Against the Grain

…as well as 2000 years of Church teaching. According to AP, "the spokesman for the Church in Spain has said it supports the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS." Well, doesn't this makes things interesting?

Church officials in Spain are attempting damage control by telling the press, "Contrary to what some have said, it is not true that the Church has changed its position on condoms." I doubt such back-peddling will make this issue go away.

I'm quite curious to see what Rome does about this little rebellion. Some will argue that a bishop has the authority to instruct the members of his diocese however he pleases, so long as he doesn't go against dogma or infallible pronouncements. This is true. Technically, the injunction against artificial was not declared infallibly. However, three popes have declared such an injunction and as St. Augustine said, "Rome has spoken; the case is closed". Papal encyclicals are authoritative and the instructions therein can only be rescinded by a pope. Others will claim that while the Church speaks authoritatively against using condoms as contraceptions, She has not condemned their use to prevent the spread of AIDS and other diseases. This is flawed reasoning. Sex is intended for reproduction within . Sex outside is unaceptable. If people do not have sex with multiple partners, disease cannot spread. What then of babies born to infected parents? Those infected should refrain from all sexual activity and become "eunuchs for the kingdom". If the infected cease sexual activity and everyone ceases extra-marital sexual activity, the disease will not spread further. Using condoms is like covering a bleeding artery with a band-aid.

Now when We come to explain, Venerable Brethren, what are the blessings that God has attached to true matrimony, and how great they are, there occur to Us the words of that illustrious Doctor of the Church whom We commemorated recently in Our Encyclical Ad salutem on the occasion of the fifteenth centenary of his death: "These," says St. Augustine, "are all the blessings of matrimony on account of which matrimony itself is a blessing; offspring, conjugal faith and the ." And how under these three heads is contained a splendid summary of the whole doctrine of Christian , the holy Doctor himself expressly declares when he said: "By conjugal faith it is provided that there should be no carnal intercourse outside the bond with another man or woman; with regard to offspring, that children should be begotten of , tenderly cared for and educated in a religious atmosphere; finally, in its sacramental aspect that the bond should not be broken and that a husband or wife, if separated, should not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring. This we regard as the law of by which the fruitfulness of nature is adorned and the evil of incontinence is restrained."

[…]

For now, alas, not secretly nor under cover, but openly, with all sense of shame put aside, now by word again by writings, by theatrical productions of every kind, by romantic fiction, by amorous and frivolous novels, by cinematographs portraying in vivid scene, in addresses broadcast by radio telephony, in short by all the inventions of modern science, the sanctity of is trampled upon and derided; divorce, adultery, all the basest vices either are extolled or at least are depicted in such colors as to appear to be free of all reproach and infamy. Books are not lacking which dare to pronounce themselves as scientific but which in truth are merely coated with a veneer of science in order that they may the more easily insinuate their ideas. The doctrines defended in these are offered for sale as the productions of modern genius, of that genius namely, which, anxious only for truth, is considered to have emancipated itself from all those old-fashioned and immature opinions of the ancients; and to the number of these antiquated opinions they relegate the traditional doctrine of Christian .

These thoughts are instilled into men of every class, rich and poor, masters and workers, lettered and unlettered, married and single, the godly and godless, old and young, but for these last, as easiest prey, the worst snares are laid.

[…]

To begin at the very source of these evils, their basic principle lies in this, that matrimony is repeatedly declared to be not instituted by the Author of nature nor raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a true , but invented by man. Some confidently assert that they have found no evidence of the existence of matrimony in nature or in her laws, but regard it merely as the means of producing life and of gratifying in one way or another a vehement impulse; on the other hand, others recognize that certain beginnings or, as it were, seeds of true wedlock are found in the nature of man since, unless men were bound together by some form of permanent tie, the dignity of husband and wife or the natural end of propagating and rearing the offspring would not receive satisfactory provision. At the same time they maintain that in all beyond this germinal idea matrimony, through various concurrent causes, is invented solely by the mind of man, established solely by his will.

How grievously all these err and how shamelessly they leave the ways of honesty is already evident from what we have set forth here regarding the origin and nature of wedlock, its purposes and the good inherent in it. The evil of this teaching is plainly seen from the consequences which its advocates deduce from it, namely, that the laws, institutions and customs by which wedlock is governed, since they take their origin solely from the will of man, are subject entirely to him, hence can and must be founded, changed and abrogated according to human caprice and the shifting circumstances of human affairs; that the generative power which is grounded in nature itself is more sacred and has wider range than matrimony - hence it may be exercised both outside as well as within the confines of wedlock, and though the purpose of matrimony be set aside, as though to suggest that the license of a base fornicating woman should enjoy the same rights as the chaste motherhood of a lawfully wedded wife.

Armed with these principles, some men go so far as to concoct new species of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the times, which various new forms of matrimony they presume to label "temporary," "experimental," and "companionate." These offer all the indulgence of matrimony and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without offspring, unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a matrimony in the full sense of the law.

Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be legitimatized by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of the modern "culture" in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples.

[…]

[N]o reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

[…]

Furthermore, Christian doctrine establishes, and the light of human reason makes it most clear, that private individuals have no other power over the members of their bodies than that which pertains to their natural ends; and they are not free to destroy or mutilate their members, or in any other way render themselves unfit for their natural functions, except when no other provision can be made for the good of the whole body.

[…]

Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave .

exerpted from Casti Connubii, written by Pope Pius XI (emphases mine)

Page: 1 2 3

Funky Dung

Print | Email

Popularity: 5% [?]

Social bookmarking:
  • del.icio.us
  • Fark
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Digg
  • Netscape
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • Facebook
  • Furl
  • Google
  • TwitThis
  • Pownce

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Possibly Related Posts:

    None Found

Comments 13

  1. Philip Shropshire wrote:

    You're against contraception? Good Lord. Women are just more than reproductive cattle that men control…right?

