Amanda Marcotte’s article in Slate about World Youth Day is making the rounds this week. I don’t think I’m going out on a limb by suggesting that she was very upset when she wrote it. What was it about the event that got her so flustered? There’s not a clear thesis to the piece, but it seems that the Church’s anti-abortion stance, emphasized when Pope Benedict offered forgiveness to women who have had abortions, is what triggered most of her angst.
I get it. When I was pro-choice, I would have been upset too. The foundation of the pro-choice position is that access to abortion is necessary in order for women to have control over their bodies. Abortion = freedom. It’s that simple. Without it, the thinking goes, women have almost no control over when they have children. And, let’s face it, pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood are no joke. Your body is transformed almost beyond recognition in pregnancy, you experience some of the worst pain known to mankind in labor, and then you have a newborn who’s dependent on you for everything. It’s a physically and emotionally challenging process that alters your life down to the core of your being.
So, yeah, it’s the kind of thing you want a little control over.
But let’s take a closer look at this worldview. Implicit in the “abortion as freedom” stance is the idea that women don’t have much control over getting pregnant in the first place, thus they must resort to violating medical procedures once the pregnancy has already occurred.
That’s kind of a crazy idea, when you think about it. And, like a lot of crazy ideas in our culture, we have contraception to thank for it. Now that there’s widespread access to contraception, our young women are told not that sex creates babies, but that unprotected sex creates babies. They’re assured that sex can be safely separated from its life-giving potential, as long as they use artificial birth control. From a secular point of view, it might sound like a nice, pro-woman message.
The problem is that it’s not true.
According to Family Planning Perspectives, a publication of Planned Parenthood’s Guttmacher Institute, a woman using a method of birth control with a 99 percent success rate has a 70 percent chance of experiencing an unexpected pregnancy over a 10-year period. Again from the Guttmacher Institute, more than half of the woman who get abortions were using contraception when they conceived their child. And, anecdotally, anyone who knows many women who have had abortions knows that contraception failure is very often behind it.
So, let’s summarize the situation: Women are handed contraception and assured that they need not have a second thought as to whether they’re ready for pregnancy. Then, when their birth control method fails, they’re encouraged to undergo a painful medical procedure performed on the most sensitive part of their bodies. Also, in order for the “sex doesn’t have to have consequences” view to hold up, life within the womb cannot be human—otherwise, when a woman’s contraception fails, she just became a mother, and abortion won’t change that. And so women are discouraged from seeking accurate information about the new life within their bodies, fed insulting euphemisms about what the abortion procedure involves, and shouted down when they speak up about personal negative experiences with it.
Anyone who cares about women should be outraged.
And so, to Amanda Marcotte and others like her, I would say, as I’ve said before: You’re right to be angry. You are correct in sensing that women’s freedom is being taken away. You’re just wrong to blame the Church. Not only does it not “punish female sexuality,” but it’s one of the few voices in our culture that respects it.
The Catholic Church is the only institution that consistently proclaims the truth that the bonding and pleasurable aspects of sex cannot be severed from its life-giving potential. The Church advocates for methods of birth control that keep couples mindful of the possibility that each sexual act could create a pregnancy, even if they’re trying to avoid it, and thus encourages women to be completely bought in to the entire process. If it seems to be a killjoy, it’s only because it’s telling you the full truth.
I encourage Marcotte to take another look at the situation, and to carefully trace where the threat to women’s reproductive freedom really begins. It’s not with the Catholic Church’s stance against abortion. Women’s freedom was gone the moment our society bought into the lies of contraception.



View Comments
Comments
Join the Discussion
[url=http://buy-methylprednisolone.webspawner.com/]medrol 4 mg steroid
[/url] medrol get you high
kegunaan obat methylprednisolone 4mg
solu-medrol effects on blood sugar
[url=http://cyclosporine.webs.com]cyclosporine trough levels
[/url] cyclosporine iv to po conversion
cyclosporine vs cyclosporine modified
neoral uveitis
<a >buy phentermine</a> buy phentermine no prescription uk - phentermine online with no prescription
I really like your writing style, great information, thankyou for posting : D.
buying levitra #a href viagra cialis a reviews side effects sperm count and
price of vardenafil #bayer viagar vs site submit
This 24 x 8 photographic print, from, shows the Rock Hall and Voinovich Park at dusk from Lake Erie. Available framed or unframed. Jay Cutler art prints The Mesolithic Art therefore, paved way for the most refined Stone Age Art known as Neolithic Art. Neolithic Art was much more creative and intelligent, which stands as an eyewitness of the evolution of human race through the ages. There is a whole lot of cave paintings dating back to the Neolithic Age, but only a handful of paintings exist from the Mesolithic Age. Art historians are still grappling for more evidence from Mesolithic Art. http://posterartprints.page.tl/ There s a great energy here, Nagel said. There are some great street artists from all around the world who come together here. Many street artists are reluctant to speak publicly. They are, by nature, anti-authoritarian, and their work thrives on secrecy and the mystique of a pseudonym. Although he frequently suffered the scorn of art critics, Kinkade was upbeat about his work, which he regarded as a means to create a pleasant emotional experience for the widest possible audience. The subjects of his paintings include idealized cottages, gardens, small towns, and churches all of which are bathed in a fluorescent haze. The tiny cottages glow with nostalgic perfection and the June gardens are forever soaked in the hues of sunset. Joan Didion, an essayist who explores the interplay between aesthetics and morality in contemporary American society did not seem to regard Kinkade very highly, yet she wrote the most evocative description of his art: A buyer can save power from air conditioning Melbourne when he places the machine to fan first as he turns it on. This will allow the unit to get rid of the surrounding heat. This can be achieved from 10-15 minutes before the unit is set to the desired temperature. Moreover, just like other home appliances, air conditioning units must be kept clean especially in the filters front cover and also the housing. A clean unit will have a better functioning capacity. I do have faith in creators Benioff and Weiss, I believe that the incredibly talented cast and crew can and do successfully bring this epic tale to the small screen on a regular basis. Even when the action is slow, the characters are so well drawn and played with such depth that watching them exist within the brilliant sets and cascading, lush landscapes allows viewers to simply enjoy the experience of being in this world for an hour. Read more art prints Michael Jordan If you interesting Bob Marley Face FINEST BRAND CANVAS Print With Added Heavy BRUSHSTROKES Unknown 24 36 of Library Images , You can see discount of product and get discount for Library Images 10% 75% or more now!!. He was in shock and still strapped to his seat, 9, /join/yahoonewsvirginiabeach, Did you witness the jet crash? Share your story with Yahoo! News, , 630, , ,, Admittedly, nobody was actually hurt, but then, nobody was in the tire-slashing incident, either. The shooters-on-bicycles angle may seem kind of amusing actually, it s a telling clue to the social status of the shooters, if you know anything about DC, but I thought the mother s-basement Hummer-loving dickhead was pretty chuckleicious, too. So why does that clown get 20 inches and a photo for some minor property damage, and the people affected by this incident get almost no attention for an attempted murder and life-threatening gunfire? Title: One Night at McCool s. Artist: Unknown. Image Size: 11.00in. x 16.49in. Paper Size: 11.00in. x 17.00in. HIGH QUALITY MUSEUM WRAP CANVAS PrintThe Canvas Transfer ProcessProducing a canvas transfer is an intensely detailed process, which begins with an art print ink on paper. Special chemicals are applied which, when dried, form a film that is meticulously separated from the paper and permanently embedded onto a high quality artist canvas. The canvas is then carefully stretched and wrapped around a sturdy, custom-cut inner support frame, called a stretcher to Hang Museum Wrap Canvas is wrapped around the stretcher bars and stapled on the back. White canvas will show on the sides and no part of the image is lost during this wrapping process. The stretcher bar on the back of the canvas has a saw-tooth hanger, making it ready to hang on your wall. The canvas texture and non-reflective nature of a canvas transfer allows you to hang them under any lighting There are so many patterns of banksy canvas prints, and we can select the most relevant according to our house background, we can also place order for a canvas art print of our photograph as it will be better to present yourself as a celebrity in front of people. Lots of options we can look into decide on canvas prints that are not common and provide our home an extraordinary beauty. Lenin, Marx, Engels Banner in Moscow posters The multi-gifted artist began producing music at age 16. Like many of his peers, it was a challenge to enjoy the hip-hop lifestyle without compromising his core values. After being introduced to holy hip-hop in 2001, Jones life made an abrupt turn. poster Banksy Helicopter The work combines classical oil painting with intricate silk-screened patterns inspired by pre-modern architecture, letterpress printing designs, and decayed infrastructure. To create the unifying foundation for the body of work, Stanton began exploring abandoned 19th century sites around the greater New York City area, collecting photo references, cogs and gears from Staten Island s Rossville Boat Yard, and metal and glass from Brooklyn s Dead Horse Bay. The initial studies of these artifacts were distilled into highly ornate silk-screened compositions. Finally, the pieces are fully rendered with oil paint, manipulating focus, light and perspective. Born in Barbados Feburary 20, 1988 as Robyn Rihanna Fenty. I love this mega stars singing and performance style. She has won numerous awards and mentions in the music industry. I really appreciate the fact that she showed the world both young and
My new project:
http://goo.gl/ogMjs
“Posted by atheist on Friday, Aug 19, 2011 12:43 PM (EDT):Rafael: You’re missing my point, which is a super-simple one.
1. The Catholic Church says that contraception is wrong.
2. If the Church was in charge of the USA, contraception would be illegal there.
3. If contraception were illegal, then US citizens would not be free to use it.
4. It is therefore self-contradictory for Ms. Fulwiler to argue that she wants to follow the Catholic Church because it supports sexual freedom. It would be more workable for her to say she agrees with the Catholic restrictions on sexual freedoms.”
—My reply: Living life under the law of God leads you to live a life of freedom and happiness. Living life under the ideals of the secular world leads to turmoil and to a road to hell. God gave us laws to protect the well-being of his poeple—Things such as abortion and contraception leads to murder of his poeple and contraception has led to a deterioration and lack of respect for the true meaning behind sex—which is to express love and to bring new life into the world within natural law, moral and family tradition.
LAJ, thank you for sharing your story.
@Kara H,:
the 99% “effectiveness” quoted for the pill includes everything: ie the children who are chemically aborted, the women on the pill who are in a low state of fertility due to age (female fertility declines with age); everything. So your math is valid, and the research confirms it: the average woman between the ages of 16-24 in the US on the pill gets pregnant once a year (not including chemical abortions caused by the uterin lining being thinned by the pill). One of the promises of the pill during the active debate on contraception was that it would eliminate the need for abortion. Quite the opposite has occured. God Bless.
Dear Ismone,
I apologize for not replying sooner but back to school has taken up a lot of my time. I also wanted to give your question due consideration and not just type an off-the-cuff response, so to speak.
My sexual relations were not coercive in any way. The first person I had sex with also got me pregnant. He put no pressure on me whatsoever. It was purely consensual. We were young and I thought we would get married and raise a family together. When I became pregnant we both agreed to the abortion because we were so young and still in school. After the abortion is when he became verbally abusive and suddenly everything was my fault. We did not last as a couple very long after the abortion. My next sexual partner also got me pregnant. Again we agreed to the abortion for the same reason as I mentioned above. This time, however, I was not as sanguine about the procedure. I did not want to go through with the abortion but did not know how to articulate those feelings. My fear of the situation overrode my conscience. I felt backed into a corner with no way out. My boyfriend wanted it done and I knew my family would not support me if I decided to have the child. Again, there was no coercion involved. As a matter of fact that boyfriend is now my husband of 26 years. He is the most loving and gentle man that I know. We both regret what we did. However, our culture, and that is what is essentially raising our children (and me for that matter) tells us that sex is ok and that if you do happen, on the off chance, to get pregnant, well then, go have an abortion. It’s ok. Well it’s not ok. 1 in 4 people are missing from our society because of abortion. That kind of mentality has developed this culture of death. We kill our children because it is inconvenient for us to let them live. How sad is that? Instead of fostering a culture where all human life is respected and welcomed by society with open arms from conception until natural death, we have fostered a culture where convenience trumps somebody’s life.
You say that you are not hearing of people like me. Please go to http://silentnomoreawareness.org/ and please listen to what we have to say. The pain is very real and something that no woman should have to endure.
Abigail,
The problem is none of these survey’s taken into account things like who many of these Catholics practise/ don’t practise, level of practising etc.
We are are talking about 1.2 billion people on the planet.
Thank you for commenting on her article. When will people stop highlighting the small percentage of Catholics not following the rules? There are thousands of priests, yet let’s assume all of them are involved in sexual scandals. There are millions of faithful Catholics, but let’s say that all of them are secretly using contraception and getting abortions. The Church does SO much good, and is filled with so many amazing people! Can the liberals please stop using the handful of rebels as their basis for evaluating the Catholic Church and its followers? Thank you, great article!
Excellent article, and spot on re: the Marcotte piece (only further supported by her rather hysterical response to this piece.) Keep up the great work, Jennifer.
