Abortion, Birth Control, “Respect Life.”
This is the text of a note I sent to my favorite priest at my church today. I’ve never written him before, but after a “Respect Life” homily, I felt I’d be hypocritical if I didn’t.
Dear Father M,
There are very few issues with which I can’t see both sides. Agree or not, I think it’s important to take a step back and try to understand where folks are coming from, and to try and see things from their point view. Thinking about it, there’s only one issue where I absolutely reject the “opposing” viewpoint: gay rights, gay marriage, etc. For the life of me, I cannot fathom how anyone could possibly say that being gay is somehow wrong, bad, inappropriate, or otherwise a question of “morality.” There is no “other side” on this one. Whoever is anti-gay is just, to me, purely wrong.
But that’s not why I’m writing.
On Sunday, you gave a homily about stem cell research. I can understand the moral and ethical reasons behind being against embryonic research, and I’ve read a little about how our own (marrow-based?) stem cells might be more effective in healing illnesses. But your most emphatic reason for abandoning stem cell research stopped me cold:
“There’s no guarantee that it’s going to work.”
I was pretty blown away by that logic. If the possibility of failure is a reason not to continue, then I can see very little that we should attempt.
Love is risk. Life is risk. Parenting is risk. Opening a school is risk. Heck, crossing a street is risk. Especially in the SUV Heaven that is Westchester, NY.
But even THAT isn’t why I’m writing.
I need to understand the Church’s moral stance on pre-conception birth control. I can fully understand the Church’s position on abortion, and post-conception birth control like Plan B, RU-486, etc. But the idea of pre-conception birth control being immoral seems just the opposite.
In my view, being anti-contraception is being a tacit accomplice to the spread of misery and disease. More directly: being anti-contraception is to be a tacit accomplice to murder. Murder via HIV, murder via neglect… there’s a lot of options on this one.
I sort of understand the “natural law” argument. But frankly, if we’re not supposed to modify the way we’ve been set up by God, then we should probably stop wearing clothes, riding in cars and airplanes, and DEFINITELY stop with all this “medical care.” Talk about intervening on natural processes.
The kicker, though, is that the Church approves of “Natural Family Planning,” which I understand to be the updated and MUCH more reliable birth control replacement for the “rhythm method.”
My understanding is that by using a combination of measurements (of secretions) and temperature, it is possible and allowable for Catholics to have recreational sex with an anti-conception accuracy that rivals barrier methods.
Where’s the true moral difference here? There’s a mechanical difference that’s self-evident, but the goal is the identical: having sex for fun, and to avoid conception.
I’m baffled. Truly baffled. Help?
* * *
Love to all. Even you, the lady who wouldn't even read this letter.
Dear Father M,
There are very few issues with which I can’t see both sides. Agree or not, I think it’s important to take a step back and try to understand where folks are coming from, and to try and see things from their point view. Thinking about it, there’s only one issue where I absolutely reject the “opposing” viewpoint: gay rights, gay marriage, etc. For the life of me, I cannot fathom how anyone could possibly say that being gay is somehow wrong, bad, inappropriate, or otherwise a question of “morality.” There is no “other side” on this one. Whoever is anti-gay is just, to me, purely wrong.
But that’s not why I’m writing.
On Sunday, you gave a homily about stem cell research. I can understand the moral and ethical reasons behind being against embryonic research, and I’ve read a little about how our own (marrow-based?) stem cells might be more effective in healing illnesses. But your most emphatic reason for abandoning stem cell research stopped me cold:
“There’s no guarantee that it’s going to work.”
I was pretty blown away by that logic. If the possibility of failure is a reason not to continue, then I can see very little that we should attempt.
Love is risk. Life is risk. Parenting is risk. Opening a school is risk. Heck, crossing a street is risk. Especially in the SUV Heaven that is Westchester, NY.
But even THAT isn’t why I’m writing.
I need to understand the Church’s moral stance on pre-conception birth control. I can fully understand the Church’s position on abortion, and post-conception birth control like Plan B, RU-486, etc. But the idea of pre-conception birth control being immoral seems just the opposite.
In my view, being anti-contraception is being a tacit accomplice to the spread of misery and disease. More directly: being anti-contraception is to be a tacit accomplice to murder. Murder via HIV, murder via neglect… there’s a lot of options on this one.
I sort of understand the “natural law” argument. But frankly, if we’re not supposed to modify the way we’ve been set up by God, then we should probably stop wearing clothes, riding in cars and airplanes, and DEFINITELY stop with all this “medical care.” Talk about intervening on natural processes.
The kicker, though, is that the Church approves of “Natural Family Planning,” which I understand to be the updated and MUCH more reliable birth control replacement for the “rhythm method.”
My understanding is that by using a combination of measurements (of secretions) and temperature, it is possible and allowable for Catholics to have recreational sex with an anti-conception accuracy that rivals barrier methods.
