Sex and the Seamless Garment
May 7, 2012
William Doino Jr.
In his now-famous address at Fordham University, Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, the late archbishop of Chicago argued that “the pro-life position of the Church must be developed in terms of a comprehensive and consistent ethic of life.” Consequently, the Church should not just focus on fighting abortion, but also the nuclear arms race, capital punishment and poverty; and promote health care, immigration reform, and benefits for the unemployed.
Fair minded critics of the Cardinal did not dispute this. What they objected to was the Cardinals’ failure to emphasize the overwhelming horror of abortion, which was taking over a million lives per year, and prioritize it as the defining moral issue of our time. Placing it on the same plane as the other issues undercut the pro-life movement’s justifiable emphasis on abortion. Worse, it gave cover to pro-abortion Catholics who could say they agreed with “most of” the Cardinal’s concerns, while still sacrificing the unborn by the millions.
Stung by the criticism, Cardinal Bernardin later denied he ever meant to dilute the right-to-life imperative, and wrote: “Not all values, however, are of equal weight. Some are more fundamental than others. . . . I wish to emphasize that no earthly value is more fundamental than human life itself.” Further, when President Bill Clinton awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Cardinal Bernardin, to his credit, made it a point to publicly condemn “the killing of the unborn”—something many of his admirers would be loath to do in front of similar “pro-choice” politicians.
Yet both supporters and critics of the “consistent-ethic-of-life” have made the same mistake Cardinal Bernardin did in his original lecture: limiting the debate to abortion and social justice issues. This ignores the entire dimension of human sexuality, which is so critical to God’s plan for humanity. The same Gospel that calls us to seek peace and help the poor, the sick and the persecuted, also enjoins us to live morally pure lives, and not sin sexually. The consequences of sexual immorality, like neglect of the poor or militarism, are devastating, and profoundly damage our culture and souls.
Nowhere in Cardinal Bernardin’s address, however, is there any mention of this: he forgot to link sex and the seamless garment. His silence on the issue was all the more striking when we consider that at the very time he spoke (1983), John Paul II was in the midst of delivering his own profound series of addresses on human love, now popularly known as the “Theology of the Body.” (1979-1984)
John Paul II did not simply call for a consistent-ethic-of life during his pontificate, but a consistent Catholicism, including the Church’s teachings on sexuality. During his 1987 visit to America, he told the U.S. bishops:
It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality . . . there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church’s moral teachings. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere. I wish to encourage you in the love of Christ to address this situation courageously.
Courage, however, is precisely what has been lacking when it comes to defending Catholic sexual morality in the public square, or even in the Church itself. The same year Blessed John Paul made that statement, Cardinal Bernardin promoted a deeply flawed statement, “The Many Faces of AIDS,” which sanctioned instructions about condoms, and he was never a strong champion of Humanae Vitae—although he was hardly alone among the bishops on that.
J. Francis Stafford, the former archbishop of Denver and Vatican official, has spoken eloquently about the failure of so many clergy to uphold the teaching of Humanae Vitae after it was issued. More recently, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, addressing the episcopacy’s response to the sexual revolution, told the Wall Street Journal: “We forfeited the chance to be a coherent moral voice.” Pope Benedict, for his part, has drawn an inextricable link between the Church’s teachings on sex, abortion, and social justice in his encyclical Caritas in Veritate.
To call for a government policy which assists the poor or promotes peace is laudable, but it does not take much personal sacrifice or effort. Controlling our sexual impulses and desires, however, affects us deeply and in the most personal way. It asks us to resist our temptations—through prayer, confession, modesty, custody of the eyes, and prudence—every single day. Many find this simply too much, an intolerable burden on their earthly desires, and react by protesting the Church’s “obsession” with “pelvic issues.” And so they turn away, like the young rich man unable to follow Christ.
Living up to Catholic teaching on sexual morality is clearly a challenge: the pressure to conform to the world’s ways these days is intense, and nowhere is that more apparent than in the realm of sexual morality. A married couple wanting children, but financially strapped, is easily inclined toward contraception; a single person unable to immediately marry, but wanting to date, is constantly tempted by illicit sex; someone with homosexual attractions is equally tempted, and encouraged by our culture to affirm the gay lifestyle. And yet, there are people in all these situations who, with the grace of God, are able to abide by Catholic teaching, and bear witness to the Catechism’s truths about chastity, both within and without traditional marriage.
Though admirable in many respects, Cardinal Bernardin’s Fordham lecture missed a golden opportunity to challenge his audience on this subject. Had he done so, and entitled his address, “A Call to Chastity, Humanae Vitae and the Consistent Ethic of Life,” he would have received a far different reception—but borne witness to Christ in a more powerful and all-encompassing way.
William Doino Jr. is a contributor to Inside the Vatican magazine, among many other publications, and writes often about religion, history and politics. He contributed an extensive bibliography of works on Pius XII to The Pius War: Responses to the Critics of Pius XII.
RESOURCES
Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, The Seamless Garment: Writings on the Consistent Ethic of Life
Cardinal Joseph Bernardin’s Message for “Respect Life” Sunday in the U.S.A
Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, Reception of the Medal of Freedom
Pope John Paul II, General Audiences: the Theology of the Body (1979-1984)
Pope John Paul II, Address to the Bishops of the Unites States of America, September 16, 1987
Ari Goldman, “Cardinal [O’Connor] Won’t Allow Instruction on Condoms in Program on AIDS,” New York Times, December 14, 1987
Bishop Jean Laffitte, Interview on John Paul II’s Theology of Love
Robert George and William Saunders, The Failure of Catholic Political Leadership
J. Francis Stafford, Humanae Vitae—The Year of the Peirasmos
Time Magazine, Roman Catholics: Soft Line on Contraception, October 4, 1968.
James Taranto, When the Archbishop Met the President, Wall Street Journal, March 31, 2012.
Russell Shaw, Rethinking the Seamless Garment
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
5.7.2012 | 5:10am
Michael PS says:
Am I alone in finding an eerie similarity between the “Truce of 1968,” as George Weigal calls it, when the Congregation for the Clergy decreed that Cardinal O’Boyle of Washington should lift canonical penalties against those priests whom he had disciplined for their public dissent from Humanae Vitae and the “Peace of Clement IX” during the Jansenist controversy?
In both cases, after the Church had been riven by a decade-long dispute, a papal document was issued that was intended to be definitive.
In both cases, the original quarrel was immediately forgotten and argument raged over the scope of papal authority to decide the question. In the Jansenist case, peace, of a sort, was achieved, when Pope Clement IX brokered an agreement that neither side would argue the question, at least, from the pulpit.
The “Peace of Clement IX” lasted for about 35 years and ended in 1705 when Clement XI declared the clergy could no longer hide behind “respectful silence.” Eventually, in 1713, he issued Unigenitus and demanded the subscription of the clergy to it. There was enormous resistance, with bishops and priests appealing to a future Council (and being excommunicated for their pains, in 1718). As late as 1756, dissenters were still being denied the Last Rites.
Will the “Truce of 1968” end in a similar fashion?
In both cases, after the Church had been riven by a decade-long dispute, a papal document was issued that was intended to be definitive.
In both cases, the original quarrel was immediately forgotten and argument raged over the scope of papal authority to decide the question. In the Jansenist case, peace, of a sort, was achieved, when Pope Clement IX brokered an agreement that neither side would argue the question, at least, from the pulpit.
The “Peace of Clement IX” lasted for about 35 years and ended in 1705 when Clement XI declared the clergy could no longer hide behind “respectful silence.” Eventually, in 1713, he issued Unigenitus and demanded the subscription of the clergy to it. There was enormous resistance, with bishops and priests appealing to a future Council (and being excommunicated for their pains, in 1718). As late as 1756, dissenters were still being denied the Last Rites.
Will the “Truce of 1968” end in a similar fashion?
5.7.2012 | 9:06am
Joe DeVet says:
The message of this article is so badly needed. At bottom, the abortion problem is a problem of chastity. For if it weren't for the basic assumption in our culture--that everyone is entitled to his or her orgasm, whenever and with whomever consenting adult (sometimes not limited to this either) he or she may choose--then abortion would not be so common, nor so readily seen as a natural right of the person.
Regarding another key issue of chastity, contraception--if it weren't so common, including among Catholics, to separate reproduction from sex, then the idea of homosexual "marriage" would not have so much traction. Nor would the artificial reproductive technologies, such as ivf, the harm of which is only just now dawning on people (byzantine family relationships, legal contortions such as child support from the technician, and 37% higher incidence of birth defects, etc). Ironically, with modern methods of NFP, marital chastity is easier and better than most people expect--including promoting better marital relationships. An instance of Jesus' promise: "My yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
Regarding another key issue of chastity, contraception--if it weren't so common, including among Catholics, to separate reproduction from sex, then the idea of homosexual "marriage" would not have so much traction. Nor would the artificial reproductive technologies, such as ivf, the harm of which is only just now dawning on people (byzantine family relationships, legal contortions such as child support from the technician, and 37% higher incidence of birth defects, etc). Ironically, with modern methods of NFP, marital chastity is easier and better than most people expect--including promoting better marital relationships. An instance of Jesus' promise: "My yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
5.7.2012 | 9:24am
bill bannon says:
Humanae Vitae pointed to tradition as important on sex (footnote 4) then the anti death penalty forces within the seamless garment movement threw out tradition by never mentioning Romans 13:4 which was pivotal on the death penalty in tradition because prior to the Biblical canon, there were anti military Christians even. Romans 13:4 becoming canon seems to have vitiated that. John Paul II never once mentions Rom.13:4 in Evangelium Vitae when talking on the death penalty.
To sum up: a contradictory message was sent from 1968 onward....tradition is oh so important on sex and let's throw tradition out the window when it supports the death penalty. And you thought that would work? Tradition stinks over here but is great over there.
Then on sex it was said that morality is not a democracy therefore the Birth Control Commission's work was not binding on the Church. But in sect. 27 of Evangelium Vitae, on the death penalty the Public seems to be an organ with
influence: " In the same perspective there is evidence of a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of "legitimate defence" on the part of society."
No democracy on sex....yes democracy on capital punishment.....tradition vital on sex...ignore and hide Gen.9:6 and Rom.13:4 when writing about the death penalty.
How do we write such contradictions from Rome? Because there is no healthy vemues for challenges to what Popes say before they say it. And we hide the Popes from hard ball, tough questioning reporters and from tv which most major leaders face now. My prediction is that if we ever get a Pope who looks to answer tough questions on TV and wants that public challenge which Christ faced repeatedly then and only then will things turn around because people will believe in leaders who face
the heat. Secretly they don't believe leaders who are inaccessible to dialogue. The Popes are the vicar of Christ but Christ debated human beings on site...in public.
To sum up: a contradictory message was sent from 1968 onward....tradition is oh so important on sex and let's throw tradition out the window when it supports the death penalty. And you thought that would work? Tradition stinks over here but is great over there.
Then on sex it was said that morality is not a democracy therefore the Birth Control Commission's work was not binding on the Church. But in sect. 27 of Evangelium Vitae, on the death penalty the Public seems to be an organ with
influence: " In the same perspective there is evidence of a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of "legitimate defence" on the part of society."
No democracy on sex....yes democracy on capital punishment.....tradition vital on sex...ignore and hide Gen.9:6 and Rom.13:4 when writing about the death penalty.
How do we write such contradictions from Rome? Because there is no healthy vemues for challenges to what Popes say before they say it. And we hide the Popes from hard ball, tough questioning reporters and from tv which most major leaders face now. My prediction is that if we ever get a Pope who looks to answer tough questions on TV and wants that public challenge which Christ faced repeatedly then and only then will things turn around because people will believe in leaders who face
the heat. Secretly they don't believe leaders who are inaccessible to dialogue. The Popes are the vicar of Christ but Christ debated human beings on site...in public.
5.7.2012 | 10:49am
Brian Killian says:
Since it's the seamless garment *of life*, I think sexual issues are implied even if never made explicit.
5.7.2012 | 11:23am
Glenda LaGarde says:
The "seamless garment" has been used as a universal excuse for not instructing on the Church's consistent teachings on sexuality. Married in the sixties, in Boston Humanae Vitae was received with joy by us, but with distain by many clerics. Moving to the Sun Belt, I was urged by Catholic physicians at a Catholic hospital to "be sensible" and plan births by using an IUD or "the pill." As children came and grew, the split between camps at the Catholic school painted the chastity-no contraceptives-no abortion Catholics as the backward folk. Objecting to a religious encouraging use of contraceptives as part of the marriage course to the cleric principal, the "seamless garment" excuse was offered. We took our student to the public school. Discussion groups, popular next, were led by young priests who portrayed Paul VI as "backward" and later considered John Paul II as "undoing Vatican II." Of course, anyone reading the Vat. II documents knew better, but who read them?
In the past few years, the "seamless garment" provides a cover for those who, perhaps out of fear--not just a fear to deal with issues which are complex, often met with opposession and colored by emotion. There is a fear to disturb those suffering post-abortion. And there are legitimate concerns for immigrants, the poor, and racial minorities. BUT considering the millions of unborn killed each year, considering that respect for innocent life lost so often for convenience, and considering the long term and extensive damage to families, to young adults having relationships with little bonding, to persons have same sex attractions--sexual theology is desperately needed and more fundamental to our well-being.
There are many ways to aid the poor, to better the lives of immigrants, and to further fairness--no one party or plan. But we must get a grip on what the Church--what Christ--envisions for our healthy and good sexuality, and understand why chastity (for singles, for married, for all)--why monogamous, lasting commitment--why fatherhood/motherhood.
We have to be brave enough to learn and the Church has to be brave enough to teach once again. We have to not only pray and discuss, but do all citizens can to insist on religious freedom--not just to believe, but to follow through by acting in accord with our beliefs. And, I think, we have to have more of you scholars writing to snatch away the smothering "seamless garment."
In the past few years, the "seamless garment" provides a cover for those who, perhaps out of fear--not just a fear to deal with issues which are complex, often met with opposession and colored by emotion. There is a fear to disturb those suffering post-abortion. And there are legitimate concerns for immigrants, the poor, and racial minorities. BUT considering the millions of unborn killed each year, considering that respect for innocent life lost so often for convenience, and considering the long term and extensive damage to families, to young adults having relationships with little bonding, to persons have same sex attractions--sexual theology is desperately needed and more fundamental to our well-being.
There are many ways to aid the poor, to better the lives of immigrants, and to further fairness--no one party or plan. But we must get a grip on what the Church--what Christ--envisions for our healthy and good sexuality, and understand why chastity (for singles, for married, for all)--why monogamous, lasting commitment--why fatherhood/motherhood.
We have to be brave enough to learn and the Church has to be brave enough to teach once again. We have to not only pray and discuss, but do all citizens can to insist on religious freedom--not just to believe, but to follow through by acting in accord with our beliefs. And, I think, we have to have more of you scholars writing to snatch away the smothering "seamless garment."
5.7.2012 | 11:37am
Howard Kainz says:
In defense of Cardinal Bernardin: In an 1988 interview in the National Catholic Register, he deplored the misinterpretation of his "seamless garment" metaphor: he responded, "I feel very, very strongly about the right to life of the unborn, the weakest and most vulnerable of human beings. I don’t see how you can subscribe to the consistent ethic and then vote for someone who feels that abortion is a “basic right” of the individual.... I know that some people on the left, if I may use that label, have used the consistent ethic [“seamless garment”] to give the impression that the abortion issue is not all that important anymore, that you should be against abortion in a general way but that there are more important issues, so don’t hold anybody’s feet to the fire just on abortion. That’s a misuse of the consistent ethic, and I deplore it."
5.7.2012 | 1:15pm
John Hinshaw says:
We are now nearly 30 years on from this highly political speech and concept. It is, therefore, nearly time for a full reconsideration of its effects, virtually all of them negative. Most of the hopes and fears voiced at the time have not come to pass, but many unforeseen damages have come from the "seamless garment".
5.7.2012 | 1:23pm
Richard says:
Since the passing of Cardinal Bernardin, no bishop has emerged as a saintly amalgam of reasonableness and caring. The prevailing tenor of the Church today is a rigid and blind dedication to doctrine in the face of the overwhelming complexity of the modern world. That might not be a problem if the people leading the way were themselves holy and pure. But as we continually see with sexual abuse by the clergy, human sexuality is not only complicated, but pervasive even in an institution so bent on trying to control it. The net result is the massive loss of adherents, the lack of trust by former communicants, and the fanatical devotion of a relatively small, and desperate, group of faithful.
5.7.2012 | 2:35pm
mcasey says:
Could this missing weave in the seamless garment be connected to a widespread belief (in America and elsewhere) that Catholic clergy have zero credibility regarding sexual matters. Believing this (though it may be a mistaken belief), folks are all the more surprised that so much the clergy speak of is sexual in nature. It is one thing to have a ghastly track record on a certain issue; quite another to then make that issue the centerpiece of your assault on secular society.
If I just flew in from Mars, a quick scan of Catholic press releases would lead me to believe that sexual behavior is the prime focus of the religion, way ahead of Jesus or sacraments. Indeed I might be puzzled as to why a clergy that is both celibate and gender-exclusive would give a hoot about sex at all.
No doubt psychologists can have a field day with that question. But it does lead to a strong cognitive dissonance for many people who want to believe in the spiritual and liturgical facets of the Church, but hear only about sex from the one group of adults in America who have neither experience nor credibility on that complex issue.
If I just flew in from Mars, a quick scan of Catholic press releases would lead me to believe that sexual behavior is the prime focus of the religion, way ahead of Jesus or sacraments. Indeed I might be puzzled as to why a clergy that is both celibate and gender-exclusive would give a hoot about sex at all.
No doubt psychologists can have a field day with that question. But it does lead to a strong cognitive dissonance for many people who want to believe in the spiritual and liturgical facets of the Church, but hear only about sex from the one group of adults in America who have neither experience nor credibility on that complex issue.
5.7.2012 | 3:02pm
Gil says:
I witnessed in my lifetime how Catholics went from unanimously concurring that chastity for both men and women was the key that unlocked the door to true intimacy and a lasting relationship to the belief that sexual intercourse was the quickest way to intimacy, bypassing an outdated long-drawn-out chaste approach invented by sexually uptight old men in the Catholic Church (how Pope Paul VI was viewed), which led to universal acceptance of premarital sex, which led to sexual license and the legalized holocaust of abortion. And yes, most clerics stood by and let it happen by rejecting the consistent teaching of the Church on sexuality. Unfortunately, most clerics are still on board with the libertine transvaluation of Christian sexual ethics revealed in their stubborn silence on what is a continual assault on children and youth in sex education as well as ostracizing parishioners who insist that Christian sexual ethics be taught in catechesis classes.
Thank you, Mr. Doino, for keeping the awareness alive as popular media and submissive clerics keep the deafening call to sexual liberation alive.
Thank you, Mr. Doino, for keeping the awareness alive as popular media and submissive clerics keep the deafening call to sexual liberation alive.
5.7.2012 | 3:10pm
Don Roberto says:
Well said, Mr. DeVet and Mrs. LaGarde.
Mr. Bannon, with all due respect, sound bites and the slipshod journalism of TV are inferior venues for revealing Truth. Truth matters too much, and even the most brilliant popes are human. Truth must be sought; it can't be properly fed to or digested by sedentary minds. As for the death penalty, one cannot help but admire Elijah's manly decisiveness; however, the wisdom of the Magisterium (not to mention Gandalf) is not to be taken lightly. Often the state is incapable of fulfilling its duty vis-à-vis criminals with any justice. (Among countless examples, consider China, Russia, Mexico in the 1920's, or Spain in the 1930's.) Though precious resources are used here in the U.S. to incarcerate people who would endanger the innocent if given their liberty, it's even more expensive to execute them, years after their crimes. And the cost to the executioners sould not be discounted.
Richard, you should broaden your reading. One's sense of "the prevailing tenor" depends on the subset of the Church's message one is exposed to. If anything our priests and bishops seem afraid to address these difficult issues.
†
Mr. Bannon, with all due respect, sound bites and the slipshod journalism of TV are inferior venues for revealing Truth. Truth matters too much, and even the most brilliant popes are human. Truth must be sought; it can't be properly fed to or digested by sedentary minds. As for the death penalty, one cannot help but admire Elijah's manly decisiveness; however, the wisdom of the Magisterium (not to mention Gandalf) is not to be taken lightly. Often the state is incapable of fulfilling its duty vis-à-vis criminals with any justice. (Among countless examples, consider China, Russia, Mexico in the 1920's, or Spain in the 1930's.) Though precious resources are used here in the U.S. to incarcerate people who would endanger the innocent if given their liberty, it's even more expensive to execute them, years after their crimes. And the cost to the executioners sould not be discounted.
Richard, you should broaden your reading. One's sense of "the prevailing tenor" depends on the subset of the Church's message one is exposed to. If anything our priests and bishops seem afraid to address these difficult issues.
†
5.7.2012 | 3:45pm
Joe DeVet says:
Bannon: as a member of a fanatical, desperate and small group of faithful who actually believe Church teaching (cf Richard), I take mild exception to the way you have characterized the teachings in Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae. In short, Humanae Vitae did not base its teaching (against contraception) primarily on tradtion, though the teaching has been around since the earlies days of Christianity. It grounds the teaching on the principle of who the human person is in relation to God, on a careful study of natural law, if you will.
Likewise, the commentary on capital punishment in Evangelium Vitae is also a principled argument. It does not present its case based on "democratic" voting or polling, though a drift in public opinion was cited as an illustration, not as a REASON. The principle is this: a political entity may exercise self-defense against those who would threaten the common good by committing heinous crimes, such as murder, through use of capital punishment--if there is no better option. John Paul II did not change this teaching. Rather, he made the prudential judgment that modern penal systems provide adequate protection for cities, states and nations, without recourse to capital punishment. He concludes that under such circumstances, capital punishment should not be done. However, implicit in this argument is the fact that, if today's penal systems are not adequate to the defense of the common good without resorting to executions, then executions would still be morally justified.
In any case, John Paul II was not persuaded of his position because of any "democratic" considerations, but on the principles of the teaching and on his own assessment of contemporary reality. It remains a matter of judgment whether he was right in his assessment of the efficacy of modern penal systems. On this, Catholics can in good faith differ.
Properly understood, there is no inconsistency at all between John Paul's vigorous prosecution of the teachings of Humanae Vitae and his arguments in Evangelium Vitae.
Likewise, the commentary on capital punishment in Evangelium Vitae is also a principled argument. It does not present its case based on "democratic" voting or polling, though a drift in public opinion was cited as an illustration, not as a REASON. The principle is this: a political entity may exercise self-defense against those who would threaten the common good by committing heinous crimes, such as murder, through use of capital punishment--if there is no better option. John Paul II did not change this teaching. Rather, he made the prudential judgment that modern penal systems provide adequate protection for cities, states and nations, without recourse to capital punishment. He concludes that under such circumstances, capital punishment should not be done. However, implicit in this argument is the fact that, if today's penal systems are not adequate to the defense of the common good without resorting to executions, then executions would still be morally justified.
In any case, John Paul II was not persuaded of his position because of any "democratic" considerations, but on the principles of the teaching and on his own assessment of contemporary reality. It remains a matter of judgment whether he was right in his assessment of the efficacy of modern penal systems. On this, Catholics can in good faith differ.
Properly understood, there is no inconsistency at all between John Paul's vigorous prosecution of the teachings of Humanae Vitae and his arguments in Evangelium Vitae.
5.7.2012 | 4:33pm
bill bannon says:
Don Roberto,
The US executes 44 criminals per year on average in the last five years and inmate on inmate murders average 52.5 per year. So the modern penology of the catechism is not protecting even inmates. It's not protecting your family because the US has a 65% murderer arrest rate...Rio is 14%...Guatemala 3%. Modern penology (life sentences) is not protecting a Guatemalan family from 86% of Guatemala's murderers. Fr. Geoghan and Jeffrey Dahmer were both murdered by lifer inmates in states wherein the death penalty was abolished. Ergo as the Bishops rejoice with each state like Connecticut abolishing capital punishment...will they do follow up as to how many more inmates then get murdered within "modern penology". Executions are not expensive....the average ten years of appeals is expensive. I've seen three cases of little girls in Florida, Georgia, and Canada being raped and then strangled to death as though such people are getting this crime from one movie they all watch. They should be shot after taking them to Church for three months as in Dicken's day. The papal states from 1800 to 1850 executed 500 criminals rather than keep them in a room for life. Read about it by googling " Bugatti papal executioner wiki".
The US executes 44 criminals per year on average in the last five years and inmate on inmate murders average 52.5 per year. So the modern penology of the catechism is not protecting even inmates. It's not protecting your family because the US has a 65% murderer arrest rate...Rio is 14%...Guatemala 3%. Modern penology (life sentences) is not protecting a Guatemalan family from 86% of Guatemala's murderers. Fr. Geoghan and Jeffrey Dahmer were both murdered by lifer inmates in states wherein the death penalty was abolished. Ergo as the Bishops rejoice with each state like Connecticut abolishing capital punishment...will they do follow up as to how many more inmates then get murdered within "modern penology". Executions are not expensive....the average ten years of appeals is expensive. I've seen three cases of little girls in Florida, Georgia, and Canada being raped and then strangled to death as though such people are getting this crime from one movie they all watch. They should be shot after taking them to Church for three months as in Dicken's day. The papal states from 1800 to 1850 executed 500 criminals rather than keep them in a room for life. Read about it by googling " Bugatti papal executioner wiki".
5.7.2012 | 10:52pm
bill bannon says:
Joe DeVet,
John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae sees God exempting Cain from being killed as very significant for our thinking about mercy and the death penalty. It would have been nice if he read on in Genesis and noticed that the same God gives both Jews and Gentiles a death penalty for murder in Genesis 9:6. God gives the death penalty for murder after exempting Cain because God is about to introduce the first kingdom under Nimrod. Do you see the difference? God was saving Cain from vigilantes since there was no kingdom at Cain's time. Then that same God gives a death penalty to kingdoms because only governments can execute...not vigilantes. When you rule over one billion Catholics, it should be a requirement to know the
topic biblically more than he demonstrates. God exempting Cain is God teaching against private persons executing. Then the same God proceeds a little later to begin kingdoms under Nimrod and hence he gives the death penalty to rulers which is repeated in Christ ackowledging that power in Pilate and is repeated in Romans 13:4. Either John Paul II didn't notice the counter play between the non kingdom period of Cain and the later kingdom period or he noticed it and rejected that God gave a death penalty in Gen.9:6. The latter is entirely possible because in section 40 he insinuates that the Jewish death penalties were lacking in "refinement"....and that the sermon on the mount would bring refinement. Strange. God Himself has an angel kill Herod in Acts 12 and lets worms eat his body. Or maybe modern hermeneutics can de canon that passage too. On the contrary, in the stonings that
God required of the Jews, God could by Providence tailor the flight of the stones and what body part they hit first so as to give the person time to repent and ask for mercy. For a like rejection of God ordered violence by Benedict, read section 42 of Verbum Domini where the massacres are to be handled by those with "... a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context.". Sounds like the dooms of fellow Jews at Sinai and of the Canaanites is "literary" perchance and not "historical". If you remove the OT violence that these two men dislike and remove it as being literature not history, then Elijah killing 450 prophets must go; God congradulating Jehu on the destruction of the house of Ahab must go; Samuel hacking " Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal" must go. The 12 th chapter of Wisdom must go since it tells why God doomed the Canaanites and only after first punishing them lightly. All stonings ordered by God for mortal sins must go.
Face it Joe. John Paul II called the death penalty "cruel" in public twice...ie..St. Louis, 1999. So he called cruel something God repeatedly ordered; and that description "cruel" is either blasphemy of a type or John Paul thinks the OT is fiction when it has God ordering over 30 death penalties...most to Jews only. Benedict and the Bishops seek abolition of the death penalty which makes you the fool for thinking that they would obey ccc 2267. No....they act in dissent of its...it might be needed rarely idea.
John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae sees God exempting Cain from being killed as very significant for our thinking about mercy and the death penalty. It would have been nice if he read on in Genesis and noticed that the same God gives both Jews and Gentiles a death penalty for murder in Genesis 9:6. God gives the death penalty for murder after exempting Cain because God is about to introduce the first kingdom under Nimrod. Do you see the difference? God was saving Cain from vigilantes since there was no kingdom at Cain's time. Then that same God gives a death penalty to kingdoms because only governments can execute...not vigilantes. When you rule over one billion Catholics, it should be a requirement to know the
topic biblically more than he demonstrates. God exempting Cain is God teaching against private persons executing. Then the same God proceeds a little later to begin kingdoms under Nimrod and hence he gives the death penalty to rulers which is repeated in Christ ackowledging that power in Pilate and is repeated in Romans 13:4. Either John Paul II didn't notice the counter play between the non kingdom period of Cain and the later kingdom period or he noticed it and rejected that God gave a death penalty in Gen.9:6. The latter is entirely possible because in section 40 he insinuates that the Jewish death penalties were lacking in "refinement"....and that the sermon on the mount would bring refinement. Strange. God Himself has an angel kill Herod in Acts 12 and lets worms eat his body. Or maybe modern hermeneutics can de canon that passage too. On the contrary, in the stonings that
God required of the Jews, God could by Providence tailor the flight of the stones and what body part they hit first so as to give the person time to repent and ask for mercy. For a like rejection of God ordered violence by Benedict, read section 42 of Verbum Domini where the massacres are to be handled by those with "... a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context.". Sounds like the dooms of fellow Jews at Sinai and of the Canaanites is "literary" perchance and not "historical". If you remove the OT violence that these two men dislike and remove it as being literature not history, then Elijah killing 450 prophets must go; God congradulating Jehu on the destruction of the house of Ahab must go; Samuel hacking " Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal" must go. The 12 th chapter of Wisdom must go since it tells why God doomed the Canaanites and only after first punishing them lightly. All stonings ordered by God for mortal sins must go.
Face it Joe. John Paul II called the death penalty "cruel" in public twice...ie..St. Louis, 1999. So he called cruel something God repeatedly ordered; and that description "cruel" is either blasphemy of a type or John Paul thinks the OT is fiction when it has God ordering over 30 death penalties...most to Jews only. Benedict and the Bishops seek abolition of the death penalty which makes you the fool for thinking that they would obey ccc 2267. No....they act in dissent of its...it might be needed rarely idea.
5.7.2012 | 11:20pm
bill bannon says:
Correction
Guatemala brought back the death penalty recently. The following heavily Catholic countries have no death penalty but have some of the worst murder rates on earth but that is partly due to low arrest rates also. Japan has the death penalty with high arrest rates and is one of the safest countries on earth.
El Salvador #1 worst murder rate. 79% Catholic no dp
Honduras #2. worst ” ” 97%.Catholic no dp
Venezuela.# 4 worst ” ” 96%. ” no dp
Colombia. #7.worst ” ” 90%. ” no dp
Brazil. #19.worst. ”. ” 73%. ” no dp
Dominican Republic #20.worst “. ” 95%. ” no dp
wiki
Guatemala brought back the death penalty recently. The following heavily Catholic countries have no death penalty but have some of the worst murder rates on earth but that is partly due to low arrest rates also. Japan has the death penalty with high arrest rates and is one of the safest countries on earth.
El Salvador #1 worst murder rate. 79% Catholic no dp
Honduras #2. worst ” ” 97%.Catholic no dp
Venezuela.# 4 worst ” ” 96%. ” no dp
Colombia. #7.worst ” ” 90%. ” no dp
Brazil. #19.worst. ”. ” 73%. ” no dp
Dominican Republic #20.worst “. ” 95%. ” no dp
wiki
5.7.2012 | 11:44pm
Sincerely Wondering says:
As a theologically orthodox Protestant, I share almost all of Roman Catholicisms teachings on sexuality. One exception (actually the only one i am aware of) is the use of non-abortion types of contraception....the kinds that prevent conception rather than end it. I fail to understand the moral difference between avoiding pregnancy by keeping track of a woman's cycle and making use of contraception. In both cases a husband and wife are trying to prevent the conception of a child. One method is certainly more reliable than the other, but the goal in both is the same; preventing conception. I find Thielieke's "Ethics of Sex" from quite some time ago still a helpful resource for helping this generation of Christians reflect biblically, theologically and philosophically on issues of sexuality.
5.8.2012 | 10:42am
Rushhour3600 says:
Sincerely Wondering,
Catholics believe that each sexual act should be an act of unconditional love because the radical intimacy of sex calls us to radical and unconditional love. It must therefore meet five conditions:
1) It must be done with full knowledge.
2) It must be done with full consent.
3) It must be part of a permanent commitment.
4) It must be a full and exclusive self-gift.
5) It must be open to the giving of life.