     Add karma Subtract karma  +0

    Posted 20 Jan 2005 at 3:43 pm
  2. Funky Dung wrote:

    I'll probably kick myself later for responding to flamebait, but I strongly suspect that you are [not] alone in this misconception (no pun intended).

    If you read the encyclicals that I exerpt from, you'll find ample evidence that the Church has a great deal of respect for women. In fact, at least one of the documents specifically mentions the sinfulness of treating women as objects, whether for pleasure or for breeding.

    Another good place to look for understanding Catholic sexual ethics is "Theology of the Body" by JPII. I suspect, though, that the fundamental premises of that book would, in your mind, negate the arguments made. For a more philosophical treatment, I suggest "Love and Responsibility" by Karol Wojtyla (now JPII). It that, the foundation is laid for a "personalistic norm" which sets up subjectivity, i.e. "You are a person who acts and feels and who has worth.", in opposition to objectivity, i.e. "You are an object that I may use ."

    Edited By Siteowner

     Add karma Subtract karma  +0

    Posted 20 Jan 2005 at 5:27 pm
  3. Philip Shropshire wrote:

    Do you want people to just agree with you all the time? "Man, that papacy is great. Thank God women are subservient in the Catholic religion. That's just so cooool…"

    I'm more curious as to how you interact with professional women. I checked out the Pitt website. You even list this website in your profile (Word of advice: Bad idea.)…are your female teachers and co workers all right with your brave ideas regarding contraception, let alone abortion and embryo research…Jeebus as they say…How do those conversations go…? Isn't one of them a medical doctor? But she's okay with the "men" in the Catholic Church telling her what she can and can't do with her body…? Please, share with us…

     Add karma Subtract karma  +0

    Posted 20 Jan 2005 at 6:24 pm
  4. Funky Dung wrote:

    *kicks self*

     Add karma Subtract karma  +0

    Posted 20 Jan 2005 at 7:21 pm
  5. Philip Shropshire wrote:

    Is that what she says? I don't blame her…

     Add karma Subtract karma  +0

    Posted 20 Jan 2005 at 8:22 pm
  6. Tom Smith wrote:

    Dude! Chill.

     Add karma Subtract karma  +0

    Posted 20 Jan 2005 at 10:23 pm
  7. Publius wrote:

    *kicks self*

    Perhaps "plonk" would have been a more effective and even more appropriate response to Mr. Shropshire's original comment. But I do think the response you did make was quite good, as was the initial blog post.

     Add karma Subtract karma  +0

    Posted 20 Jan 2005 at 10:59 pm
  8. h2 wrote:

    "I'll probably kick myself later for responding to flamebait, but I strongly suspect that you are alone in this misconception (no pun intended)."

    -you were right in the first place; with such prescience, you might have been better of just kicking yourself and skipping any attempt at a coherent response.

    Phil,

    Eric has beliefs, and he's entitled to them, whether or not you agree — there shouldn't be anything scandalous in a person expressing beliefs consistent with his Church's teachings. Like it or not, there are still a few Catholics who follow Catholic teaching — where's the need to persecute him for it?

     Add karma Subtract karma  +0

    Posted 21 Jan 2005 at 9:26 am
  9. Philip Shropshire wrote:

    But what if the positions of your church are kinda crazy? Like banning contraception? Just asking out here…I just hope he's applying more rigor to his science than to his positions on faith…

     Add karma Subtract karma  +0

    Posted 21 Jan 2005 at 2:50 pm
  10. Spak wrote:

    Phil -

    You should know that Catholics aren't alone in opposing artifical contraception. Many women ground their opposition to the Pill in ideologies other than religion. Women who are vegetarian or into organic farming tend not to want to chemically sterilized. Women who abhor big corporations tend not to want to rely on the Drug Industry for birth control. Women who think of fertility as a earth-mothery gift tend not to want to take drugs that treat fertility as a disease to be cured. And women who don't want to be treated, in your words, as "reproductive cattle" tend to like a method of birth control that requires men to sacrifice, at least a few nights a month.

     Add karma Subtract karma  +0

    Posted 21 Jan 2005 at 3:53 pm
  11. Philip Shropshire wrote:

    I notice that you didn't name anyone specifically. Frankly, if that's their choice, I'm fine with it. I'm just concerned about the people who want to eliminate their choices. The same people who want Specter off of the judiciary, control both federal houses and the courts…I'm more concerned about that.

     Add karma Subtract karma  +0

    Posted 21 Jan 2005 at 5:12 pm
  12. Steve N wrote:

    Take it from me: If you have a 3yo screaming in the store for mommy to buy her Lunchables, what do you do? If you say "Buy the Lunchables so she'll shut up", [buzzer] Wrong! You specifically don't buy the Lunchables, so next time Jr.-ette won't have a screaming tantrum. For those who have ears to hear…

    Cheers!

     Add karma Subtract karma  +0

    Posted 21 Jan 2005 at 7:01 pm
  13. dlw wrote:

    The real problem of people turning away from God and treating sexuality as mainly mutually-pleasing exercise will not be stopped by mandating only a certain form of birth-control.

    No doubt there is a need for discipline, even among married couples, and it needs to be communicated that sexual intercourse is(so I've been told) a spiritual connection that should ideally not be engaged in apart from God's intended manner.

    But basing arguments on what is natural doesn't hold mustard. It shields from honest debate that which should be open to such debate.

    dlw

     Add karma Subtract karma  +0

    Posted 29 Jan 2005 at 8:42 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *


Note: This post is over 3 years old. You may want to check later in this blog to see if there is new information relevant to your comment.

By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution.