Contracept or Not

What to do?  Is it ok to use artificial methods of contraception?  That can be a difficult question to answer honestly and objectively looking at both sides of the issue.  Many love the convenience of artificial birth control and therefore neglect to objectively evaluate the pros and cons of artificial birth control for fear of what they might find.  Today, this author will try to remedy this situation by looking at the reasons why we shouldn’t be using artificial contraception.

At first I avoided the issue of an authoritative Church because I knew what the Catholic Church taught on the subject of contraceptive use.  And in this way I could claim ignorance of Her authority, I never took the time to find out why she taught as She did.  I was fooling myself that I wasn’t doing anything wrong.  For we Catholics know that to use contraception is against the teachings of the Church on moral grounds.  God joined the aspect of unity between two married people with the aspect of procreation in a single act of marital love.  What God has joined together let no man separate.

Then, one day I took the bull by the horns and looked at why the Catholic Church taught what She did on the issue.  I could deny it no longer and told my wife that I no longer believed in artificial contraceptive use. 

There are many Scriptural reasons why using contraception is wrong, the main verse demonstrating the misuse of the mans seed making the sex act infertile (spilling it on the ground as seen in Genesis 38:9-10) was the withdrawal method and in doing so the man was killed for it.  Now some will tell you that Onan was killed because 1)he did not produce offspring for his deceased brother and that’s why God killed him.  And others will tell you that it was because 2)he did not do as Jacob, his father, had told him to do.  But that is simply not the case.

First let us look at the passage in question:

Then Judah said to Onan (Judah’s son), Go into your brother's wife(Tamar) and do what it is right for a husband's brother to do; make her your wife and get offspring for your brother.  But Onan, seeing that the offspring would not be his, went in to his brother's wife, but let his seed go on to the earth, so that he might not get offspring for his brother.  And what he did was evil in the eyes of the Lord, so that he put him to death, like his brother. (Gen 38:8-10)

What we see here is a brothers duty to produce an offspring with the wife of a dead brother, this duty is called the levirate law.  Both in Gen 38:8-10, the Onan incident, and in Deuteronomy (hereafter Deut) 25:7-10 we find someone refusing to give offspring to their dead brothers wife.  And yet one is killed the other is not.  The difference in methods on how these men refused to give offspring will determine the reason for the difference in penalty.  The man in Deut. simply did not take the woman and therefore avoided giving offspring while Onan did take her and spilled his seed to avoid giving offspring.  The spilling of seed is the difference in the act and explains the difference in penalty.  Death instead of humiliation.

In fact any misuse of the mans seed is extremely condemned by God.  We find that any spilling of the seed in any unsuitable receptacle (ie inhospitable to the propagation of life) brings about the penalty of death.  The penalty for a man to lie with a man as with a woman is death and yet nowhere in Scripture do we see such a penalty for two women.  Levitical Law tells us that the wasting of seed with non-regenerative sexual acts warrants death, even the wasting of animal seed warrants death(Lev 18:22-23; 20:13).  That’s why there is no such death penalty anywhere in Scripture for the sexual pleasure of two women…because there is no wasted seed.

This idea of wasting seed to be sinful can be seen in mountains of Christian writings from the very beginnings of Christianity itself.  But today I’d like to ask a simple question.  Since the use of contraception was condemned as going against God’s law by Christians for over 2000 years, why would we now believe that God changed His mind on the subject? Since we know that God doesn’t change when reading Malachi 9:6 “For I am the Lord, and I change not”.  What was a truth of God revealed to man 2000 years ago will remain the same today. 

God Bless

Nathan

Pope Changing Church Teaching?

The full text of the interview is copyrighted, except for quoting portions.  For the purpose of this article I will be quoting only the section which has been taken out of context by many "reporters" who are trying to make it sound like the Pope is changing her teaching on homosexuality, marriage and contraception.  So, first that quote and then my comments:

The Church as Field Hospital Pope Benedict XVI, in announcing his resignation, said that the contemporary world is subject to rapid change and is grappling with issues of great importance for the life of faith. Dealing with these issues requires strength of body and soul, Pope Benedict said. I ask Pope Francis: “What does the church need most at this historic moment? Do we need reforms? What are your wishes for the church in the coming years? What kind of church do you dream of?” Pope Francis begins by showing great affection and immense respect for his predecessor: “Pope Benedict has done an act of holiness, greatness, humility. He is a man of God.  “I see clearly,” the pope continues, “that the thing the church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful; it needs nearness, proximity. I see the church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars! You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else. Heal the wounds, heal the wounds.... And you have to start from the ground up. “The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules. The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you. And the ministers of the church must be ministers of mercy above all. The confessor, for example, is always in danger of being either too much of a rigorist or too lax. Neither is merciful, because neither of them really takes responsibility for the person. The rigorist washes his hands so that he leaves it to the commandment. The loose minister washes his hands by simply saying, ‘This is not a sin’ or something like that. In pastoral ministry we must accompany people, and we must heal their wounds. “How are we treating the people of God? I dream of a church that is a mother and shepherdess. The church’s ministers must be merciful, take responsibility for the people and accompany them like the good Samaritan, who washes, cleans and raises up his neighbor. This is pure Gospel. God is greater than sin. The structural and organizational reforms are secondary—that is, they come afterward. The first reform must be the attitude. The ministers of the Gospel must be people who can warm the hearts of the people, who walk through the dark night with them, who know how to dialogue and to descend themselves into their people’s night, into the darkness, but without getting lost. The people of God want pastors, not clergy acting like bureaucrats or government officials. The bishops, particularly, must be able to support the movements of God among their people with patience, so that no one is left behind. But they must also be able to accompany the flock that has a flair for finding new paths. “Instead of being just a church that welcomes and receives by keeping the doors open, let us try also to be a church that finds new roads, that is able to step outside itself and go to those who do not attend Mass, to those who have quit or are indifferent. The ones who quit sometimes do it for reasons that, if properly understood and assessed, can lead to a return. But that takes audacity and courage.” I mention to Pope Francis that there are Christians who live in situations that are irregular for the church or in complex situations that represent open wounds. I mention the divorced and remarried, same-sex couples and other difficult situations. What kind of pastoral work can we do in these cases? What kinds of tools can we use? “We need to proclaim the Gospel on every street corner,” the pope says, “preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing, even with our preaching, every kind of disease and wound. In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexual persons who are ‘socially wounded’ because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them. But the church does not want to do this. During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge. By saying this, I said what the catechism says. Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person.  “A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person. Here we enter into the mystery of the human being. In life, God accompanies persons, and we must accompany them, starting from their situation. It is necessary to accompany them with mercy. When that happens, the Holy Spirit inspires the priest to say the right thing. “This is also the great benefit of confession as a sacrament: evaluating case by case and discerning what is the best thing to do for a person who seeks God and grace. The confessional is not a torture chamber, but the place in which the Lord’s mercy motivates us to do better. I also consider the situation of a woman with a failed marriage in her past and who also had an abortion. Then this woman remarries, and she is now happy and has five children. That abortion in her past weighs heavily on her conscience and she sincerely regrets it. She would like to move forward in her Christian life. What is the confessor to do? “We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.  “The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus. We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow. “I say this also thinking about the preaching and content of our preaching. A beautiful homily, a genuine sermon must begin with the first proclamation, with the proclamation of salvation. There is nothing more solid, deep and sure than this proclamation. Then you have to do catechesis. Then you can draw even a moral consequence. But the proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives. Today sometimes it seems that the opposite order is prevailing. The homily is the touchstone to measure the pastor’s proximity and ability to meet his people, because those who preach must recognize the heart of their community and must be able to see where the desire for God is lively and ardent. The message of the Gospel, therefore, is not to be reduced to some aspects that, although relevant, on their own do not show the heart of the message of Jesus Christ.” Full Text Here.

So, first off let us be clear - the Pope is NOT changing the Church's teaching on homosexuality, marriage and contraception!  Allow me to take the "snippet approach" to show a more contextual presentation of this portion of the interview:

 I see the church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars! You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else. Heal the wounds, heal the wounds.... And you have to start from the ground up.

So, in short, he's NOT saying we change our teaching, but rather - look at the whole person first, heal wounds first - "Then we can talk about everything else."  He still wants to talk about these things, he just doesn't want the initial focus to be on peripheral issues - let's get them "into the hospital" first, then work on these things.  Next snippet:

The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules.

 The "small things," as Pope Francis calls them, are these individual sins.  Read on...

 The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you.

Note, the "most important thing" is the matter of salvation.  Jesus Christ came to save you.  He has done all that is necessary for your salvation - we need to put more emphasis on saving the sinner instead of focusing on the sin in "the first proclamation."  Again, this is not avoiding the 800 pound gorilla in the room, it's just saying "first things, first."  In speaking about those who minister he says:

The first reform must be the attitude. The ministers of the Gospel must be people who can warm the hearts of the people, who walk through the dark night with them, who know how to dialogue and to descend themselves into their people’s night, into the darkness, but without getting lost. 

The emphasis is on the attitude of how we approach the sinner.  Do you just pronounce judgment upon them and then expect them to follow us?  No!  Pope Francis is telling us to be like Jesus!  Get out there in the trenches with the sinners - but be prepared.  Know how to dialog and descend into their "dark night" without getting lost in it yourself.

“We need to proclaim the Gospel on every street corner,” the pope says, “preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing, even with our preaching, every kind of disease and wound. In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexual persons who are ‘socially wounded’ because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them. But the church does not want to do this. During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge. By saying this, I said what the catechism says. Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person. 

This part I have some concern with, but really only with the last part of the last sentence.  It is our responsibility to "interfere spiritually in the life of a person" especially when the spirituality of that person is taking them on a path to hell.  We don't need to present it in such a way that we're threatening them with hell (though sometimes that too is a good method!) but, as Pope Francis said, confront them first with the Gospel message that Jesus came to redeem them.

We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. 

And that is the sentence most taken out of context!  But read it again, even out of context!  It is saying that we cannot insist only on these issues - not that we can't talk about them!  Note as he continues:

But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time. 

Again, not that we cannot talk about these issues, just let's not talk about them all the time.  He even says, "when we speak about these issues..." so he is saying we can talk about them - but keep them in a context.  He goes on to say that "the teaching of the Church, for that matter, is clear" and it is clear and it has not changed, nor has Pope Francis instituted a change in teaching.

We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. 

Note, he is still emphasizing the Gospel of salvation FIRST and that is the important thing to stress - but not ONLY the Gospel, but what?  A "new balance."  You cannot JUST preach the happy, feel good message anymore than you should just preach fire and brimstone - but preach with a BALANCED approach.  This is made clear when he continues with:

It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow. 

Pope Francis is not ignoring the 800 pound gorilla, he's just saying that's not the only animal in the room.  Once someone has accepted the proposition of salvation it is THEN that they can consider the moral consequences of these other aspects which may be in their lives.  Again, get them into the "Field Hospital" first, then work on the tangential (but still important) issues.  Pope Francis drives the point home again when he says:

I say this also thinking about the preaching and content of our preaching. A beautiful homily, a genuine sermon must begin with the first proclamation, with the proclamation of salvation. There is nothing more solid, deep and sure than this proclamation. Then you have to do catechesis. Then you can draw even a moral consequence. But the proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives. 

He's not saying we are not to talk about the moral matters, but what he IS saying is that if we begin with "the first proclamation" then after some good catechesis we can draw an even more moral consequence - just put the "proclamation of salvation" at the forefront.   To focus and/or put undo emphasis upon these other matters does not speak to the heart of Christ.  THAT is the message which Pope Francis is putting out.  He's not changing Church teaching and he's not saying we don't speak about these moral issues (upon which, as he stated, "the Church teaching is clear").

So, what most of you are seeing in the media, especially the liberal media which seems to have a homosexual agenda to push, are out of context snippets to make it appear Pope Francis is, as at least one site calls him, "a flaming liberal."  An in context look at what he REALLY said exposes that he's not backing down one iota from the Church's moral position on homosexuality, the sanctity of marriage and the illicitness of contraception - he's only saying that was aren't to make these items the sole focus of our ministries or apostolates.

AMDG,
Scott<<<

(AMDG = ad majorem Dei gloriam - To God, the greater glory)

Fr. Z (Fr. Zuhlsdorf) also commented:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/09/first-thoughts-about-the-francis-interview/

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/09/pope-francis-comments-on-homosexuality-in-the-big-interview/

And related, Fr. Z comments:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/09/yesterday-msm-reports-francis-said-church-is-obsessed-about-abortion-today-pope-francis-talks-about-abortion/

Mortal Sin

[Note:  This blog is directed to those who believe themselves to be good Catholics]

 

We learned in last week’s leaflet that Jesus instituted a Church with authority (Mat 18:15-18).  Now are we free to ignore this Church, preferring our own particular ideas, our own preferences?  In a strict sense we are free to do as we wish BUT for those of us who are Christians, we are most free when we follow God. 

As Christians we are to follow God as Jesus taught us.  We put our trust in His message and teachings.  As a famous 20^th century philosopher once said: “To trust Him means, of course, trying to do all that He says.  There would be no sense in saying you trusted a person if you would not take his advice.”  (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity)

Jesus advised us to listen to His Church when He told us to bring our disagreements to it in Mat 18.  Specifically, He told the apostles to tell it to the Church and if they will not listen to the Church then we are to treat them as though they are lost.  Jesus said: “tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

And so we see that Jesus’ advice in determining the truth is to go to His Church.  On matters of faith and morals we also know that whatever the Church proclaims to be true is infallibly known to be true since Jesus said that whatever the Church binds on earth will be bound in heaven.  Since nothing untrue can be bound in heaven means that whatever the Church binds on earth must also be true.

Now, if you are aware of a Church teaching defined as true and binding but reject it anyway then you are freely going against the advice of Jesus as well as rejecting the authority of His Church.  If all these conditions are met, that is first, that you are aware of the binding authority of His Church and secondly freely reject it, which is a very grave matter, then you are rejecting the rightful authority given to His Church by God Himself.   You are perpetrating a mortal sin.

Are you aware that the Church Jesus founded teaches in the necessity of keeping the Sabbath day Holy by going to Mass on Sunday?  If you are aware of this and freely neglect to go without good reason then you are committing a mortal sin.

Are you aware that the Church Jesus founded teaches on the grave matter of artificial contraception usage to be against the moral law?  If you are aware of this teaching of the Church and yet freely use artificial contraception anyway then you are committing a mortal sin.

Are you aware that the Church Jesus founded teaches that human life is sacred and to be protected?  If you were aware of this and also aware of the extreme abortion views of one political candidate while the only other candidate opposing him clearly had a better life-affirming stand but voted for the one with the extreme abortion proponent anyway then you committed a mortal sin.

Please, examine your conscience before receiving our Lord in the Eucharist.  Are you guilty of mortal sin?  If you are then I urge you to go to confession before receiving the Eucharist since you would be “guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor 1:27)

 

God Bless
Nathan

 

Missed past week’s leaflets?  Questions?  Comments?  Come visit our Blog at www.parishofthepreciousblood.blogspot.com

Abortifacient Pill?

In a recent discussion about contraception I pointed out that "the pill" can be and sometimes (perhaps often) an abortifacient as it does not always prevent ovulation.  When ovulation occurs so can conception.  Due to another "side effect" of "the pill" if conception does occur, the uterine wall is not in a condition to accept the newly conceived child, and thus it is expelled from the uterus and dies.  When this does occur "the pill" is not contraceptive - for it did not stop conception, rather it is abortifacient - it causes an early abortion.  A life which had just begun has ended all too soon.  

Now the person I was speaking to insisted that "the pill" is not an abortifacient, or that perhaps in the case of "the mini pill," if you miss a dose, it could be.  The person insisted that while on "the pill," if taken as prescribed, ovulation cannot occur - and where there is no egg, there can be no conception.   I do not expect that everyone reading this will be convinced, but I do believe that if one reads through the articles objectively, there should be enough irrefutable evidence here to at least get even the toughest to convince to question and do their own research.

Well, rather than argue without having my facts ready and documented, I let it go and went back to do some research to post here.

Ovulation While On "The Pill?"

Can you ovulate while on "the pill?"  YES!  While the "combination pill" is designed to prevent ovulation, there are "break-through ovulations" and while rare, they DO happen.  When this DOES happen the egg can be fertilized, thus conception CAN occur - but due to the other properties of the "combination pill" the uterus will not be in a condition to accept the fertilized egg, thus the newly conceived baby will be aborted.

http://www.ivillage.com/can-you-ovulate-while-pill/6-n-145796

Changes in the Pill

The original contraceptive pills, 30 years ago, contained a high dose of the hormone estrogen.  Because of this, almost 100% of their effect was to suppress ovulation.  But there were side effects from this high estrogen content, and that was primarily the substantial risk of blood clots.  If these broke loose and went to the heart, lung or brain, they were very dangerous, and sometimes fatal, even for young women.

During the years since that time, the drug companies have progressively reduced the amount of estrogen in the pill so that now, depending on the pill, it is only 1/20^th, or even 1/30^th as much as it was when the pill was first introduced.  With this reduction in estrogen, there has been a drop in the complication of blood clots, but, with the reduced estrogen, there has been an increase in what we call “breakthrough ovulation.”  The estrogen level is so low that it doesn’t suppress ovulation all of the time anymore, and sometimes there is what we call a breakthrough ovulation—ovulation which breaks through the effect of the drug and is simply a plain old ovulation.  It just happens.  Fertilization, then, can occur.  But if fertilization occurs, implantation within the nutrient lining of the womb is prevented by another action of the same pill.  That action is a hardening of the lining of the womb.  What occurs, then, is an induced micro-abortion at one week of life.

The bottom line, then, for the commonly used contraceptive pill is this:  In 97 or 98% of the time, the effect is one of preventing pregnancy.  But, in perhaps two or more percent of the time, the effect is abortifacient.  There is no way in the normal clinical practice of obstetrics of knowing which is happening, or when.

http://www.lifeissues.org/abortifacients/pill.html

Conception - Life Begins!

3-7% of Women on The Pill Actually Get Pregnant!

Based upon what we know of "break-through ovulations" we must ask, if 3-7% of women on "the Pill" actually get pregnant, how many more of these "break-through ovulations" occur and conception happens?   Due to the other effect of "the Pill" in making implantation in the uterus nearly impossible (again pointing to the 3-7% where it was actually successful!) what is really happening is an early abortion.  In these cases after about one week of life the embryonic baby dies and is aborted.  The article linked to this section is a doctor's explanation of these facts.

http://www.ccli.org/contraception/mdexplains.php

More Evidence of Break-Through Ovulation and Even Pregnancy

Q. But none of these things happened to my girl friend. She always took her tablet at breakfast time, has not had any stomach upset and hadn’t taken any other medicines. How come she is now pregnant?

A. One possible answer is that your girl friend had what is known as ‘break-through ovulation’. As the name suggests, a woman ovulates even though she always takes her daily dose of the pill, is not sick, and is not taking any other medications.

Proof that break-through ovulation (sometimes also called ‘escape-ovulation’) does occur even under perfect health conditions was first shown by Dr. Nine Van der Vange, State University of Utrecht, The Netherlands, Dept. of Obstetrics. & Gynaecology in 1984.

Dr Van der Vange’s research used high resolution ultra-sound which visually showed that women ovulate on the popularly prescribed low dose pill. A blood test confirmed that ovulation had occurred. The pill can have a break-through ovulation rate that can be as high as 17 ovulations per 100 women who used the pill for one year.

Other researchers have shown that the low dose pill has an even higher rate of break-through ovulation of almost 27 ovulations per 100 women per year.

http://www.pfli.org/faq_oc.html 

Pregnancy Does Occur While On The Pill

Ovulation can occasionally occur even when a woman never misses a pill [between 1 and 3 of very 100 women get pregnant while on the pill, and "research indicates that figure may be considerably higher, up to 4% for 'good compliers' and 8% for 'poor compliers'" (Potter, "How Effective Are Contraceptives?" Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996; 135:13S-23S.)].

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-bcpill.html

All Forms of "The Pill" are Abortifacient 

Convenience-minded women in general either do not know or no longer care that all birth control pills on the market today are abortifacients. 

http://www.hli.org/index.php/cloning/249?task=view

If you're still reading to this point, GOOD!  I pray that God guides you to make the proper decisions in your life - and decisions which do not prematurely end the life of any human being.

Feel free to leave a comment here on this blog.

