Tag Archives: morality

Being Open to Life: An Uphill Battle

30 Replies

Today is the 37th anniversary of Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae. This encyclical reinforced the Church's constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent the transmission of human life. Additionally, it continued the Church's constant teaching against abortion and sterilization.

"Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation�whether as an end or as a means."

-Humanae Vitae 14

Unfortunately, statistics show that 97% of Catholics use artificial contraception. If you are one of the 3% who is trying to live Church teaching and trying to find a doctor who shares your values, it can be an uphill battle. In Allegheny county, which is 69.8% Catholic, there are only 4 doctors (that I have found) who do not prescribe, perform, or refer for contraception, sterilization, abortion, or in vitro fertilization. That's right, there are only 4 physicians who live out the Church teaching on sexuality and life issues in a county that is almost 70% Catholic. That seems a little ridiculous to me. Of those 4, 2 are pediatricians, 1 is an otolaryngologist (ear, nose, and throat doctor), and 1 specializes in occupational/preventive medicine. None of them do gynecology work, not even the preventive medicine doctor. I called and asked. So, if you are a practicing Catholic woman in Allegheny county, you need to go elsewhere to find a gynecologist who shares your values.

The bulk of the reason for this lies in the lack of demand for these doctors among Catholics. Why, though, are there so few Catholics practicing this tenant of the faith? Part of the problem lies in misinformation supplied by doctors. My gynecologist told me that "Natural Family Planning is an ineffective method of contraception." However, when used properly (the same standard used to measure artificial methods of spacing children), natural family planning is 99% effective in spacing children. She wasn't talking about the rhythym method either. She spoke of the indicators and charting. However, I think the root cause is more than misinformation from doctors. If people were really interested, they could go to books to get the right information about effectiveness. The root causes are people don't know what the Church teaches, why She teaches what She does, or just don't care.

The first two problems are related; they are caused by poor catechesis, priests who lack a spine and don't want to "drive people away", and bishops who don't shepherd the flock. Personally, although I grew up Catholic, I didn't understand the Church's teaching until college. I remember learning there was a Church rule against birth control. I didn't have the impression that that the rule was still followed or "enforced". I never even knew that natural family planning existed, nor did I know that there were requirements for its use to be just. I think I had a pretty typical experience in this regard. I grew up in your average parish, attended Mass on Sunday and all Holy Days of Obligation, went to Catholic school and CCD during public high school. It was only through an orthodox Newman center that is very effective at catechesis that I learned the Church's teaching on sexuality and Her reason for it. Why didn't my parents, who are supposed to be my primary catechists, mention it? Why did I not learn this in catechism class? Why had I never heard about it in a homily? The first time I ever heard the Church's teaching on contraception mentioned in a homily, I was in Denver and Mass was being celebrated by Archbishop Chaput. He is very much the exception to the rule, though. In my experience, there are very few priests who have the spine to talk about such a controversial issue in a Sunday homily. Where are the bishops? Why are more bishops not talking about it? Why are the bishops not encouraging their priests to talk about the issue?

The causes of the third problem, apathy, are different, but related. We live in a society of materialism and relativism. BMW's are more important than babies, profits more important than people. There is a lack of respect for Truth. "Whatever you want to believe is good enough for you as long as it doesn't affect me." seems to be the prevalent attitude. How can we progress to a society where people are more important than things if we don't have a standard, if we don't respect Truth? It is as Chesterton said in Orthodoxy:

"Akin to these is the false theory of progress, which maintains that we alter the test instead of trying to pass the test. We often hear it said, for instance, 'What is right in one age is wrong in another.' This is quite reasonable, if it means that there is a fixed aim, and that certain methods attain at certain times and not at other times. If women, say, desire to be elegant, it may be that they are improved at one time by growing fatter and at another time by growing thinner. But you cannot say that they are improved by ceasing to wish to be elegant and beginning to wish to be oblong. If the standard changes, how can there be improvement, which implies a standard?"