Great article. I follow the church’s teachings on sexuality and could not be happier. It is a shame some people choose not to control their sexual instincts, at the expense of society. It is an objective fact that people who only have sex within marriage make better citizens. We do not spread around gross venereal diseases and increase healthcare costs. Nor do we breed out of wedlock, which causes numerous social pathologies. You’re welcome, America! It is a win-win for you AND my herpes-free private parts.
Ismone,
I remembered reading something that pertains to this discussion, but couldn’t remember what or where…I just found it. You can download it at the link I’ll give you. Page 29 specifically, but the whole thing is good. I think, think mind you, that it is addressing what you are saying, and more clearly saying what we are trying to communicate…
John Paul II/Love and Responsibility
http://www.catholicculture.com/jp2_on_l&r.pdf
mk wrote: “Ismone, I guess we’re having a disconnect somewhere . . . I’m just not getting what you’re saying. I’m trying, sincerely. . . “
Several of you strike me as reasonable, level-headed folks who have shown yourselves capable of developing and/or responding to an initial idea, following it through a coherent train of thought, and coming to a logical conclusion.
I’m liking what I’m reading, and reading it with interest.
I’m just sorry to say I think it’s going nowhere. Because unless everyone in the conversation is doing the coherent train-of-thought thing, then . . . nowheresveille.
Ismone,
I guess we’re having a disconnect somewhere. If a couple is thinking of other first, then it will naturally follow that they will respect each others personal wishes.
By saying that the main problem in sexual relationships is abuse you are making a claim that I just don’t see happening with the people I know. Granted most of the people I know are practicing Catholics and therefore living out their sexuality in the way we are describing, but that only backs up my point. When you understand what sex is for and what purpose it serves you cease treating each other like objects. Obviously if a woman was abused, this was not the case. I’m just not getting what you’re saying. I’m trying…sincerely. It sounds as though you are claiming that the majority of women in the world are abused or have been abused or are being abused…Are you speaking of women in this country? Other countries?
Ismone,
I think your question touches on personalism in general, and how do we relate to each other as human beings, in this case sexually?
Have you heard of the personalist project, put together by a husband and wife team.
http://www.thepersonalistproject.org/
Ismone,
I think your question touches on personalism in general, and how do we relate to each other as human beings, in this case sexually?
For example, you might want to see this I was taught in my youth group at church.
Four Levels of Communication In Sex and Relationships
http://true-feminism.blogspot.com/2010/08/test-post.html
Ismone,
Have you thought that contraception might be the reason why there is a breakdown of sexual communication in a marriage, because it further fosters the use and be used mentality, rather than seeing sex as part of the whole person?
I think your question touches on personalism in general, and how do we relate to each other as human beings, in this case sexually?
For example, you might want to see this I was taught in my youth group at church.
Four Levels of Communication In Sex and Relationships
http://true-feminism.blogspot.com/2010/08/test-post.html
Ismone,
The Church often does not specify or list every exception because so much is determined by the minutiae of each case. The Church promotes couple seek guidance when facing issues they cannot resolve alone, and truly what you speak of are things that require much more than words written on a page. This is an issue that goes beyond sexual trauma and can cover an emotional issue that prohibits a couple’s growth. I know it is frustrating when you long for clear advocacy on a specific issue, but the Church is trying to offer healing in all cases where human dignity is harmed. Perhaps God is calling you to be the Church’s advocate on healing those with past sexual trauma. I hope
I’m not aggravating your frustration with my answer.
But this is all a derail.
The main point of my objection to this article is that she tries to smear Ms. Marcotte with emotionalism, instead of engaging with what the woman wrote.
And then, Ms. Fulwiler goes on to argue that women don’t know what contraception really is, which is insulting and depersonalizing, and also has no basis in reality. That isn’t to say that some women aren’t coerced into contraception or into sex that they do not want, but as I pointed out upthread, the problem isn’t really the contraception. It is coercive sex that women regret. Most of the time. That does not mean that women like LAJ do not exist, but that for most woman, the observable problem is coercion/their sexual boundaries not being respected.
This is why 98% of Catholics use contraception. Because most of us do not believe it is a huge problem, and we are concerned that what we see as bigger problems, like sexual abuse and a breakdown of sexual communication in marriage, that we see affecting actual people in our lives, are given back-burner status instead of being the front line of sexual ethics that the Church discusses.
savvy,
I have read the Cathechism, and it isn’t mentioned there. The fact it is mentioned in other works simply is not what I am saying should happen. I am saying it should be front and center in all Catholic discussions of sexuality, because it is the major problem.
I am plenty well-educated, although I will re-read many of the books that you and mk are suggesting. My problem is a lack of centrality. I cannot get any clearer then that. I have been repeatedly “educated” on this thread about things I have already studied.
mk,
I already have read it, as I stated previously in the thread. I will re-read it. I will repeat myself—the main cause of sexual harm in and outside of marriage is not the lack of an appropriate mindset towards sexuality—that is to say, the lack of a unitive/procreative mindset. It is a lack of specific teachings about what it means to respectfully engage with a partner sexually, so as to treat them with dignity and respect.
My issue is a lack of emphasis on the issue, and the rote response that what is wrong with the world sexually is a lack of procreative/unitive mindset. I think I have explained in pretty great detail why I think that is missing the boat, and why others feel the same way.
Ismone,
Honestly, I promise, read JPII’s Theology of the Body. Not Christopher Wests, but the real thing. Savvy is right. The entire Catholic view is about self giving not taking. I just don’t see where you are getting the idea that focusing on the unitive/procreative aspects of sex is disregarding the personal needs of the individual partners. Unitive means together as one. If a couple is truly coming together in a physical as well as mystical way, uniting as they can in no other way, then they MUST be considering ALL of the person. Otherwise it isn’t unitive. If the couple “becomes one” then each partner must care for the other as if they were “self”. If I harm my partner, am indifferent to my partner, ignore my partners needs…then in essence I am also harming myself.
Also, if a person has been abused in the past, then she/he must be up front about that. This way their partner will know going in that much more sensitivity is going to be needed. I think T.O.B. makes that clear.
I really wish you’d read it…
Ismone,
“I , believe that Catholic doctrine regarding sexual ethics should go beyond unitive and procreative sex, to treating the other person with respect, trying to determine their boundaries and respect them.”
What have we been discussing all this time?
The entire theology of the body concerns who we view human person’s . Please get books on the subject and read it.
Perhaps, those with previous sexual trauma should not rush into marriage, but seek healing first?
I think you need to do a lot more studying, instead of making assumptions.
I don’t think the church is out of touch on this issue. I think you are out of touch with the church.
savvy & mk,
Thanks for your comments, and for the references.
Actually, my main concern is people coming to marriage with past sexual trauma, or with difficulty negotiating their desires. I see that as the major source of sexual harm in the culture at large, and among fellow Catholics. I am not discussing sexual abuse in marriage. I think that the reason that so many secular people/progressive Catholics are very frustrated with Catholic sexual ethics is because the focus is on both the unitive and procreative aspects of sex doesn’t address what many of us see as the major problems with sexual harm in our culture.
For a person who was sexually assaulted or molested as a child, the big moral issue is to avoid hurting him/herself/being hurt by others, and for a person whose partner was ever sexually assaulted or molested as a child, the big moral issue has to do with avoiding hurting that partner. Trauma victims are not healed by simply having unitive and procreative sex. Their sexual boundaries need to be respected. They need to feel able to express themselves sexually, and not obligated to have sex with their partners if they start to freak out and be afraid. And their partners need to both know that it isn’t an insult to them or their sexual desirability if a partner freaks out, and also to know that accidentally triggering a partner does not make you a bad person.
Sexual trauma and mismatched sex drives are so prevalent that I think any system of sexual ethics has to address them, and specifically. I believe that our overall culture does such a poor job of it that many people suffer. And although I think both of you have done an excellent job of showing how existing teaching creates space for those concerns, and that there are resources for dealing with those issues, I sincerely believe that the doctrine *needs* to go further.
I believe that Catholic doctrine regarding sexual ethics should go beyond unitive and procreative sex, to treating the other person with respect, trying to determine their boundaries and respect them. That is to say—I do not believe that most of the harm to people’s sexual dignity, Catholic or otherwise, is happening because sex is insufficiently unitive and procreative. I think it is because there is a culture of silence and shame surrounding past trauma or wanting sex more or less than one’s partner, and as a result, the feelings of rejection, fear, discomfort, isolation and sometimes even trauma that married people can feel.
And I think this is why the Church has very little credibility to outsiders on the subject of sexual ethics.
Babs,
The black and white thinking demonstrates a total lack of thinking to begin with. I too have been surprised when people make those statements.
Excellent piece, Jennifer. Thank God for Truth.
I’m going to comment on my own ignorance here. I am a ‘cradle’ Catholic, and as I grew up I was constantly surprised by what others said Catholics believed regarding sex. For one, I never knew Catholics were supposed be ‘repressed’ regarding sex. That was brand new information to me. In our house sex was a constant topic of conversation. But it was presented in a context of proper uses and improper uses. Sex was defined as an act of self-giving love, not a self satisfying release.
So when I hear “obligation” or “force” or any other abusive term as something Catholics endorse I’m flabbergasted. Of course there are required times of abstinence in a marriage. Some pregnancies require “pelvic rest” as doctors call it. Men sometimes have hernias that require surgery. And of course there are mental/emotional things that get in the way of normal sexual relations. But wouldn’t a loving couple seek healing if this were the case? If one spouse couldn’t eat due to a health issue, whether emotional or physical, wouldn’t a normal couple try to find an answer? Because the Church says that spouses are obligated to one another does that automatically read “NO EXCEPTIONS EVEN IF SOMEONE JUST GOT RAPED!” I think most people put more pressure on themselves to follow the letter of the Catechism and thus become like the Pharisees.
mk,
you are right, of course. dashing off to work. sorry to interrupt. you’re doing great work. good luck.
Marion,
That is true. However, I sense that Simone is talking more about men demanding sex and women “submitting”. Do we have an obligation to unite sexually in marriage? Yes. BUT, that obligation is one of Love. There are reasons that would be acceptable for a woman to decline. (Or a man, for that matter). Sex should not, however, ever be used as a weapon. I can see a very real problem tho, with men thinking they are “owed” sex, believing their wives are their property. This would be a serious offense against the self giving nature of sex. Don’t you think?
Ismone
This is from Theology of the Body/JPII…
http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tb16.htm
“No women, married or otherwise is expected (by the Church) to have sex if she doesn’t want it.”
Catholic husbands and wives are precluded from denying their spouses indefinitely. Either one, husband or wife. It’s OK to say, “how about tomorrow, honey? I’m tired tonight.” It’s not OK to say, “you’re getting nothing for the next six weeks because I’m mad at you.”
Ismone,
Are you talking about women who think it is their “duty” to have sex with their husbands? About women who are physically/verbally abused by their husbands? I don’t get what you’re saying about the Catholic Ethics being out of touch.
No women, married or otherwise is expected (by the Church) to have sex if she doesn’t want it. The Church would back you up on that. Society, not the Church, is what pressures women to be sexually active at all costs.
Maybe we should be discussing what it means to be Chaste? Cause Chaste does not mean celibate.
Dan wrote: “Jennifer Fulwiler (as well as many of the posters here) proves once again that intelligent humor (Amanda Marcotte’s) is not humorous to the unintelligent.”
Dan, it would appear, is conflating *materialism* with *intelligence.*
A classic mistake of the ignorant.
Jennifer Fulwiler (as well as many of the posters here) proves once again that intelligent humor (Amanda Marcotte’s) is not humorous to the unintelligent. Thanks for the supporting QED.
Ismone,
Do you mean sexual abuse in marriage?
Theology of the Body Forum is a place you can discuss these issues, with people who knows what the church’s moral theology on this subject is.
http://tob.sprav.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi
Most non-Catholics do not know a lot about Catholicism and I am wary of so-called “progessive” Catholics because their political views tend to shape their views on religion too.
Adrienne - huh? Can you please cite the Catholic teaching that states we “need the church to forgive us for being born”?
I’m so glad the church provided us with the idea of “sin”. Otherwise we wouldn’t know that we were inherently evil from the start and need the church to forgive us for being born in the first place.
Marion,
I reject the idea that you have any right to inquire, especially in the accusatory fashion that you have, into my beliefs. If you don’t want to discuss the subject with me or anyone else, you are free to not do so. I do not understand if that is so why you have directed your comments at me, but again, you are free to do as you wish. You are not, however, being persuasive, and from your last comment, it seems you have no desire to persuade. So since you have communicated your lack of desire to engage, I will stop engaging with you, and read your comments as hypothetical instead of motivated by any sincere, respectful desire to communicate with me.
savvy,
My problem is not that no Catholic scholar anywhere has ever discussed sexual abuse, although I appreciate the book recommendations and am interested and will look into them, it is that I honestly and prayerfully believe that the Church’s doctrinal focus on unitive and procreative sex completely misses the boat on sexual ethics, by failing to address the most damaging and prevalent forms of sexual harm that happen to Catholics and to others.
That is why people like Ms. Marcotte, and non-Catholics and progressive Catholics disagree with the Church on sexual ethics. Because they think that the most important matters in sexual ethics are not being addressed, and therefore doubt the Church’s credibility at all.
mk,
That is a good point about how the media may have misreported it.
Also, as far as struggling, yes, I am aware that I must have informed and continue to inform my conscience, but I appreciate your making it clear for all of us what that means.
Some of what has been said here has gotten me thinking…the statement has been made that this lifting of the excommunication was offered to women only. So I did a little poking around. Here is how one newspaper put it…
Now I can’t know for sure, as I haven’t found a “quote”, only reports, but it seems to me that this would reflect the Churches thinking better than only offering the “lift” to women. This says it offers it to anyone that was involved with abortion. (They are automatically excommunicated also…drs, boyfriends, husbands, nurses…)
Perhaps it is the media that assumed it was only being offered to women???
Ismone,
If it is true that you “struggle” and have not out and out rejected the Churches Teachings on, as you put it, sexual ethics, then I apologize for jumping to conclusions. I would caution however, that claiming that our conscience is the final judge only works if you have a well formed conscience…meaning you have learned the Truths of right and wrong from the Church. One is not meant to simply “feel” that something is wrong and call it their “conscience”. I’m sure many a serial killer followed his conscience also. (not in anyway comparing you to a serial killer, just pointing out that one’s conscience can lead them astray…)
Ismone,
I not going to play word games. The early Christians clearly saw abortion as murder. As did all the ecumenical councils of the Church, The Apostolic constitutions etc. These were binding on the whole church, East and West.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp
I am not in a position to decide what punishment the state should give out to women, and the church does not prosecute crimes.
I do know that most women who have abortions do so because they don’t have other options etc.
Madrid has high rates of abortion. There were several topics that were touched upon at WYD. You can watch the broadcast, but the media choose to pick up on this alone.
People who are excommunicated are still part of the church. And people are able, and have always been able, to confess abortion and receive absolution throughout the year, right in their own diocese.
Excommunication is a medicinal penalty, designed to bring people back into full communion. It isn’t a cancellation of membership.
It’s a Sacrament of the Church – a channel for Christ’s grace which heals the soul of the penitent. It requires contrition, confession, and some form of penance. The priest doesn’t forgive sins as an individual; on behalf of the Church he exercises the power to forgive sins that belongs to Christ alone, but that has been delegated to him by his bishop, who inherits that delegation from the apostles, who had it from Christ himself.
In some diocese, every priest has been granted the right to provide absolution for someone confessing involvement in an abortion. In other diocese, only certain priests are able to do so. In that case, if a person goes to another priest, he will usually ask the person to come back in another couple of days, and contact the bishop for the right to provide absolution.
For those scarred by abortion, the Catholic Church offers hope and reconciliation; not just at World Youth Day, but every day of the year, all over the world. And not just in specific programmes like Project Rachel, but in everyday parishes and communities.
As for your other question. The answer would lie in Catholic moral theology. You could try Christopher West, Janet Smith, Dawn Eden, and others that specialize on this issue. The TOB institute is once such place. There are many more.
You could even write to one of these theologians.
A book, I would recommend is the Good News About Sex & Marriage, by Christopher West.
Since, this is a vast subject, I cannot cover it with a single sentence.
Ismone,
I’m afraid you are mistaken: nowhere have I attempted to argue with you.
I find it interesting to argue only with persons who are completely honest with themselves and with others about where they stand and what they believe in.
Now if you assure us that you are give your loyal assent to each and every element of what the Catholic Church believes and teaches, then I might begin to find this discussion . . . interesting.
PS—I already answered your question in my prior post—your phrasing of LOYAL ASSENT has no scriptural or doctrinal basis, I have followed instead the requirement that I educate my conscience and that in any matter in which I differ with the Church, I continue to pray and educate myself and be open to the possibility that I am wrong. Indeed, this conversation is one such way that I seek to educate myself.
You could be seeking to educate me and engage with me, as a fellow Catholic and seeker of truth, but instead you accuse me of being a heretic. And if there is any doubt that is what you intended, your entire last post makes it clear, since you demand I state my loyalty to the Church.
I make no similar demands of you, despite the fact that you have stated that certain things are theological truths without citation, including your loyalty oath request.
Marion,
I notice that you are only considering with your thinly veiled ad hominem, instead of addressing any of my substantive points. I disagree that you have correctly stated what is the definition of a good Catholic and a heretic, and you cite no theological sources for these definitions.
If you have something to say on the substance, I am interested to hear it. But I am deeply disappointed to see anyone, including yourself and Ms. Fulwiler, engaging in ad hominems and in rejecting people’s arguments based on what you perceive their spiritual or emotional status to be.
That approach is simply invalid argumentation.
“The Church still considers me a Catholic, not a heretic. I am pretty offended that you would usurp the Church’s position in defining my religious beliefs and what they mean. . . . Note I said “the Church” still considers me a Catholic. “
Madam, it is indeed not for any layperson to diagnose another as a “heretic.” And I have carefully refrained from doing so here, or anywhere else. I have simply provided two definitions (a) that of a loyal Catholic; and (b) that of a heretic, and left it for others to draw their own conclusions.
If, Madam, here on this thread, you will state your *LOYAL ASSENT TO EACH AND EVERY ELEMENT THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BELIEVES AND TEACHES* without exception, then I will have to consider revising my private hypothesis that I have been reading the writings of a heretic.
Ball. Court. Your.
Over.
Can we talk about something that Marcotte did get right? 98% of Catholic women don’t follow the church’s teaching on contraception. That kind of hypocrisy is enough to infuriate anyone… especially when it fuels the fire of authors like her. It is truly a disappointing witness of a beautiful teaching. :(
mk,
I am familiar with that part of the Catechism. My point, and this is also directed to savvy, is that I do not believe the church or most pro-life people truly believe abortion is murder. Indeed, early church teachings did not consider the death of a fetus the death of a human until quickening. But this is a side note. The point is not the morality of abortion, the point is the way that the Church is discussing the morality of forgiving abortions. Despite the fact that someone upthread said (correctly) that all those involved in an abortion are excommunicated, this message of the Holy Father was directed at women. I agree with Ms. Marcotte that this does play into a certain narrative that makes the Church look very bad indeed.
I am not quite sure, mk, where you are getting that abortion is worse from murder from those passages, though. And like I said, my point is that the church treats abortion differently than other crimes classified as murders—both through the automatic excommunication, but also through the mass forgiveness being offered. Again, the way this was put forward plays extremely badly, and makes it appear that the church is focused on the sinfulness of women who are sexual and that the church is handing out indulgences.
savvy,
I am not saying their are no resources for Catholics, I am saying that I believe the primary focus in Church teachings on the unitive and procreative attitudes one should have during sex with your spouse do not address the main causes of sexual harm in this world. At all. I do not believe it is malicious, but it is the reason I differ (and yes, after much prayer, and continuing prayer, lest I be labeled a heretic—I am still stunned that other Catholics would not assume that on a board like this, after demonstrating that I am familiar with the teachings on conscience and the church teachings on sexuality, I would be assumed to not have prayed over this at great length as Church teachings require) with the Church on sexual ethics.
It is true that the language you cite regarding the image and likeness of God could be a starting point for such analysis. But in order to really deal with respecting other humans’ sexuality, I believe it is not specific enough to encourage the faithful to learn the things they need to in order to treat their partners with dignity and not harm them. I do not believe there is an epidemic of people, in and outside marriage, deliberately disrespecting and harming their partners. But I do believe that many men and women are unintentionally harming their partners, because the world teaches that sex is obligatory, and the church does not counter with *doctrinal specifics* about what it means to engage in mutual and respectful sexuality. So with respect, I believe you are wrong, because I believe that the information needed to avoid re-traumatizing an abuse victim or to avoid pressuring a partner for sex.
Yes, I have read Theology of the Body, it was some time ago. But I do not believe it addresses the concerns I am raising. If you could be more specific about what you have in mind, I would be happy to re-read the parts you are thinking about.
I think that the language you cite and the organizations you refer to give Catholics the space to seek the guidance of the sort I am describing, but I believe it is so essential—an ethic of doing no harm—that the Church should include it centrally in its teachings.
I find it interesting that you think that abortion is murder, but that those who abort should not be punished the same as other murderers. I really do not understand that.
Ismone,
I think you have misunderstood the church’s teachings on this subject.
Normally, there are priests in every diocese who are able to forgive abortion in confession. However, not all priests can do this, the same with murder, because they would have to ask the penitent to come back, while they look into lifting the excommunication.
It’s easier to tell people who belong to a local church to come back, but it’s harder to do that when you have such a large event. This is why ALL the priests present were given the permission to absolve this sin.
As for undesirable sex, it comes down to how you treat people. If you see them as persons made in the image and likeness of God, and not objects you can do what you please with them. Then, you would not choose to harm them the same way.
So, if a person was following Catholic teaching, they would not do this in the first place.
Have you read the Theology of the Body?
Now, if your question is that we need programs for women who suffer this kind of abuse. There are many you just have to get in touch with the right people.
The sisters of Life are ones who can help. I am sure they can direct you to other people as well.
http://sistersoflife.org/visitation-mission-pregnancy-help
I have heard pro-abortionists argue that if abortion is made illegal, then the women who have them would be rounded up etc. This is complete nonsense, And, like the feminists for life, I totally support penalties on men who co-orce women into these things by withdrawing financial and moral support.
http://www.feministsforlife.org/FAQ/index.htm
If however, you are using a strictly legal definition of murder, then you would be correct. It is legal murder. Which of course in legalese is an oxymoron. Quibbling over whether it is homicide or murder however, is about as low as you can go.
2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.“61 The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.
2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.69
Infanticide,70 fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority.
It’s pretty clear from the catechism that abortion is worse than murder.
Given that it states that human beings must be considered PERSONS from the moment of conception til the moment of natural death, and that abortion is the killing of an innocent PERSON, I would argue that the Church does indeed consider it murder.
The way the Church is dealing with the millions of women who have procured abortions and been excommunicated is to give them a way back. They do not need to travel to do so. Most major dioceses have bishops that are allowed to remove the excommunication. The “get out of hell card free” was a peace offering to women who would already BE at the WYD, not for women in other places to come running. If a woman wants to atone and make reconciliation, she has ample opportunity to do so right in her own back yard!
savvy,
Catholicism says nothing, nor do any religions I have seen, about preventing people from having undesired sex within marriage. The unitive and procreative language really doesn’t get at what I am talking about, which is people having sex that they do not want, that is uncomfortable or unpleasant for them, because it is socially expected.
In the larger society, that sex can be expected after a certain number of dates or after the relationship reaches some degree of seriousness.
In a Catholic marriage, I do not think that the focus on unitive and procreative sex is sufficient to deal with the problems caused by differences in sexual desire or prior sexual abuse. I believe that sexual ethics go beyond someone’s attitudes toward sex, and that the highest purpose of sexual ethics is to make sure you are not hurting your partner or yourself. I do not believe that the Catholic Church speaks to this at all. It certainly does not in the Catechism. I do not believe that the larger society speaks to it either. But I believe it is deeply important, because we should not harm people.
I think it would be wonderful if the Catholic and other Christian churches (and indeed, if all religions) started taking up these issues too. Right now, they are mostly the work of survivor communities and feminists.
Marion,
Now THAT I understood! ;)
Marion & others,
The Church still considers me a Catholic, not a heretic. I am pretty offended that you would usurp the Church’s position in defining my religious beliefs and what they mean. My ultimate duty, even as a Catholic, is to my conscience. I have been to confession and my confessor knows my beliefs quite well. And of all the names I have been called, I have never been called a heretic before. The arrogance on this thread is astounding. Note I said “the Church” still considers me a Catholic.
And it appears that between you and the other Catholics on this thread, there is disagreement over whether murders lead to automatic excommunication. If someone wants to provide me with a cite, I am interested, because I have never heard such a thing. Actually, murderers are not discovered or even arrested over half the time—I am familiar with crime statistics, which is how I know this. So murders are as “secret” as you believe abortions to be.
The data on women’s feelings of guilt over abortion are quite widely known—and the truth is that most women do not feel bad at all about it. That does not mean it is moral or not, but when discussing abortion, saying that it causes crushing guilt is not a reason to ban it because (1) it is not true, and (2) if you believe abortion is murder, it is entirely irrelevant whether the murderer feels guilt. I think that the church’s actions and the conversations I have had with most pro-life people show that they don’t really think it is murder.
I don’t see why it matters whether people discourage NFP. Actually, the sympto-thermal method is quite popular among women I know, including atheists. But that is a red herring. Who cares if non-Catholics say stupid things about NFP? Most Catholics don’t use it anyways, and it was not the point of Ms. Marcotte’s article.
The point of this whole discussion is that to an outsider, it looks really bad when the Church both calls abortion murder and offers a six day “get-out-of-your-abortion-excommunication-card-free” period. Especially since it is so expensive to travel to world youth day. It looks like an indulgence. And I agree with Ms. Marcotte. And I further agree that the Church doesn’t really believe abortion is murder, and neither do most pro-life people. Because if you did, I do not know how you would deal with the fact that one in three American women will murder in her lifetime, according to your definition.
“if this was an animal, the same people would by up in arms over cutting it to pieces in such a inhumane way.”
Well, that’s true.
The difference is, the developing infant in the womb of a mother who doesn’t want him or her, is unlike an animal, guilty of a capital crime.