Bishop Olmsted Urges All Catholics to Oppose Rule

Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix has become one of the first Roman Catholic bishops in the nation to openly defy the Obama administration over new rules forcing employers to include access to contraceptives and sterilization procedures in health-insurance coverage.
Although the Catholic Church itself is exempt from the proposed regulations, Olmsted believes the federal government's decision is an attack on religious liberty. He is encouraging church members to actively oppose it.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/01/27/20120127phoenix-bishop-defy-feds-birth-control.html#ixzz1kzWHic1b


Phoenix Catholic Diocese Bishop Thomas Olmsted says an Obama administration rule requiring health insurance plans to cover contraception and sterilization procedures is wrong, especially as it affects Catholic-related institutions.

While the Catholic church itself is exempt from the provisions of the law, Olmsted says other organizations, such as charities and hospitals, that are Catholic in belief but not directly related to the Catholic Diocese.

He urges all Catholics to oppose the rule.

Phoenix radio station, KFYI: http://www.kfyi.com/pages/local_news.html?feed=118695?feed=118695&article=9679458#ixzz1kzSMOiwo

Recap of NFP Discussion

Someone asked for the URL to read the whole dialog regarding cathmom5's comments and my support of her.  Well, there was no single URL so I am making one (long) article to recap the discussion which started with an article by me, a comment by cathmom5 which was followed by Mr. Hays reductio ad absurdum.   I'll not be including EVERY comment - if anyone is interested they can follow the combox comments which are included in each posting started by Mr. Hays and myself.  At the end of this article I'll also be including the chronology of postings - so anyone who wants to read every comment in the context of the article they were posted, they can.  Text I am adding in this recap will be in purple (as here).

It starts with an article by Mr. Hays, which I quoted entirely in my response to it - so I will begin here with my response:

On Triablogue there's an out of context quote from Alexander Pruss and comments which should be answered...

Pruss writes:  In fact, the biological union does not even require the couple consciously to will the striving towards reproduction. The biophysiologically united man-woman organism instinctively and automatically on a biological level strives toward that end. What is required is only that the couple should not place an obstacle in its way, because the act of placing the obstacle is an act of disturbing the union. The act of contracepting is opposed to the end of the teleological process by which union is constituted. A distinction between permitting and causing is relevant here.
The couple that contracepts is the intentional cause of their infertility. The NFP-using couple, when infertile, is not the cause of the infertility: the natural cycles of the female body are the cause of the infertility, which cycles are independent of the couple’s decision to use NFP. The couple permits the infertility, and draw good from it, even though it would be wrong for them  directly to will this infertility. That the distinction between permitting and causing is a significant one can be seen in at least two other examples. One is the distinction between letting die and killing, often discussed in the context of euthanasia.

Note please, Pruss does indeed state that it is WRONG to directly will this infertility.  Thus a couple who directly wills infertility is wrong and mortally sins in doing so - by WHICH EVER MEANS they choose to be infertile.  With NFP the couple cannot willfully refuse one another - regardless of the time in the woman's fertility cycle.  They may "plan" to participate in "the marriage act" during the time of infertility - and that's the "planning" part - but I reiterate, they cannot refuse each other during the time of fertility.  If the desire is there, then they must allow "the marriage act" to go on unimpeded - by ANY means of contraception.

On to the illogic on Triablogue:

It’s odd that someone as astute as Pruss would leave it at that. It’s of course true that the distinction between causing and permitting can sometimes be morally relevant or exculpatory. But it’s easy to come up with counterexamples where that distinction is morally irrelevant or culpable.

But Pruss didn't "leave it at that!"  If one investigates the link provided by Mr. Hays they can see that Pruss indeed explained further:

The other example is that of theodicy. God never causes an evil.  However, in order to draw a greater good out of it, He sometimes permits evils. The greatest and clearest example of this was the crucifixion. God did not cause Judas to betray Jesus and Pilate to condemn Him, but He permitted it, in order to bring a greater good out of it. It is essential to the way that sexual union as one body is constituted that while willing the union one not simultaneously unwill the end (reproduction) the biophysiological striving towards which constitutes the union. However, it is not necessary that one explicitly will this end, only that one not will anything contradictory to it. The implicit willing of the unitive meaning of the sexual act, in the absence of a contradictory willing, suffices to make the teleological striving that constitutes the union be a willed striving—and hence a striving of the person, and not merely of the body, thereby effecting a willed personal union.

It is a bit disingenuous of Hays to say Pruss left it "at that."  Hays even quotes that Pruss says there are "at least two other examples" and then only quotes one of them - and has the audacity to accuse him of "leaving it at that."

In The Little Foxes, Regina doesn’t cause her husband to die from a heart attack. Rather, she permits him to die by withholding his heart medication.   In that situation, letting him to die is morally equivalent to murder, even though she didn't positively bring about his demise.

Sorry, but "withholding medicine" which is not an extra-ordinary means of keeping someone alive DOES CAUSE HER HUSBAND TO DIE!  Certainly "the cause" is the underlying heart condition - but if one willfully withholds the medicine from another against his will - that would be murder.  A clearer example of this would be a mother refusing to feed her newborn infant... that is negligence and murder for the mother has caused the death of her baby.  No rational human being with any sense of charity or concern for the helpless/innocent would simply say the baby died of starvation and leave the mother's culpability out of the picture.  Clearly in The Little Foxes, Regina does kill her sickly husband by withholding his medicine, which IS Hays' point here - but the point Hays misses is the fact that "planning" to participate in "the marriage act" during infertile times is not the same as "doing it" during fertile times and then killing the seed by some chemical or physical barrier.

Natural family planning has a contraceptive intent, and–where successful–a contraceptive effect.
This illustrates the problem with Catholics who use natural law to ratify a conclusion they arrived at by other means.

I'm sure that those who condone contraception believe this to be the case, but if the intent is contraception then the couple is in mortal sin.  The intent is to have "planned" participation in the period of infertility of the female cycle.  If either party refuses the other during a period of fertility then that person has committed a mortal sin.  Hays uses either false logic here - or demonstrates ignorance of what the Catholic Church really teaches on the matter of NFP.

Other comments on this article (at the time of the publication of this article/response):


BBB said:

One of the main proponents of John Paul II's "Theology of the Body", Christopher West, uses this kind of reasoning as well.
He says that some people ask "What's the difference between causing infertility, and just waiting for the woman to be infertile?" His response is "what's the difference between killing grandma, and just waiting for grandma to die?"
The same illogic as above and has already been explained/dismissed.

James said:

Most Catholics (1) don't abide by the Church's stance on contraception anyhow. In any rate, (2) there's no substantive difference in intent between contraception using a calendar or with a piece of rubber (or a pill). (3) Doesn't the Church keep reminding us that contraception is "ineffective"? If it is, then there's not a greater likelihood of preventing pregnancy with a condom than with NFP.

(1) What this undocumented "most Catholics" may or may not abide by is not relevant to the moral position of the Church.  If a Catholic does not abide by the Church's stance - then, all rationalizations aside, they are in mortal sin.
(2) On this point James MAY be correct - IF the INTENT of the couple is contraception AND they have deliberately refused one or the other during a fertile period.  THE point here is INTENT.  If the couple PLANS to only participate in "the marriage act" during infertile periods - but "the mood" arises during a fertile period - then they cannot refuse each other without committing a mortal sin.
(3) Whether or not artificial forms of contraception are "effective" or not is NOT the point!  Again, THE POINT is that it is a sin to artificially prohibit conception and it is still a mortal sin if the couple engaging in NFP refuses one or the other during a fertile period.


Tom R said:

Well, yes. And the Spartans didn't practice infanticide, strictly speaking - they just left imperfect babies exposed on the hillside overnight.
The irony is that in other spheres, "Catholic social teaching" is scathing of the "just leave people alone" thrust of Whig Protestant capitalism. Governments, say various Popes, have an affirmative duty to ensure that their subjects have healthcare, food, etc. You can't just ignore them while they starve, like Dives with Lazarus, or the "goats" on Judgment Day. Yet when it comes to methods of contraception, the Vatican has copied Judith Jarvis Thomson's "live and let die" defence of abortion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion and moved it a stage earlier in the life-cycle.

Well, J.J. Thomson's "violinist" analogy (the "unplug and let die" analogy) is 1) not taught by the Catholic Church in NFP and 2) how this violinist "gets connected" is not the same way most women "get connected" to their babies - in fact - the only possible comparison would be to that of where pregnancy resulted from rape (very few abortions are because of rape).  The obvious difference here is that an innocent child dependent upon his/her mother is not the same as a presumably not-so innocent violinist who him/herself could choose not to remain connected - regardless of how this person (male or female) may feel about it. Tom's comparison is fatally flawed.

cathmom5 responded:

It just seems to me that the attempt to compare NFP--used with the correct intent--and contraception is just an excuse to justify the fact that they want to use contraceptions. Those "christians" who use contraception, I believe, know deep down they are morally wrong. The FACT that the majority of contraceptives are abortifacient doesn't matter. The FACT that contraceptives (the pill) causes cancers and infertility for thousands of women doesn't matter. The FACT that the legalization of the pill, historically, led directly to the legalization of abortion doesn't matter. Those "christians" must find a way to justify their disobedience of God's will by "taking down" the Church's moral stance--like the bully on the playground making himself feel better by making the others feel bad. Why else would this ignorant (in the dictionary sense!) argument keep coming up?

My husband and I do use NFP, however, as you pointed out, our intent is not to be closed to the possibility of life. I am almost 50 and have 5 children. I don't know if my body could handle another child, but I tell you what, I trust God enough to believe that if I were to become pregnant He would have it all under control! And, I refuse to commit a mortal sin by using other artificial means to kill my baby or slowly kill myself.

Tuesday, August 09, 2011 6:53:00 AM

Steve Hays responds to cathmom5:

cathmom5 said: It just seems to me that the attempt to compare NFP--used with the correct intent--and contraception is just an excuse to justify the fact that they want to use contraceptions [sic]. Those "christians" who use contraception, I believe, know deep down they are morally wrong...Those "christians" must find a way to justify their disobedience of God's will by "taking down" the Church's moral stance--like the bully on the playground making himself feel better by making the others feel bad. Why else would this ignorant (in the dictionary sense!) argument keep coming up?

Well, if that’s what motivates Protestants, then by parity of logic, it just seems to me that the attempt by popes to defend “natural family planning” is just an excuse to justify the fact that they want to fornicate with nuns and hookers without wearing a condom or fathering a kid out of wedlock. Popes who defend “natural family planning,” I believe, know deep down they are morally wrong. Lascivious popes must find a loophole to excuse their lechery. Why else would they concoct so many ad hoc distinctions?

Scott Windsor (CathApol) responds to Steve Hays:
Mr. Hays reaches a new low with me in this response.  His response to cathmom5 is nothing short of anti-Catholic BIGOTRY.   Have SOME popes been "bad popes" and sinned as Hays accuses?  Perhaps - but it is NOT the norm and neither is the rationale behind Natural Family Planning.  It appears to me that cathmom5 struck a nerve with Mr. Hays and he lashed out irrationally.  For example of this irrationality - Pope John Paul II was a public proponent of Natural Family Planning* - and I would challenge Mr. Hays to provide PROOF or at least some SOUND EVIDENCE of any such "lechery" - such as "fornicat(ing) with nuns and hookers" with Bl. Pope John Paul II.  Such debased language without some sort of support is irresponsible, invalid argumentation and even un-Christian.  

Now, perhaps Mr. Hays is objecting to cathmom5's use of "Christian" (in quotes) as if to imply those who practice Artificial Birth Control (ABC) are not even Christian.  As I explained to "BBB" (who was much more respectful in his approach) - from a Catholic perspective, those who would accept and even embrace such violence against the sanctity of the marriage act - and against innocent life, well - it IS hard to consider them to be "Christian" at all.  Perhaps Mr. Hays is ignorant of the fact that virtually ALL of Christendom opposed ABC methods prior to 1930 and it has been just since that time that non-Catholics began embracing this mortally sinful practice.  I reiterate, it is difficult to see those who are WILLFULLY engaging and embracing MORTAL SIN to be "Christian" at all.

Now to answer Mr. Hays disgraceful polemics - he DID ask a question which I will respond to:  "Why else would they concoct so many ad hoc distinctions?"  I would need Mr. Hays to clarify just who the "they" are who have participated in such "concoctions" and repeat my challenge for Mr. Hays to document those who have "concoct(ed) so many ad hoc distinctions" actually participating in "fornicating with nuns and hookers."  Further - please explain at least SOME of these unnamed "ad hoc distinctions."

Will Mr. Hays clarify his position(s) and present some VALID argumentation - or should we dismiss him as a bloviating anti-Catholic bigot?  Will he back down and even apologize (as a Christian should do) or will he entrench himself in his debased argumentation?  Or, will he just try to ignore this and hope it passes by unnoticed?  

I would also hope that other non-Catholics would join me in condemning Mr. Hays argumentation.   

I state, here and now, if Mr. Hays can VALIDLY support his argumentation - I will acknowledge that.  I do not believe it is possible for him to present valid argumentation to support what he's said - so what I would expect from an honest Christian debater is a retraction (or, again, VALID support).

Scott adds a comment to his own article:
It IS encouraging to see that at least SOME non-Catholics ARE taking Mr. Hays' approach to task on his blog. Kudos to them.

Hays also explains that "It's often useful to take a foolish position to its logical extreme." Perhaps Mr. Hays would consider first challenging cathmom5 to clarify her statements (as I believe I have, if I was not too bold in speaking for her) before calling them "foolish" and then lashing out as he did and CALLING it a "logical extreme."

cathmom5 responds to Scott’s response:
Thank you, Scott, I appreciate your clarification of my comments on Triablog. It was not my intent to insult anyone personally, but several times when I've made comments on an issue, I have been personally attacked. I don't believe anything I said was foolish or I wouldn't have said them. I am sorry if my style or passion made anyone feel insulted.

Just to say one thing--I don't think what I said, in any way, would lead to Hays' so-called logical extreme. To me that argument about a pope using NFP as an excuse to do what he please isn't even on the same planet as what I said. What I believe I said is that ABC and NFP (practiced as intended) are not the same, and those who try to claim they are, are looking for justification for what, I believe, they know deep down is morally wrong.


Back on Triablogue under “Team Players,” Steve responds:

Mr. Hays reaches a new low with me in this response.  His response to cathmom5 is nothing short of anti-Catholic BIGOTRY.  

If a Catholic indulges in a blanket, prejudicial smear of Protestants by impugning the motives of all Protestants who support “artificial” birth control, even though said Catholic is in no position to know their motives, that’s not anti-Protestant bigotry–but if a Protestant responds with a reductio ad absurdum, that’s “anti-Catholic BIGOTRAY”!

Windsor betrays the insular mindset of the team player. The team player automatically cheers his own team and automatically jeers the other team. The team player keeps a tally of every real or imagined foul by the other team while turning a blind eye to every foul by his own team.

It’s the Mafia mentality. One standard of la familia, another standard for outsiders.

Have SOME popes been "bad popes" and sinned as Hays accuses?  Perhaps - but it is NOT the norm and neither is the rationale behind Natural Family Planning.  It appears to me that cathmom5 struck a nerve with Mr. Hays and he lashed out irrationally.  For example of this irrationality - Pope John Paul II was a public proponent of Natural Family Planning* - and I would challenge Mr. Hays to provide PROOF or at least some SOUND EVIDENCE of any such "lechery" - such as "fornicat(ing) with nuns and hookers" with Bl. Pope John Paul II.  Such debased language without some sort of support is irresponsible, invalid argumentation and even un-Christian.  

Here’s a guy who presumes to be an apologist for Rome, but he can’t grasp basic forms of argument. He doesn’t grasp the nature of a tu quoque, or a reductio ad absurdum.

An argument from analogy only has to be analogous to be valid. The counterargument doesn’t have to be any truer than the argument it opposes.