Now that we see the darkness of our society, it is time for each of us to be the "light of the world". (cf. Matthew 5:14) It is time for each of us to confront these problems, to raise awareness and understanding of Church teaching which will lead to demand for pro-life doctors. Each of us can aid in the solution of these problems. After learning the Church teaching ourselves, we can catechize our friends and family and dispel the misconceptions among those we meet. Parents can take responsibility for catechesis of their children. We can also support those who are open to life and have larger than average families who get criticized by society at large. Additionally, it is important for us to encourage our priests to speak out about the issue. Many times, unfortunately, the Sunday homily is the average Catholic's only catechesis for the week. It is important that moral issues which affect daily life, such as this one, are covered. We can also confront our bishops and ask them to shepherd their flock, both by speaking out about Church teaching themselves and encouraging their priests to do the same. I'm not talking about lip service, heresy, or wishy washy statements, either, but real catechesis and real Truth. We can live in such a way that shows we live the value that people are more important than things by sharing our time, talent, and treasure with those less fortunate than ourselves. We need to walk the walk AND talk the talk. Our lives and our lips need to speak the unadulterated, uncompromising Truth. The Truth, which this world is starving for, is the only answer to these problems. As Pope John Paul II said:

"If you want peace, work for justice; if you want justice, defend life; if you want life, embrace the Truth, the Truth revealed by God."

[BTW, July 24-30 is Natural Family PLanning Awareness Week. – Funky]

“Was Paul crucified for you?”

1 Reply

Dr. Andrew Jackson of Smart Christian is concerned that bloggers need to be reminded of 1 Corinthians 1:10-16.

"I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, ‘I follow Paul,’ or ‘I follow Apollos,’ or ‘I follow Cephas,’ or ‘I follow Christ.’ Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)"

Andrew writes,

"As much as we would all like to declare ‘we aren’t like the Corinthians,’ unfortunately, I do not think much has changed in the church, and yes it is often reflected in the Christian blogosphere."

"We all need to allow Paul’s words to the Corinthians help us reevaluate how we blog. If we are not careful, it is very easy for Christian bloggers to become identified by which Christian leaders or preachers or teachers they declare their allegiance."

"Does your blog loudly and publicly declare ‘I follow John Piper, Brian McLaren, Jim Wallis, John MacArthur, or R.C. Sproul?’ I could easily name others. "

I can’t say run into that problem much (if at all) on Catholic blogs, but I’ve definitely seen Charles Spurgeon get a lot of hero worship on Protestant blogs. It amuses me that some of the same people who spout Spurgeon quotes as if they were Scripture are allergic to the deutercanonical (aka apocrypal) books of the Bible.

Anyhow, Andrew’s concern casts Adrian Warnock’s recent request in an interesting light. I wonder how he’ll respond.

Innocent Man Executed?

10 Replies

Shoot first and ask questions later is bad police policy. Just ask the Brits. Obviously, Jean de Menezes handled the situation poorly and brought unnecessary trouble upon himself. However, that hardly justifies two cops holding him down while a third puts five bullets in his head. This isn’t a case of an innocent suspect being accidentally killed while being subdued during criminal acts. This isn’t like the cases of children with water guns or paintball guns being killed by frightened cops. This was an execution. A man whose guilt in anything had not been established – they merely knew he was "suspicious", belligerent, and fleeing – was caught, immobilized, and executed. There is a fine line between protecting citizens and acting as judge, jury and executioner.

I pray this never happens again.

I’m not holding my breath.

Tongue Tied, Part II

7 Replies

A couple days ago, I wrote about the A Form of Sound Words post about “synthetic cursing” and the response from

Joe Missionary. I promised I’d respond to Messy

Christian and Jeff

the Baptist. Today I will.

Continue reading →

Pages: 1 2

Tongue Tied

8 Replies

A couple months ago, Rand of A Form of Sound Words said:

"DARN it to HECK! I can’t believe Billy believes that load of CRAP. I mean JEEEZ, what is he thinking. I tried and tried to talk some sense into him, but OH MY GOSH, he’s stubborn."

"I apologize in advance to all the good and faithful Christians reading the above phrases and are offended. Your reaction is appropriate. I still felt it was important for me to post it as an example. You see, in the above four little phrases, we have a remarkable four blasphemies, and one gross word that any civil human would avoid using (non-Christian’s included)"

Four blasphemies? Where?

"blasphemy – To speak of (God or a sacred entity) in an irreverent, impious manner."

"Damn" (meaning to condemn to Hell) has lost the naughty edge it once had, but I can understand a particular scrupulous person’s desire to avoid using it inappropriately. At some point, its use as an interjection became popular. In an effort to curb one’s use of an objectionable word or phrase, finding safe substitutes is only natural. In fact, I’d say the practice is laudable.

Odds are you got into the habit of saying it because you heard lots of people around you saying it. Their habits rubbed off on you. Now that you’re watching your tongue, though, you find that the habit is hard to break. You have to fight instinct every time your stub a toe. If you manage to substitute "darn", "dang", "dag-nabbit", or even "d’oh", you should be pleased, not ashamed. Shoudl you always be content with mere substitutions? Of course not. Course language just makes you sound ill-bred and poorly educated, thus lacking a sufficiently diversified and sophisticated vocabulary. It also shows lack of constraint and slavery to one’s will, rather than submission to God’s.

"Hell" is not sacred. In fact, it’s anthetical to sacredness. It is not a blasphemous word in and of itself. However, if one speaks/writes of damning someone/something to Hell, that verges on blasphemy as damnation is God’s prerogative alone. In general, the word shouldn’t be used lightly, lest we forget what Hell is and its relation to salvation. However, I don’t think saying/writing it is nearly as bad as Rand makes it out to be. As with "damn", I see no harm in using a substitution.

Inappropriate use of the Name that is above all other names, Jesus Christ, is indeed blasphemy. I cringe when I hear anyone abuse it. I don’t just approve of, but also applaud substitutions in this case. Again, they;re not ideal, but they’re a lot better. Their use at least demonstrates recognition of wrong-doing and desire to change.

"God", when used similarly to Rand’s example, might be blasphemy. I’m not sure. I know I don’t like to hear the word used that way. However, because "God" is not a proper name, I do not believe its abuse is nearly as serious. Ancient Jews were so serious about not blaspheming the name of God, "YHVH" (often translated as Yahweh) that they always substituted the word "Adonai" (meaning Lord) when reading aloud from Scripture. That practice went a little too far, though, because superstitious belief (that speaking a name could give a person power over another) were associated with it.

One gross word? Ummm…perhaps it’s not the most intellectual thing to say, but I don’t think "crap" is really gross unless you describe its characteristics. As far as I’m concerned, the mention of feces in an interjectory context merely represents the messy and unpleasant situation the speaker/writer finds himself in.

This isn’t the first time I’ve pointed out this post. Why bring it up again? One of my regular reads, Joe Missionary, wrote about it and caught my interest.

"First off, words in and of themselves are devoid of filth. It is the culture which determines that a particular word is offensive. The word ‘bloody’ is more offensive to the English ear than it is to the American ear. In a similar way, consider the four-letter ‘s’ word meaning ‘excrement’. This word, which is offensive to my ear, is an ordinary word on this side of the world. When we spoke with a Christian about it (whom we heard utter it), she was surprised that it is considered foul language."

I agree that words do not have inherent meaning. All meanings are culturally defined. However, I would add that if one intends a word to be offensive, regardless of how it is taken by the hearer/reader, it is objectively offensive.

"If I bump my head and say, ‘Shparndoogie!’, is that just as bad as saying ‘Dang that hurt!’"

Nope. Such nonsense words merely express emotions that probably haven’t been processed suffiently to be expressed in coherent speech. That is, they are essentially precognitive. We are no more cursing than a baby is when it cries to express pain or hunger.

"Words change meaning. The word ‘gay’ is a perfect example. So what about these substitute curse words? Take the word ‘jeez’ – it is most likely derived from ‘Jesus’. However, it’s my opinion that most people who say ‘jeez’ – even Christians – are not thinking of Jesus or the name of Jesus when they say it. What about the word ‘piss’? I know, I said I wouldn’t say any more curse words, but I’m just quoting from the Bible: ‘…any that pisseth against the wall’ (1 Sam 25:22, KJV). In 1611, this word was an ordinary word. Today, it’s considered vulgar. Not only do words change meaning, but the perceptions of words change as well."

See above about intention. On the flip side of intention, a word that will likely cause the listener/reader to be offended is objectively offensive. However, it may not be subjectively offense. That is, you may not intend to offend. One is not likely to intend offense when reading from the KJV, for instance.

"Allow me to suggest a couple principles for us to follow:"

"1. ‘Be careful…that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak’ (1 Cor 8:9). I have felt the temptation to flaunt my freedom in particular areas; I assume this is a common temptation. I may be 100% convinced that ‘shparndoogie’ is not a curse word; but if I am aware that some consider it offensive, I shouldn’t use it around others."

2. ‘[S]et an example for the believers in speech…’ (1 Tim 4:12). As Rand says, let’s glorify God with the words that come out of our mouths. Or at least try."

My thoughts exactly. Don’t settle for suffient; aim for laudable.

Perhaps I’ll tackle the opposing viewpoints of Messy Christian and Jeff the Baptist in the next few days.