Where’s the true moral difference here? There’s a mechanical difference that’s self-evident, but the goal is the identical: having sex for fun, and to avoid conception.
I’m baffled. Truly baffled. Help?
* * *
Love to all. Even you, the lady who wouldn't even read this letter.
22 Comments:
My former in-laws are catholic. X's Italian great-grandmother was the neighborhood connection for wise-woman forms of birth control, and at a certain point, sheep-skin diaphrams (which she would wash and hang on the clothes line with the laundry...so the story goes.)
ANYWAY, when we (X and I) got married, my MIL asked point blank if we were using protection. I thought because she'd be against it. Turns out she wanted to make sure we WERE using it because we didn't have the money to start a family.
When I asked her about this break with church teaching she said (mocking her grand-mother's accent) "You don play-a da game, you don make-a da rules." And explained that the rule of having as many children as God "gave" you was made by men who didn't have to try to feed and clothe said children.
And then she told me the Grandma Rosa story for the first time.
excellent! oh...and btw..I love you too!
Oh the Religion and Birth Control and Anti Contraception discussion.
Pre Vatican II and Post Vatican II, the church outlaws and forbids birth control, and by default stem cell research because of the inherent problem of killing the fetus to gather stem cells.
John Paul II was the Pontiff who wrote such scathing words to forbid such actions. I happen to disagree. My parents were excommunicated from the church in the 60's because my mother got a tubiligation after my brother was born because she was RH positive.
But today the church remains staunch against B. Control and such research because if BC was allowed that would impede the natural process of procreation, which IS the church's stand on life.
Millions will die of aids in Africa because of the church's stance on BC. The African Bishops and those who lobby against liberation theology only push the church's agenda further.
This is not new news. The killing of unborn children goes against the church's teaching. Although the Late Pontiff did not proclaim infalability on this issue. I know these things because I study religion.
The church is against stem cells because it would entail ending the life of the zygote, and the church believes that life begins at the moment of conception, not after.
That is why we hear this from the pulpit.Until the church recognizes the need to change their stance on certain issues these (Issues) will go unheeded and to question the authority of the church, for the mere mortal catholic is to incur the wrath of Priests and Bishops and by extension, the Vatican.
And nobody is going to change that stance especially Benedict XVI! He was the co-architect of many of John Paul II ideas in his many encyclicals.
To take to task the clergy over crucial church teachings and Great Laws is to say you question the church and by extension, the faith you profess, which means for the staunch North Eastern Churches, that you stand outside the norm.
Many people have left church because of this. And this fight is never ending. And thus, you must decide what side of the argument you stand on and be willing to disagree with the clergy in your church.
Which could end up as a discussion about the ways the church will sanction your sacraments if you disobey or disagree with Holy Mother Church.
The church punishes those who disagree with Mother Church, so be prepared.
I could go on and on about this because I am in the middle of this discussion here.
Cheers
Jeremy
Interestingly, my thoughts have been following something of a similar pattern at the moment. I think it was a very well written letter. Sadly it seems no matter which church you go to none of them take questions very well. =(
First time commenter.
Just wanted to say that was a very well written and informational filled letter for me, a non-catholic. Learned more in this post than I have about the Catholic religion in 15+ years.
How silly is that?
A Catholic from day one here. I even attended all boys Catholic high school.
The reason the Catholic church does not allow birth control is because it feeds itself on the poor.
Catholicism is a religion for the poor, it teaches sound principles that can help people help themselves, however, they do not take questioning doctrine very well.
Catholicism is not a religion for Westchester. Affluent soccer moms and dads are already educated and understand the principles associated with the "golden rule"
I still go to Church and receive Communion, however in my heart I understand that I am not a true Catholic. The reason I am not a true Catholic is because I disagree with the Pope, Jesus Christ's personal vicor on earth. You can not disagree with the Pope and be a true Catholic.
What a well written letter. I wonder if you'll get a response?
Being raised Catholic, this made me laugh. It is an amazingly well written letter, I wonder what the response will be.
Guess we'll see. Yikes!
The question of whether NFP is just another form of birth control (and the Church's stance on birth control in general) has been discussed many times at my blog. I invite you to check out the following posts. The latter is the first in an ongoing series.
Is NFP Just Another Form of Contraception?
Investigating NFP: Preface
I have to agree with Grandma Rosa.
I believe that the make em if you can philosophy applies to a time when most children died young. That in today's crowded society, it is irresponsible not to use birth control of some sort. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church is slow to change it's policy. Even when they are outdated or even scientifically disputed (I would like to reference how long it took for them to admit that the Earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around.) I imagine that it would be very hard to know in your heart that something is right, but have the teachings of your faith tell you something different.
I see it this way, you have to do what you feel is right. Then MEN in charge don't live in your shoes, and God made you in such a way that you are capable of independant thought. God also saw to it that you are a sexual being. How can it be wrong to follow your instinct to mate, while ensuring that the act does not result in the creation of another life?
But I am not Catholic, so I don't have to worry about what my church says I should be doing with my coochie.