The crime of being unwanted by the human female who conceived him or her.
And the sentence for that crime contains provision for neither pity, nor for mercy, nor for remorse.
The sentence is a cruel and painful death. And let anyone who dares raise his voice to question the justice of that death be denounced as the most vicous scoundrel imaginable, a hater and an oppressor of women.
Pretty amazing, the world we live in, yes?
Marion,
Actually, if this was an animal, the same people would by up in arms over cutting it to pieces in such a inhumane way.
“And the Catholic policy on tubal pregnancies is creepy, too.”
I know! Imagine refusing directly to target a developing child for destruction. Gross! Who *wouldn’t* want to take a knife or a razor blade to a tiny, defenseless baby in the beginning stages of its life and slit it to pieces?
I mean - uh, *what* is their *problem*, you know? Like, they should get *over* themselves, totally, you know?
Destroying developing infants is like no big deal, OK? And anybody who thinks it is, is a total, like, *LOSER*!
You know?
Alice, here’s how I can support it—all evidence available suggests that the mother was not in immediate danger, and that not all treatments available were employed in order to save BOTH patients. The murder was committed because it was the most expedient option.
http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/6450/Sisters-abortion-approval-draws-automatic-excommu.aspx
The Catholic policy is that both patients need to be treated, and that it’s never acceptable to directly kill one patient to save the other.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0609uan.asp
Really, I don’t know how any of y’all can support an institution that refuses to save the life of a mom (of several living children) when the choice is abortion of an 11-week-old fetus or death of mom AND fetus.
guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/us-catholic-bishop-hospital-abortion
I really don’t get it. And the Catholic policy on tubal pregnancies is creepy, too.
“I am still confused.”
Perhaps it might be said that one who resists the Church to her face, while still calling themselves “a Catholic”, is one who is misinformed -if not downright confused - about what it means to be *a Catholic*.
To encounter and to converse with such one might understandably lead those around them to experience the sensation of confusion.
Momentarily.
The sensation should resolve upon coming to the realization that it is the one who opposes the Church while continuing to call themselves a Catholic, who is, in fact, confused.
Marion,
Since this is a public forum, and it was stated publicly that the ethics of sexuality taught by the Church are disagreed with I would say that this was resisting “to her face”.
There was no statement that the person is “working on accepting”, but rather a statement that they have “Rejected” the teaching, thus rendering her either a heretic or no longer a Catholic in full communion with the Church. I guess I just don’t see why she thinks she is “still” a Catholic in the Churches eyes, unless she means that since she was baptized she will “always be Catholic”.
Also, as to her statement about miscarriages and abortions…perhaps women talk about abortions because they are culpable and feel guilt, which would fly in the face of her statement that she doesn’t believe they do feel guilt. Women who have miscarriages can come to peace with them because they are an act of God and the women is not responsible for the death of her child, which is not the case with abortion.
Also her statement that most women do NOT feel guilty, tells me that she probably doesn’t think they have anything to feel guilty about. Which would mean abortion is yet another thing she accepts that goes against the Teaching of the Church…
Thus, I am still confused.
“‘(by the Church’s definition I am still Catholic),
And I disagree entirely with the church on sexual ethics.’
Now that confuses me.”
One or two definitions may resolve the confusion you alluded to.
The Church defines one who started out as a Catholic, and who now willfully and decidedly *rejects* any aspect of what the Church believes and teaches - in *any* area - as no longer as “a Catholic.”
Instead, the Church’s definition of *a heretic* is one who started out as a Catholic, and who now willfully and determinedly *rejects* what the Church believes and teaches in *any* area.
A faithful Catholic will at times question, doubt, or struggle with, one or more elements of what the Church believes and teaches, but will continue to give their loyal assent to *all* elements to the best of their ability, and will in the meantime pray, study, and consult the learned in an effort to resolve the difficulty, never positioning themselves, at any time, as one who has determined to *resist to her face* any of what the Church believes.
Now that confuses me.
The sisters of Life are blogging from Madrid.
“So eight Sisters of Life, three Friars of the Renewal and three band members filed onto center stage and Sr. Mariae Agnus Dei began to teach the pilgrims the verses.
The men sang to their sisters in Christ: You are beautiful, you are precious, you are sacred in the eyes of the Lord.
The young women returned this word to their brothers in Christ: I must confess, I look for holiness- a man strong in virtue. “
feed://loveandlifewydmadrid.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default
One would think the posters here have invented their own religion about Catholic views on women.
“In fact, and this comes out of feminism, not Catholicism, *no one* male or female should have sex that is undesired, or that they feel would harm either them or their partner.”
Catholicism existed before feminism.
Ismone,
In addition to what Marion said, murder of born human beings too merits automatic excommunication. A priest would not be able to absolve this if confessed without permission and repentance on part of the murderer.
It works the same way with abortion.
That being said, the moment a woman tells her husband, boyfriend, etc that she wants to go off the pill and try NFP, they get furious.
This has happened to people I know.
It becomes obvious that they do not love you and are just using you. If a person truly loved you they would love all of you, and not just when it’s easy for them. Our bodies speak a language.
You can choose to have loveless sex, but the church does not want this.
NFP does not require you to have as many kids as possible BTW.
Amanda Marcotte is a complete and total bigot. Simple and plain. A hateful, hateful bigot. That Slate gives a forum for her makes them equally culpable.
“It bothers me, like it bothers Ms. Marcotte, that women who get abortions are excommunicated and people who murder born human beings are not . . . .”
It is important to note here that *all* persons associated with the sin of abortion incur the sentence of excommunication, not just the mother-to-be. This includes the physician, often male, any other health care professionals involved – male as well as female, anyone counseling the mother-to-be to commit this deed, those ordering her, directing her, persuading her, conveying her, providing funds or other resources – each and every one – whether mother, father, husband, lover, friend or associate – male or female.
Apart from the sin of murdering already born human beings, there are other sins which are equally grievous, but which have the additional unique characteristics of coming infrequently to light, or of being – in certain circles - customarily lightly excused and explained away. Abortion may be procured in circumstances of the utmost secrecy, and her most trusted intimates may impart scurrilous counsel depicting this foul deed as a mere nothing, indeed as a *duty* to the future happiness of the mother-to-be herself, to the father-to-be, to the reputation and happiness of her parents, and so on.
Rarely, if ever, is this near-perfect secrecy found and this deceitful counsel brought to bear on the perpetrator of murder of other classes of persons. It is thus in the case of abortion, among few other crimes, that the Church resorts to the penalty of excommunication in an effort to impress her children with the enormity of this otherwise perhaps easily-suppressed sin, and by the very arduousness of obtaining absolution, to discourage them from committing it.
There is a lot of talking past on this thread. And in fact, I would argue that Ms. Fulwiler’s entire article is talking past Ms. Marcotte.
Ms. Fulwiler basically focuses most of her analysis on the supposed state of Ms. Marcotte’s emotions. Ms. Marcotte’s emotions do not matter, what matters are the actual arguments she makes. Those arguments are the same whether they flow from a prayer-like calm, or indignation, or sadness, or anger, or joy or confusion or what have you.
And as someone raised Catholic, (by the Church’s definition I am still Catholic), I was offended by the idea that women should just show up at world youth day and be forgiven en masse for abortions. It bothers me, like it bothers Ms. Marcotte, that women who get abortions are excommunicated and people who murder born human beings are not.
And I disagree entirely with the church on sexual ethics. I understand the arguments that sex should be both unitive and procreative and in the context of a marriage, and the argument that what the church calls “the contraceptive mentality” is harmful. And I also believe that if those are your beliefs, that any sex *you personally* have should be both unitive and procreative aspects to it, then you absolutely are correct that you should not have sex outside of that context.
In fact, and this comes out of feminism, not Catholicism, *no one* male or female should have sex that is undesired, or that they feel would harm either them or their partner. Married or unmarried.
I do not doubt that people like LAJ (and I am deeply sorry for your pain) can have negative experiences (to understate) with abortion and contraception. But studies show that this is not the norm. That is not to take away from her pain at all, but to suggest that while she should get all the support in the world, we should not form an understanding of contraception based on outliers. LAJ—I do not wish to pry, so please ignore this if you like, but I wonder how you felt not just about the contraception, but the underlying sex. Was it sex that you felt pressured into, by social expectations or by your partner? Because I have not previously met someone who had very negative experiences with contraception who wasn’t also in coercive or negative relationships, or simply relationships where they were not expressing authentic sexuality. That doesn’t mean that you can’t be different, but I am wondering.
Also, in my experience, women talk way more about abortion than they do about miscarriages. 75% of women have a miscarriage, as compared to about a third of women who have an abortion, and yet far more women have told me about their abortions than their miscarriages.
Marion,
That should have read NO problem! lol…
I don’t have time to read the rest of the comments, but after reading Ms. Marcotte’s first article and her reply to yours, this is my take on it: opinions on this matter hinge on one’s definition of “freedom.” While you, Mrs. Fulwiler seem to understand her (albeit flawed) understanding of freedom, she appears to deny even the idea that you might have a valid definition, yourself (and even perhaps the correct one!). My opinion on “freedom”?: that it is the ability to act fully and appropriately according to our design as human persons - and insodoing acknowledge and respect the limits of our nature.
Marion and Karen,
<blockquote>Is it now legal, since almost all Catholics use it?</blockquotes>
I would just like to add that the Church does not make things “legal”. It doesn’t matter how many “Catholics” sin, the Church doesn’t then make civil laws based on sinful behavior. The statement is completely illogical, but to be fair, I think you have simply mixed apples and oranges.
A. The Church does not make public policy so the term “legal” is nonsensical.
B. The Church does not make Doctrine (which is what I think you meant) based on the will of the people. The Church recognizes and binds it’s members to Truth and Truth alone. Truth is not something created, but rather discovered, and all the people in the world cannot “change” it.
C. When we, as members of the Church, find one of those TRUTHS difficult to obey, then WE change. Unlike todays secular society, we do not change Truth to fit our views, but rather struggle to change our views to fit the Truth. Do we fail? Of course. But the Catholic Church is not a showplace for Saints. Rather it is a shelter for Sinners.
Marion…problem. The misunderstandings about the Church never cease to amaze me.
mk, thanks for your efforts to assist me in answering Karen’s question.
Upon reading the “Setting policy”? question about the Church, “what the-?” was my first response.
I tried to frame the answer according to the terminology Karen had used in the hope that it would be more readily understandable.
Perhaps in attempting to do so, I undertook more than was opportune. It’s been known to happen. Time will tell in this case.
Thank you again.
Good post! Thank you!
The true slavery comes from women being taught from preschool that their bodies are their most important possessions, and that sex (where the man most often is NOT responsible for either birth control or the “corrective measure” when it fails) is one big party. I laugh when feminists proclaim how “free” women are today. If you absorb the message of media/movies/culture, it is so plain: women are being used, plain and simple; not valued for their minds but for their looks. And so many have bought this bogus message - is it because they genuinely don’t think they deserve better than this?
Marion and Karen,
<blockquote>Is it now legal, since almost all Catholics use it?</blockquotes>
I would just like to add that the Church does not make things “legal”. It doesn’t matter how many “Catholics” sin, the Church doesn’t then make civil laws based on sinful behavior. The statement is completely illogical, but to be fair, I think you have simply mixed apples and oranges.
A. The Church does not make public policy so the term “legal” is nonsensical.
B. The Church does not make Doctrine (which is what I think you meant) based on the will of the people. The Church recognizes and binds it’s members to Truth and Truth alone. Truth is not something created, but rather discovered, and all the people in the world cannot “change” it.
C. When we, as members of the Church, find one of those TRUTHS difficult to obey, then WE change. Unlike todays secular society, we do not change Truth to fit our views, but rather struggle to change our views to fit the Truth. Do we fail? Of course. But the Catholic Church is not a showplace for Saints. Rather it is a shelter for Sinners.
Karen,
There have never been more female theologians, lay administrators, ministers etc.
Being a priest is not about setting policy. It’s about administering the sacraments and the Mass. In places where nobody else is there to help out the priests have to do everything.
Please see,
What is a priest?
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2011/04/what-is-priest.html
“So, Marion, who does get to set policy? . . . 96%* of Catholic women use or have used artificial birth control. Is it now legal, since almost all Catholics use it?”
Are we talking about “setting policy”, as in, *deciding what is authoritatively taught among the faithful and how it is taught*?
Or, are we talking about “setting policy,” as in, *deciding how the faithful receive and put into practice what is taught?”
Because one is the provenance of the Pope together with the bishops. The other is the provenance of all the people of God.
___________________
N.B. _Sic_ I haven’t heard this figure anywhere else. Seems inordinately high, but letting it pass, for now.
Karen,
<blockquote>So, Marion, who does get to set policy?</blockqutoe>
Set policy? Seriously? I was unaware that the Catholic Church “set policies”. I always thought they taught the “Truth”. Then each of us follows it. Or not.
Care to back up your claim that 96% of Catholic Women use birth control?
Karen
Being able to add, run, administer…all of these things are HUMAN characteristics, not masculine. That which makes us women has nothing to do with whether or not we can be butchers, bakers or candlestick makers…When we speak about what makes us FEMALE, we speak to that which is specific and unique to the feminine half of humanity, not that which is the same for all humans.
