try to find meaning but the Church generally ignores them. They are typically written in broad fashion so that there are multiple interpretations, especially in correlating with previous documents. The result is chaos. This is why there is the Latin Mass only supporters against mainstream RCs and EWTN RCs and others.
During the past few months, I have followed several RC conservative blogs as well as mainstream RC news sites. Also read more of the CCC. I have encountered nothing that compels me to return to RCism. No shining light; no salt of the earth. Instead, lots of hot air, ignorance, CHAOS, intransigence, stubbornness, subjectivity, and incredible elitism.
I was brought up to live an authentic faith, ready to die for it. I left because the hypocrisy was not worth dying for and I didn't see Christ in this institution. I continue to seek God but I definitely don't see Him the RC Church.
Fred, your problem is in looking to the earthly members of the Church for sinlessness. We are all sinners, including all of the popes (and remember, there have been very, very few infallible pronouncements made by the popes). All of the saints were first sinners. The people who are members of the Church are not perfect, but what the Church teaches is true. Look to the precepts of the Church and her infallible teachings rather than the most recent documents and the failure of our current shepherds to adequately lead the faithful. Let Jesus be your light.
ReplyDeleteAnd if Jesus is to be your light, keep in mind that the only place He is truly to be "encountered" is in the Church He founded. Only in the Catholic Church can you find the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist; only the Catholic Church teachings reflect the truth of the evil of abortion, contraception, and homosexual behavior - three issues that are destroying the culture today. That's what you need to focus on. Whether or not a particular bishop or priest upholds the teachings of the Church doesn't make them any less true, and if you want Truth, you can only find it in the Catholic Church.