Umm... Rich? I typed up a response here this morning and it's gone. What the heck?!
would it sound "wrong" if I say "i love u dude!"?
I love this part "...by using a combination of measurements (of secretions) and temperature, it is possible and allowable for Catholics to have recreational sex..."
I wish I was so lucky as to have a local parish priest as bold as yours. You're right in saying that we don't even know whether it (i.e., ESC therapies) will work is the very last reason we should oppose it. In fact, I would think the opposite argument more convincing: It may work... and thereby create actual demand (not yet pursued by much in the way of venture capital... which is why these researchers need the gov't to bankroll their Faustian playground) to procure and utilize "human tissues".
I sort of understand the “natural law” argument. But frankly, if we’re not supposed to modify the way we’ve been set up by God, then we should probably stop wearing clothes, riding in cars and airplanes, and DEFINITELY stop with all this “medical care.”
Well then, you clearly don't understand the "natural law" argument.
Regarding the question of whether the "goal" (i.e., that of NFP vis-a-vis artificial contraception "is identical: having sex for fun, and to avoid conception," I think you are missing a couple of points:
1) if a couple use NFP to avoid conception (for just causes, see(2)), then they are, by definition, not having sex for fun to avoid conception; and
2) NFP is not a licit method of contraception, but rather a licit method to delay conception or space out children for just reasons. A fine point, perhaps, put a clear one to those willing to think with the Church.
Nevertheless, if one cannot see the difference between NFP and contraception, then I would urge you not to practice it.
The idea that the Church's teaching on contraception is causative (or even correlative) with ills such as neglect, HIV, and murder is standard left-wing agitprop, and not worthy of any response above mockery.
I think the letter on the whole to be disingenuous. You are not "truly baffled", but have instead rather made up your mind on the matter, as you obviously have in other matters, in direct opposition to the Church's clear and univocal teaching throughout her history.
Best regards
OOH! Gauntlets! I see Gauntlets! They're being thrown around like condoms at a gay pride parade.
heh, that one made me giggle. sorry, it my have been inappropriate. but it's still funny to me.
Rich, I know you have no intention of having to defend your faith. And I don't think you should have to. and OH the tempatation to make comments back to Steve. so I'll just link, and make a rant on my own blog where people may argue with me all day if they want to.
Britt!
Your comment never made it online... it didn't get emailed to me, at least. That's really weird.
So sorry? (And so confused!)
You know what they call people who use Catholic-Church-Approved methods of birth control?
"Parents"
Like Funky Dung, I have also written posts about NFP and contraception. So instead of rewriting it, here is the link:
http://irishanddangerous.blogspot.com/2006/08/contraception-is-intrinsically-evil.html
Well said. But I take exception with one thing: Plan B is not, necessarily, post-conception. It can prevent ovulation as well as implantation. And even when it prevents implantation, it's CONTRAceptive. Conception is not complete without implantation. No implantation, no baby.
If recreational sex is wrong, what does the Church have to say about married couple who are infertile? About post-menopausal women or those who have lost their ovaries and/or uteruses (uteri?) to disease?
I'd be interested to see what your priest had to say.
"Conception is not complete without implantation.
That's a recent arbitrary redefinition of "conception".
I'm with Funky on that one. Sperm meets egg. Conception. Whammo.
Okay, I know this is a late comment, but wow, there are some writings here that I just can't understand. I've weighed in on the NFP issue on Funky's blog. So let me take issue with some of the other one-liners:
---snip---
"being anti-contraception is to be a tacit accomplice to murder. Murder via HIV, murder via neglect"
---snip---
---snip---
Millions will die of aids in Africa because of the church's stance on BC
---snip---
So if you encourage birth and the resulting life dies, you're a murderer? If I tell my buddie that kids are great and they should have a child that dies just after birth, I'm a murderer? What?!?
---snip---
Until the church recognizes the need to change their stance on certain issues these (Issues) will go unheeded and to question the authority of the church [...] Many people have left church because of this
---snip---
Yes, rather than doing what one believes is right, it is better to sway with popular opinion. Better to keep followers than be morally right, even if you are a religion.
---snip---
Catholicism is a religion for the poor. [...] Affluent soccer moms and dads are already educated and understand the principles associated with the "golden rule"
---snip---
Funny, in my experience, the more affluent you are, the less likely you are to understand the "golden rule".
---snip---
I see it this way, you have to do what you feel is right.
---snip---
Perhaps, but I just can't believe that I have a personal understanding of right-and-wrong that is more informed than the collective works of thousands of people who have spent their lives dedicated to understanding the nuances of right-and wrong.
---snip---
How can it be wrong to follow your instinct to mate, while ensuring that the act does not result in the creation of another life?
---snip---
Whoa! God set us apart from animals. We don't just follow our instincts. For 10 points, can anyone name an instinct that would be wrong to follow? Okay, I'll make it more difficult...name a few dozen.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home