There is one job and one job only that is reserved for men in the Catholic Church…that of ordained priesthood/deacon. That is because these “positions” speak directly to the roles of men and woman. Not because women are inferior. The Church is a family. There are Fathers, Mothers, Brothers and Sisters. Women cannot be fathers any more than fathers can be mothers. I don’t hear priests complaining because the Church won’t allow them to give birth. We accept these God given roles and celebrate them. Only someone who is insecure in their sexuality would be threatened by them. Or as I’ve pointed out, someone who hates women, men or both.
As for the “disgusting, filthy set of genitals”...I’m sorry to hear the condition of your private parts. Mine are fine. Perhaps some medical advice is in order? I hear they are doing marvelous things in medicine these days. With a little help, we might get your filthy genitals into better condition. There might even be something helpful “over the counter”. Perhaps you should ask yourself how your genitals got into that condition in the first place?
So, Marion, who does get to set policy? If the laity can set policy for the Church, will there be women priests any time soon? 96% of Catholic women use or have used artificial birth control. Is it now legal, since almost all Catholics use it?
“The Catholic church teaches that there are a large number of things, including having an official policy-making position in the church, that women can’t do for no better reason than our ovaries.”
Utter clericalism: The belief that power, authority, and meaning within “the Church” reside solely or primarily with members of the ordained clergy.
Not so. Again, nothing could be further from the truth.
BTW “The Fascinating Womanhood” business alluded to above would appear to be some privately published writing by some non-Catholic author called somebody-or-other that is being discussed on some privately operated blog that characterizes itself as “Catholic.”
You know what the word “knock-off” means? How about “false advertising”?
Come on. How long have you been surfing the ‘net? Since last week?
You must know that in fifteen minutes I can post anything I want on the internet and call it “Catholic”.
So can you. So can anybody.
Anybody with 1/8 of an ounce of intellectual curiosity will spend five minutes clicking around that site, comparing it to what is posted on “THE VATICAN” sites, and will quickly conclude that “Fascinating Womanhood” has nothing to do with anything that the Church in her official capacity believes or teaches.
” . . . we have the dirty and disgusting set of genitals.”
Catholics believe women have “dirty and digusting” genitals?
Wow. Wowzers. And Yikes.
How do you say “projection” in Atheist-speak?
Rarely have I read a comment more indicative of utter self-loathing.
Karen, I’m sorry, but when your project your own self-loathing hang-ups onto other people or religious institutions, doing so might go over well with those who oppose those institutions, but to those within the institutions, who actually know better, when we encounter such writings, it just makes the author look as if she is . . . well, as if she is not in touch with reality.
To say the least.
mk, I have a lot of experiences with “women who want to women,” and they always insist that being a woman means not competing with men in any area, not ‘threatening’ men by, say, showing my intelligence or competence, so that men can feel like they are our protectors and providers, even when neither is necessary or desirable. (Google the “Fascinating Womanhood Pledge” for a list of traits of the feminine woman which includes displaying fear of rodents and reptiles. Apparently all women should be cowards.)
I have two XX chromosomes, ovaries, and female secondary sex characteristics. That makes me a woman, even when I get dirty or beat men in court. Anything I do is appropriate for a woman to do. The Catholic church teaches that there are a large number of things, including having an official policy-making position in the church, that women can’t do for no better reason than our ovaries. It is oppressive to force any human to playact at “femininity” because we have the dirty and disgusting set of genitals.
ARM,
I remember that. Chesterton also says that women who stay “at home” are the freest members of society…they can eat when they want, what they want, paint their floors, carpet their ceilings, dress as they please, start their day when they want…men (and women) who work outside the home are always at the mercy of those who employ them. Eat lunch when someone else tells them to, dress in a certain way, punch in, punch out…
When we accept the responsibilities that go with freedom, when we realize that true freedom means being free to do what is right and not just what we want, only then are we actually free. No man has the right to force me to go against my conscience. BUT, my conscience must be in good working order. IF it is, then I MUST be allowed to follow it. If it is broken, then I am NOT free, but at the mercy of my instincts/nature. Not human nature, but base nature. It is that very ability to KNOW the difference between right and wrong that makes us free.
Dogs must be dogs. They are not FREE to be cats. But by recognizing that they ARE dogs, by BEING dogs, they are freer than many human beings. When human beings realize that they are moral agents, and act accordingly, then they are truly being human. When they deny this and try to act like mere animals, they reduce themselves to slaves of their baser natures. This is not the same as the freedom of dogs to be dogs, as we are higher than that. When we succumb to our instincts, we are lowering ourselves. Only when we embrace that which separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom, our rational minds, ability to know right from wrong, can we truly be FREE. Once we use our freedom to choose, to become lesser beings, equal to dogs and cats, then we actually give up our true freedom. It’s a paradox. Rutting with no regard for the procreative aspect of sex, renders us slaves with only the illusion of freedom. In others words we FREELY CHOOSE to become UNFREE.
There’s a great passage in Aristotle’s Metaphysics about what true freedom is. He points out that the animals and slaves in a household have chores, but when those chores are done, they can do whatever they feel like - “live at random”. In contrast, the free members of the household are under obligation all the time - they don’t just have to get certain chores done, but to be a certain kind of person.
mk, all very true. I think even people like Atheist may be able to grasp the notion that the moral value of any given act depends on circumstances and the persons involved . . . in all areas of human activity, interestingly, in matters of sexuality.
In matters of sexuality, it’s got to be “no holds barred; free-for-all”. Full stop. Anyone who says otherwise is “villifying sex” and “infringing on the freedom of others.”
No idea why this is so. But it is most remarkable. And puzzling.
But there it is.
Marion,
Perhaps, then, we should start with a definition of “FREEDOM”. This idea that freedom = doing anything we want is nonsense. Unless your 3 years old. Grown ups understand that stomping your foot and screaming “I WANT, I WANT, I WANT…” is childish.
For instance, Martin Luther King had a dream. He dreamt that one day people of all color would be FREE. But if he got his way, then racists would no longer be “FREE” to discriminate. Atheist believes that women should be FREE to have sex and then abortions. But this would mean that the fathers of those children are not FREE to keep their child, and the child of her actions is not free to live. Rapists believe that they should have the freedom to “take” sex whenever and wherever they want. But that would infringe on the person being rapeds right NOT to have sex.
What atheist describes in not freedom at all, but license. To be truly free, a person must be equally able to DO a thing as to REFRAIN from doing it. A drug addict is not FREE to use drugs, because he is not free NOT to use drugs. In todays society, I wonder how many men and women are truly free NOT to have sex. How many could actually go without sex until they were married. Not many. When we exercise our right of freedom to choose to do the right things, we become more free. When we exercise our right of freedom to do wrong things, we actually become slaves of that behavior. And obviously, slaves are not free.
(Confidential to mk: Nice try - but I don’t think Atheist will be able to grasp what you’re trying to express. That there are distinctions to be made when evaluating when a particular sexual act is morally responsible or not, that persons and circumstances are to be taken into account.
I think anything other than, “people should feel as free to do what they want when they want with whomever they want as any cat or dog” will be viewed as “an infringement on freedom.”
Just my two cents. I could be wrong.)
Atheist,
Well, now see there, you’re actually touting the Catholic view and you don’t realize it. The CULTURE does indeed put the responsibility of being “sexy” on the women. The Catholic Church however, asks women NOT to use their sexuality in this way. It’s what the word Chaste means. Dress modestly, don’t incite men to have unchaste thoughts about you or other women. Treat your body as you would a precious jewel. You lock your jewels up in a safe and take them out and wear them only when it is appropriate. Yet we leave our bodies out in the open to be ogled and used as objects…
The second half of your statement is not entirely true however. Culture does not frown upon women who act on their sexual urges. That’s why contraception is promoted ceaselessly. That’s why abortion is accepted. Precisely because society encourages women to act on their sexual urges.
It is the Catholic Church who teaches that we should reserve our sexual urges for the context of marriage. Our sexual beings are SO precious that they should only be used by someone who respects them and cares for us so deeply that they will not abuse our sexuality.
It sounds like you might be a closet Catholic. Faux feminism is your enemy, not the Church. The Church is where you’ll find true feminists. Women who love women, not, like faux feminists who hate women. They hate them so much that they want to eliminate men and take their place. Faux feminists don’t want to glorify women, they want to eradicate them. They don’t say “We are equal to men”, they say “We want to BE men”. They don’t celebrate the things that make us women…they despise those differences. Doubt it? Then try this. List here, all the things that make women, women. All the things that set us apart from men. Either you won’t be able to come up with any because you don’t see any differences (which proves that you don’t “love” being a woman) or you’ll come up with a number of things that center around creating new life. Then of course, I’ll point out the great lengths faux feminists do to eliminate those very things. Contraception, abortion, sex sans marriage.
Either way, you’ll prove my point. Faux feminists hate women, hate being women and hate all the things that “make” us women.
The only thing they seem to hate more than women, are men and babies.
We have people arguing against the teachings of the Church, but do I dare ask maybe they should open themselves and try sex without any form contraception or abortion? I’m not asking to believe in God, but rather to believe in sex. To trust sex without contraception or abortion. Could they trust sex, as is, pregnancy and all? I mean if they really love and value sex, why not trust sex in its organic form?
It’s the quality over quantity argument. Sure you have the freedom to have all the crappy sex you want, the problem is you’re not arguing that the sex actually has to be any good. If you have to add condoms, contraception, adult material, and battery operated devices to sex, then you’re doing it all wrong.
Nature gave us everything we need to have sex. Nature didn’t give us condoms, the Pill, or abortion. Nature did give us babies though. Nature also allows sex to release hormones that makes us bond beyond the sexual act. Why do people who make the claim they believe in sexual freedom, completely deny what sex in nature actually does?
These arguments against the Church, are really arguments against nature of sex and not the Pope.
Dear savvy and Marion, thank you for the kind words. They really mean a lot to me. I was expecting to get blasted again. I’m sure it will come. It always does. savvy, Jane Roe lives here in the DFW area. I’ve never met her but would sincerly love to have the opportunity. I know she values her privacy so I am not about to intrude.
PTSD was not recognized until after the Vietnam war but we know soldiers suffered from it for centuries. I suggest to you all that Post Abortive Spiritual Disorder (PASD-my own definition and acronym) is very real. Rachel’s Vineyards is very helpful with both men and women who are suffering. They help people of all faith and no faith heal the awful suffering.
I also challenge men to speak out too! You have just as much right as the women to voice your pain and suffering over a lost child.
God Bless and the Peace and Joy of Christ be with you always!
LAJ, I second savvy’s thanks for sharing with us.
God bless you.
LAJ,
Thanks for your heartfelt sharing. Jane Roe of Roe v Wade is now Catholic and pro-life too.
The debate here is quite lively. However, I think a lot of you are talking past one another. I would like to bring this down to realities. I bought into the whole contraceptive mindset quite early in my life. I used contraception exactly as prescribed by Planned Parenthood. What followed were 4 unintended pregnancies in 5 years. 2 of those pregnancies I ended in abortion. 1 child I gave birth to (my daughter) and 1 miscarriage. My son was planned 5 years later.
This is what women who have had abortions won’t tell you. It is a painful, degrading, shameful act. We bury the experience 10,000 fathoms deep into our psyche hoping it will never resurface again. Until 10 years ago I defended contraception and abortion like a rabid dog. If I couldn’t justify my actions as being right then I had done the most horrible act a mother can do, deprive another human being of life, a defenseless human being at that. If abortion is ok, then why don’t you hear women talking about their experience having them? Whys is not part of the discussion like going to the dentist? It’s just the removal of a blob of tissue isn’t it? I will tell you why this does not happen. It is because at the deepest level of a woman’s being is the place where she KNOWS what she did was WRONG.
These experiences leave us damaged in a way that those who have not experienced it cannot comprehend. What’s worse is we cannot talk about it. We are shut down. Nobody wants to hear about it. “Oh, get over it.” is said frequently to those who try. Most don’t because of deep-rooted feelings of shame. Well I have had enough of the SILENCE. I want all women who feel this way to find it within themselves to speak out. The situation won’t change until we speak and speak loudly!
Planned Parenthood is quite willing to help people of most any age obtain contraception. They are quite willing to perform the abortion. They are not willing to help those who find themselves psychologically damaged by what they have done. The oh so helpful staff of abortion clinics are oh so not helpful after the abortion is performed. We women are on our own. I find it peculiar that an organization that is titled Planned Parenthood only help women avoid parenthood at all costs and provides no services for those who plan to have children.
Once I came to grips with the fact that what I had done was evil down to the core, the only place I found the healing help that I needed was the Roman Catholic Church who teaches without error the DIGNITY OF EVERY HUMAN LIFE.
Marion,
NFP is eco-sex. Fertility awareness methods are catching on in some places among non-Catholics too.
Check this out.
http://www.justisse.ca/default.htm
Critter
Huh? Nobody decided such a thing, except for your imagination.
Critter asked: “So when did you decide that women who had sex (without gestating) were evil?”
Such women are not evil. Persons are not evil. The evil resides in the actions or failures to act that persons do.