That’s the point. For the argument works either way.

If it’s valid for cathmom5 to impute immoral motives to millions of Protestants she’s never met, then it’s valid for me to impute immoral motives to the popes.

Notice that Scott Windsor doesn’t demand any evidence or proof from cathmom5 for her defamatory allegations. That’s because she’s a fellow teammate, so the rules are different for her.

My argument is predicated on a conditional premise: if her argument is valid, and my argument is analogous, then my argument is valid.

But Scott Windsor is one of those sociopathic partisans who will fly into a rage the moment you make their team play by the same rules. A loyalist can never step out of his own viewpoint to see an issue from the viewpoint of the Other. It’s the same thing we see in the political sphere every day. 


cathmom5 comments:
First off, thank you Cathapol for your defense of my comments and, more importantly, NFP and the Church's moral stand on openness to life.

Secondly, my intent was not to insult anyone. I find it ironic that certain things I say are taken personally by some protestant readers of this blog. I think it may be my style or my passion, but it is my intent to support the truth of the Church's teaching not offend Protestants. I think if we were to talk to each other face to face there would be less misunderstanding of motive or intent.

As Cathapol explained, some find it hard, I admit including me, to call those Christian who do not follow Christ's teaching. The sacredness of life was one of His core teachings. I believe that Christ's Sacred Heart is wounded every time a woman who claims to be a Christian puts a birth control pill in her mouth. She is not only injuring her own God-given body but could be killing an innocent life--both mortal sins.

Third, I don't believe I created any "straw men." I was a Protestant for over 30 years. I went to a Protestant, Bible-based College. I heard and I know the attitude toward and acceptance of contraceptives in that arena. My own mother, a wonderful Christian mother took ABC for 20 years--she no longer does, thank God, for personal reasons.

Now, just because a lot of women in the Catholic Church have been talked into accepting this easy way of "family planning" does not make the Church's moral stance on sanctity of life wrong. Nor does the fact that I accept and agree with the moral and Scriptural stance of His Church on this matter make my passionate defense of it necessarily make me wrong.

Those who try to say that NFP is the same as ABC are just plain wrong. In my experience, those who are the loudest in their protest against NFP or try to pretend NFP and ABC are the same thing are the ones who know the least about NFP or ABC. They, for the most part, want to justify their use of ABC by saying that NFP is the same--trying to take down, so-to-speak, His Church's moral stance on the sacredness of the marriage act. I don't believe that is a straw man--that is from my perspective and my experience.

Having practiced NFP for years, I know that it is not an easy course to take. A couple who practices NFP must communicate with each other, they must be "in tune" with each other morally, they must be in agreement on being open to life, and they must work, as a couple, to make NFP work. In my experience, a couple who is practicing NFP can hardly be doing it with the wrong motives. With so relatively few couples practicing NFP, I would hardly think motives are the problem.

We can also turn it around. NFP, practiced correctly, can also HELP a couple conceive which is one reasons why it is called Natural FAMILY PLANNING and not birth control. Couples have used NFP to conceive a new life, the same cannot be said for ABC.

I have spoken in as general terms as possible. I have not insulted anyone personally. I have expressed how I feel on the subject of NFP--From my personal experienc on BOTH sides of the "church" fence. If one feels personally insutled by anything I have said on the matter, I think they must look to themselves and wonder why what a perfect stranger says strikes such a nerve.


Scott responds to Steve’s “Team Players” argument:
Steve,
Let's be clear - I am not the one calling people names here. Your response to cathmom5 reflected anti-Catholic bigotry (my point) which is not directly calling YOU a bigot - but that the argument was bigoted. There's a difference.

Second, I fully understand your use of the reductio ad absurdum - and I've merely challenged you to put forth some VALID argumentation, like avoiding the common fallacies of rhetoric (ad hominem especially). One thing to bring to the forefront - IF we were to agree that cathmom5 were wrong (which I do not) then please explain to the few who may still be reading along how "two wrongs make a right?" You justified your argumentation saying, "If it’s valid for cathmom5 to impute immoral motives to millions of Protestants she’s never met, then it’s valid for me to impute immoral motives to the popes." (The tu quoque fallacy).

Both cathmom5 and I explained her statements - you did not deal with these explanations in the least, instead you concentrate on ad hominem (also a fallacy).

I challenged you to present valid documentation of ANY pope who publicly supports or supported NFP and also participated in the lechery you stated they participated in. I would remind the reader too - you went well beyond "motives" - you flatly accused popes of participating in fornicating with nuns and hookers and using NFP to rationalize what they had done. You crossed the line of valid argumentation, and you appear to be in staunch refusal of the error of your ways, not to mention the LACK of "Christian" spirit in your response to cathmom5 (and to me too for that matter).

Now, if you wish to rationalize your argumentation down to reductio ad absurdum - then I am willing to accept what you said was absurd and let it go.



Chronology of Posts on This Subject:

1. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/08/pruss-on-natural-family-planning.html
2. http://quilocutus.blogspot.com/2011/08/nfp-and-false-logic.html
3. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/08/blunderbuss.html (not responded to as of this posting)
4. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/08/lecherous-popes.html
5. http://quilocutus.blogspot.com/2011/08/anti-catholic-lechery.html
6. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/08/team-players.html

\\\v\v\v\v\vv\v\v

v

v

v

vvv