These five things describe how Jesus' death on the Cross. He knowingly and freely accepted death on a Cross, permanently refashioned reality, personally offers each one of us salvation in a particular and exclusive way, and opened the door so that we might "have life and live it to the fullest" in this life and the next. Contraception puts a barrier on a particular sexual act. NFP allows the couple to give each other fully. The woman's fertility comes and goes in cycles but she is giving that fertility that she does have. Catholics believe NFP should only be practiced for a grave reason.
Catholics believe that each sexual act should be an act of unconditional love because the radical intimacy of sex calls us to radical and unconditional love. It must therefore meet five conditions:
1) It must be done with full knowledge.
2) It must be done with full consent.
3) It must be part of a permanent commitment.
4) It must be a full and exclusive self-gift.
5) It must be open to the giving of life.
These five things describe how Jesus' death on the Cross. He knowingly and freely accepted death on a Cross, permanently refashioned reality, personally offers each one of us salvation in a particular and exclusive way, and opened the door so that we might "have life and live it to the fullest" in this life and the next. Contraception puts a barrier on a particular sexual act. NFP allows the couple to give each other fully. The woman's fertility comes and goes in cycles but she is giving that fertility that she does have. Catholics believe NFP should only be practiced for a grave reason.
5.8.2012 | 11:00am
bill bannon says:
Rushhour3600,
"Grave" reason is an internet myth. It's "serious" reasons.
Humanae Vitae section 10, 4th paragraph...Vatican website:
"With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time."
"Grave" reason is an internet myth. It's "serious" reasons.
Humanae Vitae section 10, 4th paragraph...Vatican website:
"With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time."
5.8.2012 | 12:10pm
JP says:
"No democracy on sex....yes democracy on capital punishment.....tradition vital on sex...ignore and hide Gen.9:6 and Rom.13:4 when writing about the death penalty.
How do we write such contradictions from Rome?"
Some things are beyond debate. The Church's prohibition against birth control go back to the beginning. The Vatican Commission dealing with birth control was a mistake on the part of the Pope. He gave the impression that this issue could be democratically decided. Capital Punishment, on the other hand, isn't quite so easy. And it depends upon the subjective standards of an "evolving society". Europe, by the 1980s may have out grown Capital Punishment. But, the rest of the world hadn't. Since the end of WWII, there was always the danger of the Vatican falling captive to Post-Modern fadish Euro morality. Both artificial birth control and capital punishment are examples of that. The Vatican was able to dodge a bullet concerning artificial birth control, but not on many other issues.
How do we write such contradictions from Rome?"
Some things are beyond debate. The Church's prohibition against birth control go back to the beginning. The Vatican Commission dealing with birth control was a mistake on the part of the Pope. He gave the impression that this issue could be democratically decided. Capital Punishment, on the other hand, isn't quite so easy. And it depends upon the subjective standards of an "evolving society". Europe, by the 1980s may have out grown Capital Punishment. But, the rest of the world hadn't. Since the end of WWII, there was always the danger of the Vatican falling captive to Post-Modern fadish Euro morality. Both artificial birth control and capital punishment are examples of that. The Vatican was able to dodge a bullet concerning artificial birth control, but not on many other issues.
5.8.2012 | 12:14pm
JP says:
"Since the passing of Cardinal Bernardin, no bishop has emerged as a saintly amalgam of reasonableness and caring. .."
You may see him as that. But, there are many people who differ concerning his entire "Seamless Garment" approach to moral theology.
You may see him as that. But, there are many people who differ concerning his entire "Seamless Garment" approach to moral theology.
5.8.2012 | 12:50pm
Sue Sims says:
Sincerely Wondering:
I shared your attitude for many years as an evangelical Protestant, and even after becoming a Catholic had to struggle with Magisterial teaching (believed with the head but not with the heart). Then it suddenly struck me: assuming that there were a pill enabling me to scoff chocolate non-stop and not put on any weight at all, would it be a virtuous act to do so? We'd call that gluttonous. And in the absence of such a pill, if I want to keep slim (or in my case, to lose weight), I have to refrain from gorging on chocolate. The end is the same; it's the means one uses to attain those ends which are sinful or virtuous.
In the same way, the couple who use contraception to prevent the birth of a baby are seeking the pleasure without the penalty (I'm assuming that they'd feel the birth of a child as a penalty, though obviously that's sad); the couple who use NFP for the same end are simply refraining from the chocolate - sorry, the sex - when the woman is fertile.
I shared your attitude for many years as an evangelical Protestant, and even after becoming a Catholic had to struggle with Magisterial teaching (believed with the head but not with the heart). Then it suddenly struck me: assuming that there were a pill enabling me to scoff chocolate non-stop and not put on any weight at all, would it be a virtuous act to do so? We'd call that gluttonous. And in the absence of such a pill, if I want to keep slim (or in my case, to lose weight), I have to refrain from gorging on chocolate. The end is the same; it's the means one uses to attain those ends which are sinful or virtuous.
In the same way, the couple who use contraception to prevent the birth of a baby are seeking the pleasure without the penalty (I'm assuming that they'd feel the birth of a child as a penalty, though obviously that's sad); the couple who use NFP for the same end are simply refraining from the chocolate - sorry, the sex - when the woman is fertile.
5.8.2012 | 12:53pm
JP says:
"That might not be a problem if the people leading the way were themselves holy and pure. But as we continually see with sexual abuse by the clergy, human sexuality is not only complicated, but pervasive even in an institution so bent on trying to control it..."
Richard,
When in trapped in a corner, it never hurts to bring up the sex abuse scandals. But, you are bringing up strawmen. There is no such thing as "holy and pure" priests. There was never; there never will be. All have fallen -even the priests. And no, the Church doesn't wish to control sex. It is, however, under the obligation to transmit God's laws and truths. Catholics can simply ignore the Church in this regard. And according to statistics, most are doing just that. But then again, an adulterer has no right to complain that he is stuck with expensive child support payments; and men and women who "hook-up" should not complain if they pick up some nasty STD.
Most Catholics ignore the Church's prohibitions against fornication, co-habitation, homosexuality, artificial birth control, and abortion. I'm not sure what more that you want. I suppose, the hetrodox will not be satisfied until the Church comes out in supplication and formally surrenders.
Perhaps in the quiet watches of the night there are some whot might question thier own certainty. How many souls have been thrown to destruction? Perhaps the Church was right, and now we have millions upon millions living in Grave Sin who don't even realize it. There are so many lay people who instruct that the Church is wrong, and just as many priests and religious who remain quiet. We can all give thanks to Christ's mercy. This is the Age of the Divine Mercy, if you believe what JPII preached. The world surely needs it.
Richard,
When in trapped in a corner, it never hurts to bring up the sex abuse scandals. But, you are bringing up strawmen. There is no such thing as "holy and pure" priests. There was never; there never will be. All have fallen -even the priests. And no, the Church doesn't wish to control sex. It is, however, under the obligation to transmit God's laws and truths. Catholics can simply ignore the Church in this regard. And according to statistics, most are doing just that. But then again, an adulterer has no right to complain that he is stuck with expensive child support payments; and men and women who "hook-up" should not complain if they pick up some nasty STD.
Most Catholics ignore the Church's prohibitions against fornication, co-habitation, homosexuality, artificial birth control, and abortion. I'm not sure what more that you want. I suppose, the hetrodox will not be satisfied until the Church comes out in supplication and formally surrenders.
Perhaps in the quiet watches of the night there are some whot might question thier own certainty. How many souls have been thrown to destruction? Perhaps the Church was right, and now we have millions upon millions living in Grave Sin who don't even realize it. There are so many lay people who instruct that the Church is wrong, and just as many priests and religious who remain quiet. We can all give thanks to Christ's mercy. This is the Age of the Divine Mercy, if you believe what JPII preached. The world surely needs it.
5.8.2012 | 3:25pm
Gil says:
Capital punishment keeps popping up in this discussion. Anyone interested in what I believe is the best explanation given on the Church’s teaching on this difficult subject, please read Avery Cardinal Dulles' explication in the April 2001 edition of First Things:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment-21
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment-21
5.9.2012 | 1:46am
Sincerely Wondering says:
@ Sue Sims
What I seem to gather is that it is okay to not want to have more than a certain number of children and enjoy the conjugal union as long as you don't use contraception. Your analogy merely makes my point....in your case someone wants to eat chocolate without getting fat. There is gluttony and there is lust. I don't deny that the ultimate purpose of the sex act is procreation just as the ultimate purpose of eating is nutrition. But the sex act is also about the couples giving of themselves to each other for mutual joy and consummation of their love, not just procreation. Enjoying a glass of wine or a beer, some ice cream or a piece of pie,
or popcorn etc. are all done without regard to nutrition. In other words, food and
drink can be enjoyed as good gifts, and God enjoins us to "feast" at certain times. Obviously, if food comes to control you, you will have a weight problem, just as there can be sex addictions. NFP and contraception both have as their aim the enjoyment of conjugal love without the conception of a child. And someone using NFP can gorge on sex just as much as someone using contraception, like a binge drinker who confines his drinking for the weekends and abstains during the week. Like Pascal, I detest casuistry.
What I seem to gather is that it is okay to not want to have more than a certain number of children and enjoy the conjugal union as long as you don't use contraception. Your analogy merely makes my point....in your case someone wants to eat chocolate without getting fat. There is gluttony and there is lust. I don't deny that the ultimate purpose of the sex act is procreation just as the ultimate purpose of eating is nutrition. But the sex act is also about the couples giving of themselves to each other for mutual joy and consummation of their love, not just procreation. Enjoying a glass of wine or a beer, some ice cream or a piece of pie,
or popcorn etc. are all done without regard to nutrition. In other words, food and
drink can be enjoyed as good gifts, and God enjoins us to "feast" at certain times. Obviously, if food comes to control you, you will have a weight problem, just as there can be sex addictions. NFP and contraception both have as their aim the enjoyment of conjugal love without the conception of a child. And someone using NFP can gorge on sex just as much as someone using contraception, like a binge drinker who confines his drinking for the weekends and abstains during the week. Like Pascal, I detest casuistry.
5.9.2012 | 8:42am
Joe DeVet says:
Sincerely, I can offer two practical things for your consideration.
First, you rightly reject any form of birth control which is abortive. Good for you! That would include the Pill, of course, and all hormonal approaches as well as IUD's. This leaves barriers as the only choice.
You mentioned one difference between NFP and contraception is effectiveness, and you are right. NFP, when used properly, is more effective than the barrier methods. It is about as effective as the Pill--but of course without the serious moral issues, and the side effects, which can be life-threatening in the long run.
Another practical consideration is this. We are all influenced by the culture's ideas on sexuality, one of which is what I call a "quantitative theory of sex"--the more the better, and any times of abstinence harm the marriage. From my own personal experience, sometimes understanding a thing can only come from experiencing it, and not trying to study it from the outside--particularly when influenced by cultural norms that are mistaken. NFP is such a thing. Only in the light of experiencing the benefits of "natural sex" were my wife and I able to see why the contraception we had been using was unnatural, disgusting, and yes, sinful. Once having converted to NFP, the very idea of ever reverting to contraceptive use became abhorrent to me.
Natural sex (some call it "green sex"!) is the best sex. But only experience can prove it.
A caution on NFP--it must be approached in teamwork fashion. Husband and wife both educated and both engaged in the process. Then it really works, not only to plan families but to deepen a marriage bond.
Sincerely, Joe
First, you rightly reject any form of birth control which is abortive. Good for you! That would include the Pill, of course, and all hormonal approaches as well as IUD's. This leaves barriers as the only choice.
You mentioned one difference between NFP and contraception is effectiveness, and you are right. NFP, when used properly, is more effective than the barrier methods. It is about as effective as the Pill--but of course without the serious moral issues, and the side effects, which can be life-threatening in the long run.
Another practical consideration is this. We are all influenced by the culture's ideas on sexuality, one of which is what I call a "quantitative theory of sex"--the more the better, and any times of abstinence harm the marriage. From my own personal experience, sometimes understanding a thing can only come from experiencing it, and not trying to study it from the outside--particularly when influenced by cultural norms that are mistaken. NFP is such a thing. Only in the light of experiencing the benefits of "natural sex" were my wife and I able to see why the contraception we had been using was unnatural, disgusting, and yes, sinful. Once having converted to NFP, the very idea of ever reverting to contraceptive use became abhorrent to me.
Natural sex (some call it "green sex"!) is the best sex. But only experience can prove it.
A caution on NFP--it must be approached in teamwork fashion. Husband and wife both educated and both engaged in the process. Then it really works, not only to plan families but to deepen a marriage bond.
Sincerely, Joe
5.9.2012 | 10:12am
Steve McElroy says:
Bill, is there not a radical difference between a private act and a state action? Executions and drone strikes are carried out by the state - "the will of the people," so to speak. We are each compelled to partake in those deeds by virtue of our citizenship. I hope you will agree these conditions are not present in the case of a terminated pregnancy.
5.9.2012 | 4:15pm
Gil says:
Sincerely Wondering,
But it gets tricky. When I talk with young people about sexual union I use words like "intimacy" and "integrity" a lot. When you write "...the sex act is also about the couples giving of themselves to each other for mutual joy and consummation of their love, not just procreation," how will most young persons in our highly sexualized, pleasure-seeking culture interpret it? Even gay persons are out to fulfill what you are recommending as a reason for sexual union, adding that they can always adopt children as heterosexually oriented Catholic couples do who can’t birth children. Of course there is mutual joy and a consummation of love (and what kind of “love” do you mean, or what degree of love?) for a man and a woman when they unite sexually, but the integrity of the union goes much deeper than that: it goes to the depth of reintegration as "one flesh", where the man and woman become more of who they really are in God's creation, the curse that fell on Adam and Eve lifted, something that cannot be actualized other than with a man and a woman who unite sexually in God's will for the restoration of their integrity of being, what was lost at the Fall. In other words, for the depth of union, man and woman must unite sexually in what God wills for them in its gestalt understanding. Otherwise, even Christian men and woman can get trapped in a uniting sexually in a ground of lust, seeking pleasure (absence of pain) in the Freudian answer to modern alienation (him, of course suggesting some restraint so as to avoid sexual addiction), not restoration of integrity of being, that, by the way, brings the most joy and sexual satisfaction, for there is a letting go that I can’t describe other than to say it involves not servicing each other’s needs to bring joy and pleasure, but becoming one where all needs are satisfied without thinking about them, or having to build sexual games around them to heighten their significance.
But it gets tricky. When I talk with young people about sexual union I use words like "intimacy" and "integrity" a lot. When you write "...the sex act is also about the couples giving of themselves to each other for mutual joy and consummation of their love, not just procreation," how will most young persons in our highly sexualized, pleasure-seeking culture interpret it? Even gay persons are out to fulfill what you are recommending as a reason for sexual union, adding that they can always adopt children as heterosexually oriented Catholic couples do who can’t birth children. Of course there is mutual joy and a consummation of love (and what kind of “love” do you mean, or what degree of love?) for a man and a woman when they unite sexually, but the integrity of the union goes much deeper than that: it goes to the depth of reintegration as "one flesh", where the man and woman become more of who they really are in God's creation, the curse that fell on Adam and Eve lifted, something that cannot be actualized other than with a man and a woman who unite sexually in God's will for the restoration of their integrity of being, what was lost at the Fall. In other words, for the depth of union, man and woman must unite sexually in what God wills for them in its gestalt understanding. Otherwise, even Christian men and woman can get trapped in a uniting sexually in a ground of lust, seeking pleasure (absence of pain) in the Freudian answer to modern alienation (him, of course suggesting some restraint so as to avoid sexual addiction), not restoration of integrity of being, that, by the way, brings the most joy and sexual satisfaction, for there is a letting go that I can’t describe other than to say it involves not servicing each other’s needs to bring joy and pleasure, but becoming one where all needs are satisfied without thinking about them, or having to build sexual games around them to heighten their significance.
5.9.2012 | 4:25pm
Gil says:
When you use NFP you are not actively, biochemically opposing conception - you are not involved existentially in being contra (against) conception, but choosing via nature a time when it is part of what God plans, what God wills. But when you use contraceptives, you are bio-chemically opposed not only to God's plan, but you are violently opposing nature itself (read the contraindications included with pills). In other words, even if you are not religious, even if you do not believe in God having a plan for married couples, if you abide in what nature provides for relationships, you are never in opposition to (contra) conception. Nature itself provides NFP, not a pharmaceutical company or Planned Parenthood, both organizations that oppose conception for profit if not outright opposing God’s plan for humans, even at the cost of killing babies.
5.9.2012 | 4:29pm
Gil says:
And of course NFP can be used in opposition to God's plan, but it cannot be used to assault a woman's body. In other words, it is part of nature, not opposed to it.
5.9.2012 | 5:44pm
bill bannon says:
Steve McElroy,
Abortion is infallibly condemned in section 62 of Evangelium Vitae through John Paul II having gotten unanimous Agreement from the world's Bishops in a polling of them on that, euthanasia and killing the innocent. Governments sin when they compel it as in China. That infallibility and its declarative wordng has nothing to do with other sections of Evangelium Vitae as e.g. the section on the death penalty. Actually the lay person in the act of lethal self defense in his home is a quasi agent of his state which delineates the parameters of shooting a home invader. Their tradition emanates from Exodus 22: 1
[If a thief is caught* in the act of housebreaking and beaten to death, there is no bloodguilt involved. 2 But if after sunrise he is thus beaten, there is bloodguilt."
In that culture the passage may have been distinguishing an unarmed burglar
(daytime) from a home invader (nighttime).
Abortion is infallibly condemned in section 62 of Evangelium Vitae through John Paul II having gotten unanimous Agreement from the world's Bishops in a polling of them on that, euthanasia and killing the innocent. Governments sin when they compel it as in China. That infallibility and its declarative wordng has nothing to do with other sections of Evangelium Vitae as e.g. the section on the death penalty. Actually the lay person in the act of lethal self defense in his home is a quasi agent of his state which delineates the parameters of shooting a home invader. Their tradition emanates from Exodus 22: 1
[If a thief is caught* in the act of housebreaking and beaten to death, there is no bloodguilt involved. 2 But if after sunrise he is thus beaten, there is bloodguilt."
In that culture the passage may have been distinguishing an unarmed burglar
(daytime) from a home invader (nighttime).
5.11.2012 | 9:54am
George says:
I've long been an advocate of the seamless garment approach to ethics, but I think your argument is in vain. Proponents of the death penalty are not interested in whether capital punishment is cost-effective. They're interested in vengeance, and they justify their acts by appealing to the "eye for an eye" argument. That's why they're so upset when the courts insist that the lethal injections not be painful to the condemned.
In fear and trembling, by the mercy of God, I have made headway against sinful habits: lo and behold, my marriage bond is tighter (my wife jokes I must be in mid-life crisis) and I'm more physically fit. Imagine the man who instead feeds adulterous fantasies, leads himself into temptation and eventually gives himself over to harlots and the like—he should not be surprised to find himself suffering from AIDS and depression. And if this world is, as we're told on very good authority, but a foretaste of the next . . .
One of my childhood friends, a colorful wheeler and dealer, was caught up last week in Obama's (surprising but appropriate) crackdown on "medical" marijuana here in California. He has a nice house, a wife, three daughters, etc. But he scoffed at the religious belief we were raised with and unabashedly worshipped Venus and mammon. Now he faces financial and familial ruin, and perhaps several years in prison. (I wonder if he is contemplating the errors of his ways or making plans to detect and punish whoever it was that ratted him out?) God help him!
And may God help all of those who use their mental powers to excuse foolish disobedience—who because they don't fully understand why sexual misbehavior is bad enough to warrant multiple Commandments against it, speak of "victimless crimes." There *are* victims. In fact, we are *all* the victims, insofar as any part of the Body of Christ is harmed, physically, mentally, or spiritually.
†