The commenter calling themselves Atheist wrote, “Honestly, I don’t believe you should think more than is absolutely necessary. You will only confuse yourself. Leave that to others.”
Isn’t it rich? An atheist tells the Catholic - in effect, “Shut up and do as your told.”
Just FYI: I don’t take directions from random strangers on the Internet.
Especially ones who have failed to give evidence that they know how to engage in quality thinking.
Marion (Mael Muire): Honestly, I don’t believe you should think more than is absolutely necessary. You will only confuse yourself. Leave that to others.
Amanda,
Oooooo…now that’s original!
And . . .
I wonder, if Atheists enacted all our civil laws, would they be able to write legislation that made distinctions between acts committed in suitable and unsuitable circumstances by authorized and unauthorized persons?
Like, for example, in the civil arena, the current law specifies that it’s OK for a police officer to take aim at a suspect holding a gun to the head of a hostage, and even to shoot, . . . but that it’s not OK for a police officer to shoot a fleeing, unarmed looter in the back. That would be a really, really bad thing to do.
Would atheists “villify” police officers shooting suspects?
It *should* depend.
Because . . . Catholics do that really well. Make distinctions, I mean. “It all depends.”
Now, I’m beginning to wonder whether atheists can.
Gee. That’s a little scary.
Hey! I wonder how people who believe that “the Catholic Church villifies sex across-th-board” manage to make money in the stock market?
You know. Because, there are times when it is a good idea to sell your shares . . . and other times when it’s not.
It’s better to, you know, hold onto your shares.
Catholics don’t have any problem understanding that.
Because our Church teaches that there are certain things in certain circumstances that are good and wholesome, and other times when they aren’t.
Catholics totally can get that.
But do these other folks on this thread get that? *Can* they get it?
I don’t know. I wonder. Interesting
Joanna asked, “Does calling sex ‘a source of joy and pleasure’ sound like ‘vilification’?”
Joanna, the fact that the Catholic Church refuses to accept the view that human persons are simply highly evolved land mammals which should at will anytime, anywhere, and the fact that the Church places parameters and stipulations – any parameters and stipulations - upon when and with whom sexual expression is appropriate - translates in the minds of some - translates to “full-on villification.”
I know.
Go figure.
I know.
It’s sort of like saying “the Catholic Church vilifies fire” because the Catholic Church believes that there is such a thing as responsible and safe fire-setting . . . and then there is the sin of arson.
Has to be “all or nothing.” Classic black-and-white thinking.
“I was talking about how the teachings of the Catholic Church, and
especially about the vilification of sex that is common…”
The Catholic Church VILIFIES sex? Really? Well, let’s see what the Church teaches regarding sexuality:
“The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.” Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure...” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2362)
Does calling sex “a source of joy and pleasure” sound like “vilification”? Once again, this is a case of attacking what one THINKS the Church teaches instead of what it ACTUALLY teaches.
“I was talking about how the teachings of the Catholic Church, and especially about the vilification of sex that is common, will tend to affect people.”
You mean they will actually start seeing people as people to be loved and not machines to be used. Imagine the horror?
The only people it will affect are those men that are being fed by a selfish culture.
And you call us anti-woman?
Pseudonym wrote: “No, no conscience clause for medical practitioners. If your conscience prevents you from providing competent medical care you should not be practicing medicine, full-stop.”
In the America I hope to hand on to my children and grandchildren, I hope men and women of conscience will continue to say, “no!” (full stop) to demands that they commit atrocities, whether that occur in the military - a young private saying, “Sir, no, sir!” when ordered by his commanding officer to mistreat a prisoner, a lab technician refusing to perform vivisection on a lab animal, or a pharmacist refusing to assist in the effort to target a developing infant in the womb for annihilation.
Let’s hope that men and women of principle and of conscience continue to step up and to serve in *all* occupations where the Dark Side wants to take over and commit evil. Let’s hope that men and women of principle will continue to stand up and say no.
Atheist,
My personal experiences have been quite different. This approach has actually healed relations between men and women.
“Our culture puts the responsibility of being sexy on women for the most part, yet also expects women not to act on their sexual urges.”
Yes, Our culture does, but, not the church. We are not here to compromise with the culture, but to transform it.
“why would we debate morality with the religious on a blog?”
Who knows why another does what he does?
I don’t attempt to play mind chess, trying to guess 186 moves ahead what might be the outcome if my opponent made this inference or that decision in response to what I’ve done, and how that might mess up the game down the road.
What I want to know is: upon what basis - what foundation - would you debate morality with the man who believes only in doing heroin and jumping each other?
No, no conscience clause for medical practitioners. If your conscience prevents you from providing competent medical care you should not be practicing medicine, full-stop.
Marion, if you read what I wrote, I was talking about how the teachings of the Catholic Church, and especially about the vilification of sex that is common, will tend to affect people.
Marion (Mael Muire)
Atheists don’t believe that there is such a thing as a “person”. We’re all just animals, scratching an itch. Like dogs or raccoons, mating when it pleases us.
And the main purpose in life to the exclusion of all else is that each one achieves whatever momentary pleasure he or she can. At anyone else’s expense.
If Atheists were really like this, then why would we debate morality with the religious on a blog? Why not just do heroin and hump each other? I think your theory needs work.
So ultimately the effect will be not only to make men distrust women and try to control women more, it will also make men feel disgust against women, and, by extension against their own feelings for women. It will poison relations between men and women.
Your speculations about what might happen if this or that is thought by women about sexuality, or if this or that is thought by men about contraception, is certainly interesting and well-thought-out, but Catholics base what *we* think about human sexuality and contraception upon what the Church teaches, not about what atheists - who believe that when it comes down to it, we are all nothing more than highly evolved animals, and that sexual expression between two people has no more *objective* significance than the act of opening a can of lima beans.
They will start to see sex as a gift to be treasured and women as people to be loved and not to be used for their selfish needs. They will not pressure the girl who says “no”
They will start to realize that sex is personal, and involves the whole person, not just what you can get out of them.
They will take the time, to get to know women, to get to know their hopes and dreams, likes, dislikes, instead of thinking, ” I would like to hit that”
————————-
savvy, you seem like a good person, an idealistic person. You are describing how men *should* act. perhaps this is how you aim to act if you are a man, or how you hope to be treated if you are a woman. But I also feel that you are looking at the situation naively, or perhaps incompletely.
————————-
Our culture puts the responsibility of being sexy on women for the most part, yet also expects women not to act on their sexual urges. The vilification of non-procreative sex will therefore cause the men to view women, on some level, as being always suspect. And at the same time, if women try to actively be sexual the men will also think they are trying to tempt them into sin. Finally, the men will start to hate their own sexuality, that always influences them to seek out women.
————————-
So ultimately the effect will be not only to make men distrust women and try to control women more, it will also make men feel disgust against women, and, by extension against their own feelings for women. It will poison relations between men and women.
“sex is personal, and involves the whole person, not just what you can get out of them.”
Oh, that won’t go over with an atheist.
Atheists don’t believe that there is such a thing as a “person”. We’re all just animals, scratching an itch. Like dogs or raccoons, mating when it pleases us.
And the main purpose in life to the exclusion of all else is that each one achieves whatever momentary pleasure he or she can. At anyone else’s expense.
Even an innocent baby’s.
You know Dr. Peter Singer thinks families should be free to do away with babies until the age of two.
That’s what atheists believe in.
It’s all about the moment. And it’s all about bodily sensations.
Atheist,
“When a spiritual leader stands in his pulpit and says that those who use contraception are “violating nature”, that women who get abortions are engaging in “a grave evil” *, “
Men are not allowed to use any kind of contraception either. Abortion is taking a life, and the husbands and boyfriends who get women to have abortions are also complicit in this. Not just the women.
Please read the catechism on this issue.
“and that AIDS is a “kind of justice” for promiscuous sex *”
This is personal opinion, and not official teaching.
” then how do you think the male followers will come to view sexual women? And how will they view their own sexual attraction to women? “
They will start to see sex as a gift to be treasured and women as people to be loved and not to be used for their selfish needs. They will not pressure the girl who says “no”
They will start to realize that sex is personal, and involves the whole person, not just what you can get out of them.
They will take the time, to get to know women, to get to know their hopes and dreams, likes, dislikes, instead of thinking, ” I would like to hit that”
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/amanda-marcotte-is-right-to-be-upset/#ixzz1VVoZXGfW
The commenter calling themselves Atheist wrote: “The Church . . . can’t control governments . . . (i.e., can’t cause there to be enacted civil legislation outlawing contraception). . . Statements by the Catholic Church have repercussions across the globe.”
OK, what’s your beef? First, your complaint was that the Catholic Church wanted to move to make contraception illegal in the United States.
It was clarified on this very thread that the likelihood of *that* ever happening is about the same as the likelihood of the next NFL season game being started by a bunch of guys dressed in football helmets, shoulder pads, and pink tutus.
Not going to happen.
So now, your beef is something completely different: that “statements” by the Catholic Church have “repercussions”.
OK. So do “statements” by pro-contraception entities like Planned Parenthood and the Population Council have “repercussions.”
Statements by all sorts of entities have repercussions all over the planet.
It’s called “the real world.” A wide variety of diverse opinions from a huge number of groups and organizations on every topic under the sun.
That’s how the real world works.
This surprises you?
@savvy
Reasoned debate on these issues, is important and that includes not telling us lies, like the church forments angry over women’s sexuality.
When a spiritual leader stands in his pulpit and says that those who use contraception are “violating nature”, that women who get abortions are engaging in “a grave evil” *, and that AIDS is a “kind of justice” for promiscuous sex **, then how do you think the male followers will come to view sexual women? And how will they view their own sexual attraction to women?
I ask you to answer realistically, not legalistically as commenter JoAnna is wont to. What kind of effect does this language and these ideas have on masses of people?
———————————————————————
* http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp
** http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/15/aids-is-a-kind-of-justice-for-promiscuous-sex-belgian-catholi/
Aimai,
Under Catholic teaching, men are not allowed to do anything that women are not. The fact that men violate it, actually shows that women are a lot better. Feminists want women to act like the worst of men.
Women need to call men to higher standards, rather than get back at them by being equally as bad.
You might want to check e5men. A group of solid Catholic men that pray and fast in atonement for the women who are being hurt by other men.
http://www.e5men.org/
Atheist,
You are paranoid and over the hill. Reasoned debate on these issues, is important and that includes not telling us lies, like the church forments angry over women’s sexuality.
You have been asked to look into and examine the church’s teachings on this issue. If you chose not to, it’s your bad, not ours.
aimai,
The only reason abortion was brought up is because Madrid has high rates of it. And people are more likely to confess murder than to confess abortion, because they know the former is wrong, but may not know about the latter.
Pseudonym,
That’s great and all that you are not interested in our beliefs. But, isn’t that the government is trying to interfere with Catholic practitioners’ private medical decisions between them and their patients by not affording them a conscience protection clause in the healthcare legislation? Or is that “mythology”?
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/amanda-marcotte-is-right-to-be-upset/#ixzz1VVgVOt9p
Rafael’s point here goes directly under the heading of lying or “bearing false witness.” The new health care law does not now, and never has, interfered between a Catholic practioner’s private medical decisions reached, consensually, with their patient. Not only are their conscience clauses in effect but no law requires a Doctor and a patient to agree to a treatment they don’t both agree to. For example, say a Doctor and his patient both think that an amputation is unnecessary. No law forces them both to agree to it. Say a patient and her doctor both agree to “pray away” a disease instead of treating it—again, unless some party with standing (the patient herself, the hospital, her husband) disagrees and sues no one can force the patient (or the doctor) to change the agreed upon treatment.
At issue is what normal people call “informed consent” and the rights of patients who are not Catholic (for instance women who are rushed to an emergency room) to receive the appropriate standard of care without being constrained by the religious beliefs of the medical professionals around them. To argue that Catholic teaching about contraception should enable EMTs, Nurses, or Doctors to treat a patient who comes to them involuntarily as though she has committed a crime or is not entitled to medical care (for instance if she is spontaneously aborting, or has had a deliberately induced abortion) is like arguing that Catholic Hospitals should be permitted to let attempted suicides die in the ER because suicide is a sin to them.
Please stop lying about the health care law and its provisions for a “conscience clause”—you do your cause no good by bearing false witness against others.
aimai
JoAnna:
Thank you for admitting that that Church does not, in fact, teach that contraception has to be illegal in a civil law context. If you’re wrong about that, you may be wrong about other aspects of Catholic teaching, as well.
Please get real. The Church doesn’t say it has to be illegal because they know they can’t control governments. They can’t control governments but they have a large influence on governments, and on the social structure. And so when they tell their followers that contraception is an “intrinsically wrong violation of natural law”, and make up lies about the effectiveness of condoms, and foment anger against sexual women, that has a global effect on humanity that’s arguably greater than the effect of any nation-state’s policies a.k.a. “The Law”. We’re talking about moral statements made by a major religion. Statements by the Catholic Church have repercussions across the globe. That is why your defense, that the Church never specifically said they should be illegal, is totally laughable.
Agreed, Dan Lord. Great article.
Perhaps Ms. Fulwiler can explain to me why women who have had abortions are excommunicated, in the Catholic Church, for the sin of murder but men who have committed the act of murdering their wives, other men, or even children are not excommunicated? Can you tell me why the Catholic Church “invites” women who have had abortions to be reconciled publicly but does not hold such ceremonies for men who have committed murder?
Are some “murders” more murderous than others? Or are some people, such as women, held to a higher standard than other kinds of people? Looking at the Church’s longtime refusal to treat rape, and even the rape of children, nearly as seriously as they treat victimless crimes like masturbation one really has to question the Church’s principles which seem to be to continually revictimize women and children (once they are born,that is) while exculpating men.
aimai
Jen, you are fearless and amazing once again. Thank you!
Pseudonym,
That’s great and all that you are not interested in our beliefs. But, isn’t that the government is trying to interfere with Catholic practitioners’ private medical decisions between them and their patients by not affording them a conscience protection clause in the healthcare legislation? Or is that “mythology”?
Joanna, I am not a Catholic and am not interested in your beliefs. Luckily, what you believe is irrelevant legally in this country. Kindly tell your people to stop using their mythology as an excuse to interfere with people’s private medical decisions.
SW,
I’m sorry that you had a negative experience as a Catholic that you no longer consider yourself a Catholic. But, could it possibly be that the “opinions” of the secular, feminist movement are what’s “damaging” to society and not Pope Benedict’s teachings? The Catholic Church’s stance on ALL issues - not just contraception - are for the GOOD of society. To be truly open minded, means to take a genuine look at the Church with new lenses. The Church speaks for Christ. Its people are imperfect - and sinners, I might add. But, its teachings are divine and will NOT LEAD you astray - unlike the other anti-Catholic and secular stances/movements.
You’d be surpised how much you would learn by re-catechizing yourself as I did in 2005. I had been absent from the Church for about 6 years - mostly because I hadn’t taken the time to truly learn what the Church taught on all matters. But since I’ve been back, I would never leave. And there’s not a teaching in the Church that DOES NOT have a logical explanation worth looking into if you’re unsure of its foundation and why it is so.
For the sake of your soul - and your mental and emotional state - explore it again. Remember, truth is not something: It is a SOMEBODY, and His name is Jesus Christ.
God Bless!
The likelihood that contraceptive products would ever actually be outlawed in any of the fifty United States is virtually nil. The majority of the American people who are not Catholic - as well as many who call themselves Catholics - use birth control, see nothing wrong with it and want it to be available.
This being a rule-by-will-of-the-majority country, the legal demise of contraceptive products is not going to happen in the U.S. in any of our lifetimes, if ever.
Merry chase, anyone?
Kara H.—birth control being “99% effective” doesn’t mean that for every 100 times you have sex, you get pregnant once. It means that every time you have sex (when using birth control correctly), you have a 99% chance of not getting pregnant, and a 1% chance of getting pregnant. This is very different from a “every 100 times you have sex, you get pregnant once.”
For the rest of you: I do not believe what you believe, and this means neither of us should have legal power over the other’s actions. I can put a life that’s here over a life that might be, as my religion teaches, and you can continue eating pork and shellfish. Let’s not judge each other—that’s what your nice Jewish teacher would have wanted, after all.
should be “if someone describes him/herself” above… sorry, typing too fast again :)
SW - actually, your screen name makes me sad. In my experience, if someone describes themself as a “slut,” it means they have a lot of self-loathing. (Not saying this is necessarily true your case.)
A truly excellent article about the negative effects of contraception on society, marriages, etc. is “Contraception: Why Not?” by Dr. Janet Smith. If you’d like to learn more about the Catholic perspective on this issue, I really encourage you to read it: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html
BTW - I almost always refrain from commenting on blogs, so I am completely inexperienced at it and realize I’m coming off as a total rude troll, including in choosing my screen name (would you believe I’m a quiet, polite person in real life?). But I do feel regret that contraceptive is being shown as a blight when I just don’t see that as evidenced by anything - including that contraceptive hasn’t been show in studies to have staggering failure rates. I realize I have a total hippy-out-there-feminist view point. And I really don’t want to be rude because in your replies you’ve been very polite, nice and actually trying to educate me. But I guess it’s a touchy subject because this topic is what began me being disenfranchised from the church.
SW - it’s very possible that the catechesis you received growing up was very poor and did not teach you the whole truth about what the Church teaches and why it teaches what it does, especially about contraception. You may want to investigate what the Church teaches for yourself. Humanae Vitae is a good start, as is John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body.”
John Paul II, Vatican II, and Benedict XVI have all taught the exact same things about contraception, so I’m puzzled as to why you think only the latter is “damaging.”
I was raised Protestant (evangelical Lutheran) and contracepted for the first two years of my marriage. My husband and I have not used contraception since 2003, when we converted to Catholicism, and we would never go back to contraception. We are freer, happier, and more joyful in our marriage while using NFP than we ever were while contracepting.
I was born into a Catholic family and was confirmed into the Catholic church. And I appreciated Pope John Paul II’s support of Vatican II, even if the church’s view on contraception in general was still negative. I haven’t considered myself Catholic since high school, but I think that Pope Benedict XVI’s voiced opinions on contraception are somewhat damaging to society. And having gone to CCD classes and listed to sermons, I can say from experience that leaders in the church, especial in small rural areas like where I grew up, tend to interpret their opinions to the extreme and use them to create an atmosphere of disrespect for women and a limiting of their choices.
@ wiccan (and others who agree with her) If you don’t think contraception has had a negative affect on society you really should read “Humanae Vitae” which is the Church’s document “On Human Life”. The predictions made by Pope Paul about contraception’s affects on society are staggeringly accurate - increased divorce, more promiscuity and increases in infidelity by both partners.
You also make the statement that people use contraception because they are aware that sex makes babies. They might but there is a nuance to that belief that has profound affect on the babies that come. They use contraception HOPING they don’t get pregnant (remember those staggering failure rates) but too, too many of these couples know and rely on the fact that if they do, they’ll just get an abortion. It might be hard to believe but abortion is most often used as the back-up to failed contraception or instead of using some.
The Church’s view on contraception comes the medical knowledge that the Pill and the IUD have a two-fold design to prevent ovulation but if that doesn’t work (and it often doesn’t) it will cause an early abortion. The Church doesn’t like babies being killed no matter how old they are.
As for surgical sterilizations (another form of contraception) we stand by that old Hippocratic Oath. The classic one includes not assisting in an abortion (did you know that?) and the call to ‘do no harm’. The intentional removal or cutting of healthy, working organs would be harm. Too bad many medical schools don’t even have graduates taking this oath (any form).
As fun as sex is and I readily, happily admit it is tons of fun, it is more important to acknowledge that sex is powerful; powerful enough to create life. And, as we know from Spiderman, great power comes with great responsibility. Responsibility to your spouse, or partner if you will, not to willingly harm them, cause them illness or heartache and an acceptance in that sex does make babies you will not punish that baby for your or your contraception’s failures. Once life is started, it is always morally evil to end it (back to that original Hippocratic Oath.
The Church has never taught, at least authoritatively, that women or sex is bad or evil. I think you might be confusing us w/ the Protestant Puritans. Sure, there are those (Catholics even) who will blog, write along those lines but they are making things up. Thanks to JoAnna for posting what I was going to :-)
I read Amanda’s reply linked above and for one who characterizes over and over that Jennifers post somehow treats women as a bunch of childish girls who can’t think for themselves I found one stark thread running through her yarn: childish. Glib and childish. Save your time and don’t read it.
SW - like atheist, you may want to consider looking into what the Church ACTUALLY teaches instead of what you THINK it teaches. The results may surprise you. :)
For example, from John Paul II’s “Letter to Women”:
“In every time and place, this conditioning has been an obstacle to the progress of women. Women’s dignity has often been unacknowledged and their prerogatives misrepresented; they have often been relegated to the margins of society and even reduced to servitude. This has prevented women from truly being themselves and it has resulted in a spiritual impoverishment of humanity. Certainly it is no easy task to assign the blame for this, considering the many kinds of cultural conditioning which down the centuries have shaped ways of thinking and acting. And if objective blame, especially in particular historical contexts, has belonged to not just a few members of the Church, for this I am truly sorry. May this regret be transformed, on the part of the whole Church, into a renewed commitment of fidelity to the Gospel vision. When it comes to setting women free from every kind of exploitation and domination, the Gospel contains an ever relevant message which goes back to the attitude of Jesus Christ himself. Transcending the established norms of his own culture, Jesus treated women with openness, respect, acceptance and tenderness. In this way he honoured the dignity which women have always possessed according to God’s plan and in his love.”
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women_en.html
Funny, I did a search and I can’t seem to find the phrase “reprehensible cancerous vampiric blight on society…”
Wow, this is an EXCELLENT article, Mrs. Fulwiler—and effective, too. All the right people hate you EVEN MORE!
Oh, so it’s not illegal, it’s just an “intrinsically wrong” “violation of natural law”. That makes me feel so much better.
Thank you for admitting that that Church does not, in fact, teach that contraception has to be illegal in a civil law context. If you’re wrong about that, you may be wrong about other aspects of Catholic teaching, as well. Perhaps you should read the three links and learn more about exactly why the Church opposes contraception and considers it both intrinsically wrong and a violation of natural law. More knowledge of what the Church actually teaches (as opposed to what you think it teaches) will allow you to debate the subject more intelligently with Catholics.
“the Church might consider sluts a reprehensible cancerous vampiric blight on society…”
Hmmmm. The Catholic Church I follow teaches that every single human being has intrinsic worth and dignity and should be treated with respect and love, regardless of their sins, so you must be talking about a different church that teaches the above. I’m so glad I’m not a part of it.
@atheist: Whew - dodged that bullet. Good thing I wasn’t born 500 years ago.
You know, the Church might consider sluts a reprehensible cancerous vampiric blight on society, but they won’t personally shoot sluts because they aren’t the police. What a relief.
JoAnna:
atheist - It doesn’t say that contraception should be illegal. It only says that it’s intrinsically wrong. “Intrinsically wrong” refers to moral theology, not civil law.
Oh, so it’s not illegal, it’s just an “intrinsically wrong” “violation of natural law”. That makes me feel so much better.
I’m not suggesting turning it into a consumer product. I’m suggesting contraceptive makes sex safer and easier to enjoy, and that sex is an enjoyable act. I disagree with the idea that it should be encouraged that all sex should involve a higher chance to have a baby (such as with the rhythm method). I think that the more reliable we can make contraceptive efforts, including better education on the proper uses of contraceptive, the better the sexual experience is for individuals who are not looking to reproduce. The tone in the this article seems to imply that with the advent of contraceptive, women forgot that sex can make babies. The very fact that they bother to take contraceptive seems to indicate they are aware of the risk and are simply trying to decrease it as best as possible.
I just want to point out that teaching that contraceptive is harmful to society doesn’t seem accurate. It’s fine if you personally feel it’s not correct for you (then I think it’s great that you do what’s right for you and your body - it’s your beautiful choice), but to try to influence people to follow this belief when it doesn’t seem to ring true for most people seems a little strange.
atheist: again, the excerpt you quoted does not say anything about the Church mandating that contraception be illegal from a civil law standpoint. Natural law is not the same as civil law.
HTML fail
JoAnna:
And this is the first sentence from your first link:
Christians have always condemned contraceptive sex. <i>Both forms mentioned in the Bible, coitus interruptus and sterilization, are condemned without exception (Gen. 38:9–10, Deut. 23:1). The early Fathers recognized that the purpose of sexual intercourse in natural law is procreation; contraceptive sex, which deliberately blocks that purpose, is a violation of natural law.</i>
I wonder if maybe Catholics are extremely skilled in ignoring everything said by their own Church? Or do you never read things that you post?
atheist - It doesn’t say that contraception should be illegal. It only says that it’s intrinsically wrong. “Intrinsically wrong” refers to moral theology, not civil law.
JoAnna:
From your second link, the very first sentence that appears:
In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.
How much clearer does the Catholic Church need to be before you hear them?
SluttyWiccan,
Sex is unitive and procreative. Machines are used, people are loved. Turning sex into a consumer product turns people into a consumer products and devalues both people and sex.
We love sex a lot more than you do, and respect it a LOT more.
I was watching the coverage of WYD, and the pilgrims were happy. The protestors were angry and nasty. I think the sane can figure out the difference between happy and angry.
Why are the “free” so unhappy?
Nobody is forcing you or atheist here to not to use contraception or do to as you please. You are just not able to accept views different from your own.
atheist - you may want to read what the Church has to say about freedom, here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a3.htm
The definition is NOT, according to the Church, “Do exactly what I say.”
PhilosopherMom:
But, Atheist, when Catholics say that to forbid contraception is actually increasing freedom, they mean that, because they have chosen to live without contracepting, their free choice has led them to a new and greater freedom than when they freely chose to contracept.
That is a very clever reply PhilospherMom, but this is still under the definition of “freedom” which says it means “do exactly what I say”. I reject this absurd definition of “freedom”, and you should too.
SW - “The church has a long history of making it clear how dirty and bad sex and women are…”
Looks like someone’s drank the anti-Catholic Kool-Aid…
Sex isn’t just for reproduction. Sex is also lots and lots of fun. Hence the reason birth control was invented - so that we could partake of one of life’s great joys and also plan for the future. Shockingly, if you use multiple forms of birth control (the pill plus condoms as an example), it’s even more effective - yay! If birth control is almost always doomed to fail, I am surprised at it’s popularity - women must fall for any old trick. The church has a long history of making it clear how dirty and bad sex and women are, so I suppose I should keep my stupid, womanly mouth shut and nod along silently with those who know better. You know, Jesus and God and my daddy.
*rather, where the Catholic Church teaches that contraception should be illegal. It also should be “Googles” rather than “Google’s” above - typing too fast, sorry. :)
atheist - here are the first three links that come up when one Google’s “Catholic Church contraception”:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
Sorry… not seeing where any of them say that the Catholic Church teaches that contraception is illegal. Will you rescind your claim?
Carlotta unfortunately this blog won’t let me post links but you can google “Catholic Church contraception” to find evidence that the church would ban it.
I appreciate the sentiment, Amanda. I do enjoy a nice plate of spaghetti and meatballs. And garlic bread too. Yum.
Atheist, can you link to documentation of your claim that the catholic church teaches that contraception should be made illegal?
Atheist, you said, “The Catholic line on contraception is that it should be illegal. The fact that US Catholics apparently don’t even know the policies of their own church is not my problem.”
The Church says nothing one or way or the other about the legality of contraception. The Church simply teaches that contraception ultimately destroys relationships and is, therefore, detrimental to the human person.
I think the biggest problem here is a fundamental difference in how we’re all using “freedom.” We’re using it equivocally (i.e., same word but with radically different meanings). The Christian view of freedom is that, in addition to being simple license to do whatever you want, in order to promote human flourishing, freedom must ALSO be exercised in accordance with the truth. The secular view of freedom tends to stop at the idea of license, or, do whatever you want.
So, when Atheist says that forbidding contraception is limiting “freedom,” I think he/she means limiting “licencse,” In that case, yes. If I choose to belong to the Church and choose to follow her precepts, then I am freely limiting my behaviors.
But, Atheist, when Catholics say that to forbid contraception is actually increasing freedom, they mean that, because they have chosen to live without contracepting, their free choice has led them to a new and greater freedom than when they freely chose to contracept.
We can’t discuss freedom without acknowledging these two very different views of what freedom is. Otherwise, we just talk past each other.
I’m praying for you, JoAnna. To the Flying Spaghetti Monster, of course. I hope he blesses you with meatballs and relieves your tomato sauce-less suffering.
Um, what? How does “God wants freedom through knowledge of the truth and understanding of sex” = “God doesn’t want people to be free”?
JoAnna, think of what you are really saying. God wants people to be “free” to do exactly what the Catholic church says they should do. If they disobey the Church, they are no longer “free”. They are only “free” if they do exactly what the Church tells them to do.
That is the sort of “freedom” that Ms. Fulwiler is arguing for. This definition of “freedom” is a contradiction in terms.
Atheist,
I get your point. I did not misunderstand. If anything it reiterates my point that sexual freedom is BEST underscored by the Catholic Church, NOT by the secular culture’s definition of sexual freedom. That’s the difference here. The secular culture tells you to go ahead and have sex outside of marriage - and WITHIN marriage, I might add - utilizing contraception and you will be sexully free according to them. To which the Church respods, “No, it’s not sexually free to utilize contraception within marriage even. Whether before marriage or within marriage, sexual freedom is not advanced utilizing contraception. Quite the opposite: No barrier, complete freedom!
@JoAnna: “Where did Jen propose making the Church “in charge of the USA” or, for that matter, where did she propose making contraception illegal?”
JoAnna, it is quite obvious from her post that Ms. Fulwiler is arguing for the Catholic Church’s line on contraception. The Catholic line on contraception is that it should be illegal. The fact that US Catholics apparently don’t even know the policies of their own church is not my problem.
@JoAnna: “Where did Jen propose making the Church “in charge of the USA” or, for that matter, where did she propose making contraception illegal?”
JoAnna, it is quite obvious from her post that Ms. Fulwiler is arguing for the Catholic Church’s line on contraception. The Catholic line on contraception is that it should be illegal. The fact that US Catholics apparently don’t even know the policies of their own church is not my problem.
George says: “Atheist, Jennifer does not say the Church supports ‘sexual freedom’. She is speaking of freedom through knowledge of the truth and understanding of sex.”
Atheist replies: “Then that is not ‘freedom’. That is really un-freedom. And if you believe people shouldn’t be free because God doesn’t want them to be that way, then you should say so, not try to cover the fact up with misleading language.”
Um, what? How does “God wants freedom through knowledge of the truth and understanding of sex” = “God doesn’t want people to be free”?
@Posted by George @ Convert Journal on Friday, Aug 19, 2011 1:44 PM (EDT)
Then that is not “freedom”. That is really un-freedom. And if you believe people shouldn’t be free because God doesn’t want them to be that way, then you should say so, not try to cover the fact up with misleading language.
Wow. Just read Marcotte’s response. Let’s just say “ad hominem” and leave it at that. Jen, you have a great opportunity to ponder the Crowning with Thorns today! You’re great. I’d rather read your piece than the R-rated response anytime.
Amanda, I’m so sorry for the pain you’re experiencing. I hope you can find healing some day.
Here’s a response:
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/thesis_your_mom
Atheist, you’re making no sense. Where did Jen propose making the Church “in charge of the USA” or, for that matter, where did she propose making contraception illegal?
Perhaps you should try actually reading Jen’s article (instead of just the headline) before commenting?
Atheist, Jennifer does not say the Church supports “sexual freedom”. She is speaking of freedom through knowledge of the truth and understanding of sex.
Kudos Jennifer for a well constructed, succinct piece on these issues.
I was never clear on how the “99% percent effective birth control” number was reached. It seems to me that that means that for every hundred times you have sex, you can get pregnant one time. So, a couple using birth control and having sex three times a week would be pregnant within a year.
Or does it mean for every hundred women using that type of birth control, only one will get pregnant? Or that it is 99% effective for the woman’s entire time of fertility and during her fertile life she will only get pregnant once? Can anyone clarify these numbers for me?
Thanks.
Rafael: You’re missing my point, which is a super-simple one.
1. The Catholic Church says that contraception is wrong.
2. If the Church was in charge of the USA, contraception would be illegal there.
3. If contraception were illegal, then US citizens would not be free to use it.
4. It is therefore self-contradictory for Ms. Fulwiler to argue that she wants to follow the Catholic Church because it supports sexual freedom. It would be more workable for her to say she agrees with the Catholic restrictions on sexual freedoms.
Perhaps the greatest lie ever whispered: “And the license will set you free.”
Atheist, I think you miss the deeper argument here. Contraception removes freedom from women in the following way. Before contraception, women properly understood the consequences of sex. Sex meant a high likelihood of pregnancy. Truly understanding the consequences of the action, meant that the woman was truly free since if she decided to have sex, she was having sex with informed consent.
—
In contrast, in the modern world, women are bombarded with messages that when using contraception, they will not get pregnant. Indeed, this is one of the talking points that Planned Parenthood and its supporters stress; they claim that if we want to end abortion, we must support birth control. Thus, most women will have sex in the simple belief that by using birth control they won’t get pregnant. In other words they are acting with bad information. True freedom also requires the knowledge necessary to exercise that freedom wisely.
—
After fifty years of the Pill, birth control supporters still are telling women that all they need to do is take the Pill and they won’t get pregnant. Therefore, it seems logical to conclude that unless a woman really goes out of her way to do research on the matter (and lets be honest, most people, men and women will accept what the media tells them), she will never get the accurate information she needs to use her freedom wisely. Therefore, most women who contracept are not truly free in their use of contraception.
Atheist,
It’s not a contradiction to call an act morally wrong in an expression of freedom. That’s excactly what it means to be free! Freedom is meant to be exercised, not utilized passively and spend all day “contemplating” what is good or bad. Spending all day THINKING about things and not acting is also a form of slavery.
Every act has a choice, whether you are an atheist or a believer. For example, the Law of Gravity is applicable to all - whether you believe it to be true or not. If you choose to jump off a building because you believe - in freedom - that it does not exist, you will feel the consequences of that action. In this country, we have an obsession with “rights”: the right to do this, the right to do that - in the name of freedom. But, you also have the right to be WRONG! Complete freedom is not a guarantee that all your choices done in the name of freedom are correct ones.
God has revealed to us what He deems good and bad NOT for HIS sake, but for OURS and for OUR Freedom. That’s precisely what God wants of all of us: Our Freedom! We are ALL His children - even those who choose not to believe in Him, like yourself. He still loves you and He wants you to be happy. He doesn’t want us to come to Him out of obligation. But in freedome. He has told us how we can be completely free, not the opposite. He give us that freedom to choose. But, if we choose against His will and divine plan, He will allow us to do so. But, that does not guarantee that you will be happy or free of guilt. Would you say that an addict is more free because he/she chooses to continue engaging in addictive behaviors? Most recovering addicts will tell you that they were NOT FREE when they were imprisoned to drugs or alcohol. Quite the opposite: They say they were held captive.
We must utilize our freedom wisely and understand that just because we CAN do something, doesn’t mean we SHOULD. Big difference!!!!
And while Ms. Fulwiler does try to look at the secularist point of view, her argument relies on a logical contradiction; she says that the Church is not taking away women’s freedom, and then argues that contraception is wrong. She then tries to argue that because contraception is less than foolproof, it’s useless. But it is inescapable that if she believes contraception is wrong, then that removes a freedom from women (and men). If Ms. Fulwiler believes that this particular freedom is bad for women, then she should state that straightforwardly; instead she basically tries to argue that women should be forced to act in a certain way, and calls that “freedom”.
PhilosopherMom, it is indeed possible that Ms. Marcotte wrote her article out of upset, even if her tone doesn’t show it. But it’s also possible she just wanted to point out the crazy asymmetry between the lack of Catholic punishment of priests who abuse children, compared to the never-ending punishment of female sexuality. Or the strangeness that not only do US Catholics get abortions, they do it at a higher rate than other major religious groups.
You know Jennifer, you bring up a point of something I’ve been saying for a while now. For starters, the condom/contraception does not protect one from sin. It may protect one from other diseases. But not from behviors that God sees purely as against His divine plan.
Secondly, Catholics faithful to the teachings of the Church ARE Pro-Choice. I’m tired of people - even Catholics - who are in favor of a women having the right to have an abortion of being referred to as “Pro-choice.” Their right to choose ended once the life was conceived. We recognize that there are many choices BEFORE the sexual act. Once the choice is made to have sex, the consequences are a given. If you have sex, and God-forbid you get AIDS - even with a condom - can you “abort” AIDS from your body? How about other sexually transmitted diseases? Can you abort those too? What about the guilt? What about the emotional attachment to the sexual partner? What about the spiritual connection that occurs? Can we really abort these from our bodies and our minds? These are the questions that cannot be answered by pro-abortion feminists and other progressive Catholics who seek to trump divine wisdom. The complexity of the human person is what the Church takes into account when it gives its teachings. Human beings are more thatn just physical species. We have other factors that are as important: A mind, an emotional condition, a soul. The Church looks at the WHOLE person, not just part. That’s why we have the Corporal (“corpus” = body) Works of Mercy and the Spiritual Works of Mercy. And BOTH are equally important…
Jen, I have to agree with “atheist” on the tone: Ms. Marcotte sounded pretty triumphant and smug in her few paragraphs.
But, “atheist,” I think it’s also safe to say that Ms. Marcotte is also demonstrating “upset,” as Fulwiler says. After all, only someone “upset”—meaning bothered—would even bother to write the blurb at all. If Marcotte was not even a little flustered, I can’t imagine her taking the time to write such a one-sided polemic.
At least Fulwiler tries to look at the Church’s teaching from both sides—pro-choice secularist and pro-life Christian. I think the most marked difference between the two pieces is the tone: Marcotte’s “sardonic amusement” and inability to consider her opponents’ point of view VS Fulwiler’s sincere attempt to engage Marcotte at the level of charity and facts.
Fulwiler is exercising her right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech in a sincere attempt to understand why women struggle in our societies.
A commenter calling themselves “Atheist” wrote: “So Ms. Fulwiler, you think Ms. Marcotte was ‘very upset,’ ‘flustered,’ and had ‘angst’ when she wrote the piece? How interesting . . . the tone I pick up is more like one of sardonic amusement and irony.
In the _Slate_ article, Ms. Marcotte begins with the words, “Oh boy, the Vatican, no doubt patting itself on the back for being so generous to the filthy sluts of the world . . .”
And continues in the same blistering tone.
If the emotion behind those words appears to you to be nothing other than simply “amusement”, then I would have to conclude that you have given us yet another example of an instance of an atheist being utterly tone-deaf socially and emotionally to the state-of-being of those around them.
Wow.
Just . . . wow!
So Ms. Fulwiler, you think Ms. Marcotte was “very upset”, “flustered” and had “angst” when she wrote the piece? How interesting… the tone I pick up is more like one of sardonic amusement and irony. Are you sure you are not actually projecting your own upset and angst, upon reading of the corrupt and sadistic aims of your spiritual leaders, onto her? That would be more how this looks to me.
Join the Discussion
We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines. Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words. Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.
Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.